Grenfell Fire 'final' report due this week

You may be right about the man's failings but you seem intent upon using those as a tactic to deflect legitimate criticism from the guilty businesses and businessmen because you are yourself a businessman. 

You seem to want to deflect all the blame onto him. Just because you are a businessman yourself you really shouldnt be defending these scumbags. They are clearly not like you,

I'm talking about when the outside of the building was an inferno, but the inside was apparently safe. Not the ones sent to the 4th floor flat before they spotted the outside was a torch. 

news.sky.com/story/what-happened-in-the-grenfell-tower-fire-a-timeline-of-the-tragedy-13208589#:~:text=2.50am%3A%20The%20fire%20spreads,tower%2C%20from%20north%20to%20south.

12.59am: The first firefighters arrive on the scene. They are led by LFB watch manager Michael Dowden, a firefighter of around 13 years, who sees an "orange glow" coming from the window of flat 16.



1.19am: Mr Dowden notices the cladding is alight. He would later tell the inquiry he felt "out of my comfort zone" and "helpless" as the fire took hold.



1.21am: Dr Naomi-Yuan Li, who is in flat 195 on the 22nd floor with her cousin, Lydia, calls 999 after smelling something "like burning plastic" while lying in bed using her phone.

(Gosh the plastic windows aren’t fire proof, who’d have thought it)



1.25am: 56-year-old Dennis Murphy, who died during the fire, makes the first 999 to report smoke coming into a flat. He is in number 111, on the 14th floor.



1.42am: The London Ambulance Service declares a "significant incident".

A report by fire protection expert Dr Barbara Lane states residents should have been told to evacuate by around this time at the latest, but the "stay put" policy remains in place.

1.58am: Mr Walton is still trying to inform firefighters that he is in charge of the incident when he sees DAC Andrew O'Loughlin, who is two ranks above him, "making big steps" towards him.

Mr O'Loughlin, who has been