Lorry driver charged with manslaughter of 39 [Merged]

UK PROFESSIONAL DRIVERS FORUMS THE UK PROFESSIONAL DRIVERS FORUM (INTERACTIVE)
301

Franglais:

TheYoungTrucker:
So are you saying if you were in that tower you’d have stayed put?

Hind sight is a truly marvelous thing…as Rees Mogg demonstrated.
In the majority or cases the Fire Chiefs advice to stay put is the best advice. Stay in a compartmentalised flat whilst a fire is extinguished is better than joining crowds of others in a smoke and fume filled stairwell, dashing towards the fire and with the exit blocked by fire-fighters coming up to tackle the fire doesnt seem "common sense" to me. With hindsight we now know that the flats werent compartmentalised, so with that level of knowledge I wouldnt have stayed put....with that knowledge I wouldnt have been in there in the first place!

To be fair Franglais the current chief of the London Fire Brigade isn’t the font of all knowledge either when it comes to these types of fires having decided that she didn’t need to attend the briefing on the latest ways to deal with these types of fire one of which was just a few months before Grenfell, easier to have a pop at JRM than demand that the person in charge of the operation be sacked for incompetence and who is now about to retire aged 50 with a pension of £140,000 a year wonder what she would have got if she hadn’t ■■■■■■ up she should be in the dock alongside Mo Robinson

302

You`re in a car driving along a mountain road. You approach a bend, what do you do?

Best advice is to apply the brakes and slow down isnt it? 99.99% of the time thats the best option.

If the brakes fail you go over the edge and die. In that exceptional case bailing out may have saved your life.
So, is it best to jump out of every car assuming you will break an arm, and maybe your neck, just in case the brakes fail?

303

Mazzer2:

Franglais:

TheYoungTrucker:
So are you saying if you were in that tower you’d have stayed put?

Hind sight is a truly marvelous thing…as Rees Mogg demonstrated.
In the majority or cases the Fire Chiefs advice to stay put is the best advice. Stay in a compartmentalised flat whilst a fire is extinguished is better than joining crowds of others in a smoke and fume filled stairwell, dashing towards the fire and with the exit blocked by fire-fighters coming up to tackle the fire doesnt seem "common sense" to me. With hindsight we now know that the flats werent compartmentalised, so with that level of knowledge I wouldnt have stayed put....with that knowledge I wouldnt have been in there in the first place!

To be fair Franglais the current chief of the London Fire Brigade isn’t the font of all knowledge either when it comes to these types of fires having decided that she didn’t need to attend the briefing on the latest ways to deal with these types of fire one of which was just a few months before Grenfell, easier to have a pop at JRM than demand that the person in charge of the operation be sacked for incompetence and who is now about to retire aged 50 with a pension of £140,000 a year wonder what she would have got if she hadn’t [zb] up she should be in the dock alongside Mo Robinson

The biggest error was not the stay put policy, at first. It was the failure to recognise that the flats were not performing in containing the spread of fire, and dropping the policy earlier.

Trying applying the cars brakes first is the way to go. Recognising they aint working and bailing out quickly is right, but not bailing out without trying to slow down first.

“There are many advocates for stay put, who point to data that shows it is successful in the vast majority of fires. National Fire Chiefs Council (NFCC) data shows that there were more than 57,000 fires in high rises between 2010 and 2017, but that only 216 (0.4%) required the evacuation of more than five residents.”
insidehousing.co.uk/insight … -now-63957

57,000 fires in high rises… how many made the headlines?
Im not saying stay put is perfect, obviously it isn`t, but to say it has been an unmitigated disaster is hardly accurate.

304

Franglais:
You`re in a car driving along a mountain road. You approach a bend, what do you do?

Best advice is to apply the brakes and slow down isnt it? 99.99% of the time thats the best option.

If the brakes fail you go over the edge and die. In that exceptional case bailing out may have saved your life.
So, is it best to jump out of every car assuming you will break an arm, and maybe your neck, just in case the brakes fail?

I really don’t see how you can compare the two scenarios, I for one would have been out of there quicker than a scalded cat, regardless of what advice I was given, towers on fire does not end well for those who are either stuck or choose to remain, look at the twin towers in New York.

305

Mazzer2:

Franglais:

TheYoungTrucker:
So are you saying if you were in that tower you’d have stayed put?

Hind sight is a truly marvelous thing…as Rees Mogg demonstrated.
In the majority or cases the Fire Chiefs advice to stay put is the best advice. Stay in a compartmentalised flat whilst a fire is extinguished is better than joining crowds of others in a smoke and fume filled stairwell, dashing towards the fire and with the exit blocked by fire-fighters coming up to tackle the fire doesnt seem "common sense" to me. With hindsight we now know that the flats werent compartmentalised, so with that level of knowledge I wouldnt have stayed put....with that knowledge I wouldnt have been in there in the first place!

To be fair Franglais the current chief of the London Fire Brigade isn’t the font of all knowledge either when it comes to these types of fires having decided that she didn’t need to attend the briefing on the latest ways to deal with these types of fire one of which was just a few months before Grenfell, easier to have a pop at JRM than demand that the person in charge of the operation be sacked for incompetence and who is now about to retire aged 50 with a pension of £140,000 a year wonder what she would have got if she hadn’t [zb] up she should be in the dock alongside Mo Robinson

“Stay put” is sound advice for the tower as originally built. Concrete structure, metal-frame windows, functional fire doors on every flat.
The crew that attended the fire in the kitchen put it out with little drama. But, no one noticed that the window frame was melted and had dripped some burning plastic onto the inside of the cladding (the flammable bit). The gap between the frame and the inside of the cladding was not properly sealed.
The firecrew were packing up outside, when one noticed the external fire. That was supposed to be impossible…the outside of the cladding was aluminium. But the inside of the cladding was burning, and would be impossible to put out, unless you could get above the fire and start tearing the cladding off, then flood the void with water.
LFB didn’t have the equipment to do this. At this point SOMEONE should have realised that the fire wasn’t going to be ‘put out’ in a conventional way, and they should have started a ‘from the top’ evacuation. But LFB is bound by process, health & safety etc, so this was never going to happen.
Interestingly, one fireman was able to rescue the people from one flat by thinking for himself. He got two members of the public to help him prop a ladder agains the building and managed to get the people out down the ladder in old school Fireman Sam style.
Danni Cotton, the woman supposedly in charge of LFB, hates Fireman Sam, and has campaigned for the programme to be taken off the air. She also appointed a ‘diversity and talent officer’ to ensure minority quotas were filled in recruiting. She didn’t, however, think it worth buying fire appliances capable of dealing with tower fires, and had to borrow one from Surrey FB, which arrived too late to rescue anyone.
The Freemasons have since raised the money to buy suitable appliances. The unions have kicked up. I’m sorry, but I’m not making this up.
channel4.com/news/freemason … on-members

306

Masonic Fire Engines ?

“Where’s the fire?”

“I dunno, it’s a secret”

307

The bloke on top of the ladder will give you a funny handshake as he helps you through the window. Just remember to roll you trouser leg up and bare your left breast.

308

TheYoungTrucker:

Franglais:
You`re in a car driving along a mountain road. You approach a bend, what do you do?

Best advice is to apply the brakes and slow down isnt it? 99.99% of the time thats the best option.

If the brakes fail you go over the edge and die. In that exceptional case bailing out may have saved your life.
So, is it best to jump out of every car assuming you will break an arm, and maybe your neck, just in case the brakes fail?

I really don’t see how you can compare the two scenarios, I for one would have been out of there quicker than a scalded cat, regardless of what advice I was given, towers on fire does not end well for those who are either stuck or choose to remain, look at the twin towers in New York.

OK, bad example. I ain`t a spin doctor.

Should we ignore the 57,000 fires, and concentrate on the terrorist air attacks on tower blocks? Is that a good plan?
A wee sense of proportion might be a good thing, basing your actions on exceptional and even unique examples isn`t the way to go. The big headlines, make for big impressions, but they are bad for day-to day decision making.

309

Just to get back to the N.I theme for a moment,the reality of DD999’s comments about ‘the men in balaclavas’ has been brought into stark focus by this story.Just shows how much we don’t know. bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-50303002

310

Sir +:
Just to get back to the N.I theme for a moment,the reality of DD999’s comments about ‘the men in balaclavas’ has been brought into stark focus by this story.Just shows how much we don’t know. bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-50303002

Unofficial law enforcement is much more prevalent than people realise and will continue until the PSNI provide the service that they are supposed to. All to regularly complaints to the PSNI will see no action however a phone call to your local paramilitary spokesman will usually have it resolved within 24 hours, ask yourself what course of action would you take?

311

Franglais:

robroy:
but word on the street was at least a third of the tenants were there illegally,

So, do you believe everything you “hear on the street”?
Or, choose what to believe and what to doubt?

Ahhh the standard answer when anybody states something they have read or been told. :unamused: ‘‘Do you believe everything you are… etc etc’’
I expected better from you Franglais if I’m honest.

As for your last bit…yes, that’s how it works with everything ain’t it?
You hear something and decide to yourself if it may be right or wrong information. :neutral_face:

312

TheYoungTrucker:
I really don’t see how you can compare the two scenarios, I for one would have been out of there quicker than a scalded cat, regardless of what advice I was given, towers on fire does not end well for those who are either stuck or choose to remain, look at the twin towers in New York.

There was a very interesting programme on the telly a week or 2 ago where two experts in the field made extensive tests on the collapse of the twin towers, something that shouldn’t have happened according to current thinking without a conspiracy being involved.

Their conclusion was that the fire and its intensity was caused by jet fuel burning at such a high temperature that it set fire to aluminium in the construction of the building.

If the cladding on Grenfell was aluminium then that is what caused the disaster, something which, as with twin towers, should not have happened, which, given the lack of understanding at the time, validated the official advice to stay put.

Not everyone agrees, but it is food for thought.

313

robroy:

Franglais:

robroy:
but word on the street was at least a third of the tenants were there illegally,

So, do you believe everything you “hear on the street”?
Or, choose what to believe and what to doubt?

Ahhh the standard answer when anybody states something they have read or been told. :unamused: ‘‘Do you believe everything you are… etc etc’’
I expected better from you Franglais if I’m honest.

As for your last bit…yes, that’s how it works with everything ain’t it?
You hear something and decide to yourself if it may be right or wrong information. :neutral_face:

And how many times have you used a standard phrase referring to RDC rumours?
Something heard on the street carrries the same cred as summat heard there, doesn’t it?
.
If it’s something said by someone with expertise or inside knowledge, then that’s worth saying to back it up. Sorry, “on the street”, is same as “by the coffee machine” in my book, unless supported by more info.

314

Spardo:

TheYoungTrucker:
I really don’t see how you can compare the two scenarios, I for one would have been out of there quicker than a scalded cat, regardless of what advice I was given, towers on fire does not end well for those who are either stuck or choose to remain, look at the twin towers in New York.

There was a very interesting programme on the telly a week or 2 ago where two experts in the field made extensive tests on the collapse of the twin towers, something that shouldn’t have happened according to current thinking without a conspiracy being involved.

Their conclusion was that the fire and its intensity was caused by jet fuel burning at such a high temperature that it set fire to aluminium in the construction of the building.

If the cladding on Grenfell was aluminium then that is what caused the disaster, something which, as with twin towers, should not have happened, which, given the lack of understanding at the time, validated the official advice to stay put.

Not everyone agrees, but it is food for thought.

Did these experts offer any opinions on how Building 7 collapsed which was totally untouched by planes or jet fuel, I bet they didn’t.

315

Franglais:

robroy:

Franglais:

robroy:
but word on the street was at least a third of the tenants were there illegally,

So, do you believe everything you “hear on the street”?
Or, choose what to believe and what to doubt?

Ahhh the standard answer when anybody states something they have read or been told. :unamused: ‘‘Do you believe everything you are… etc etc’’
I expected better from you Franglais if I’m honest.

As for your last bit…yes, that’s how it works with everything ain’t it?
You hear something and decide to yourself if it may be right or wrong information. :neutral_face:

And how many times have you used a standard phrase referring to RDC rumours?
Something heard on the street carrries the same cred as summat heard there, doesn’t it?
.
If it’s something said by someone with expertise or inside knowledge, then that’s worth saying to back it up. Sorry, “on the street”, is same as “by the coffee machine” in my book, unless supported by more info.

So you’re now picking me up on a simple turn of phrase… :neutral_face:
ok I’ll start again.

‘‘It seems to be of common opinion, although unsubstantiated, that’’…’
Are you happy with that??
:neutral_face:

316

Own Account Driver:

Spardo:

TheYoungTrucker:
I really don’t see how you can compare the two scenarios, I for one would have been out of there quicker than a scalded cat, regardless of what advice I was given, towers on fire does not end well for those who are either stuck or choose to remain, look at the twin towers in New York.

There was a very interesting programme on the telly a week or 2 ago where two experts in the field made extensive tests on the collapse of the twin towers, something that shouldn’t have happened according to current thinking without a conspiracy being involved.

Their conclusion was that the fire and its intensity was caused by jet fuel burning at such a high temperature that it set fire to aluminium in the construction of the building.

If the cladding on Grenfell was aluminium then that is what caused the disaster, something which, as with twin towers, should not have happened, which, given the lack of understanding at the time, validated the official advice to stay put.

Not everyone agrees, but it is food for thought.

Did these experts offer any opinions on how Building 7 collapsed which was totally untouched by planes or jet fuel, I bet they didn’t.

popularmechanics.com/techno … 4/4278874/

317

Spardo:

TheYoungTrucker:
I really don’t see how you can compare the two scenarios, I for one would have been out of there quicker than a scalded cat, regardless of what advice I was given, towers on fire does not end well for those who are either stuck or choose to remain, look at the twin towers in New York.

There was a very interesting programme on the telly a week or 2 ago where two experts in the field made extensive tests on the collapse of the twin towers, something that shouldn’t have happened according to current thinking without a conspiracy being involved.

Their conclusion was that the fire and its intensity was caused by jet fuel burning at such a high temperature that it set fire to aluminium in the construction of the building.

If the cladding on Grenfell was aluminium then that is what caused the disaster, something which, as with twin towers, should not have happened, which, given the lack of understanding at the time, validated the official advice to stay put.

Not everyone agrees, but it is food for thought.

utter rubbish, we all know it was the us gov

318

Re: Lorry driver charged with manslaughter of 39

by GasGas » Thu Nov 07, 2019 8:36 am

Own Account Driver wrote:

Spardo wrote:

TheYoungTrucker wrote:I really don’t see how you can compare the two scenarios, I for one would have been out of there quicker than a scalded cat, regardless of what advice I was given, towers on fire does not end well for those who are either stuck or choose to remain, look at the twin towers in New York.

There was a very interesting programme on the telly a week or 2 ago where two experts in the field made extensive tests on the collapse of the twin towers, something that shouldn’t have happened according to current thinking without a conspiracy being involved.

Their conclusion was that the fire and its intensity was caused by jet fuel burning at such a high temperature that it set fire to aluminium in the construction of the building.

If the cladding on Grenfell was aluminium then that is what caused the disaster, something which, as with twin towers, should not have happened, which, given the lack of understanding at the time, validated the official advice to stay put.

Not everyone agrees, but it is food for thought.

Did these experts offer any opinions on how Building 7 collapsed which was totally untouched by planes or jet fuel, I bet they didn’t.

popularmechanics.com/techno … 4/4278874/

So according to that grenfield should not be standing

It burned for about 60 hours before finally being extinguished.

319

Are you happy to listen to, or to repeat, unsubstantiated stories repeated from RDC waiting rooms?
Don’t you want them backed up with some sort of law or genuine personal experience?
You’re not telling me that are you?
.
If there are any legs to “about a third shouldn’t have been there” whatever that really means, it’ll be reported somewhere won’t it?
.
So anyway, I saved you the trouble and found a story on Metro. Seems there were 80 illegal immigrants in the block.
The Metro carried more weight IMHO than rumour.

320

Franglais:
Are you happy to listen to, or to repeat, unsubstantiated stories repeated from RDC waiting rooms?
Don’t you want them backed up with some sort of law or genuine personal experience?
You’re not telling me that are you?
.
If there are any legs to “about a third shouldn’t have been there” whatever that really means, it’ll be reported somewhere won’t it?
.
So anyway, I saved you the trouble and found a story on Metro. Seems there were 80 illegal immigrants in the block.
The Metro carried more weight IMHO than rumour.

Ok, so now you’re saying my ‘‘word on the street/hearsay/rumour/b.s or ■■■■■■■■’’ or whatever turn of phrase YOU choose, was in fact more or less accurate in principle if not in quantity. :open_mouth:
So where are we going with this exactly■■?

Btw, to use your own style of interpretation…do you believe everything you read on ‘Metro’ (whatever that may be) maybe their figures were wrong. :bulb: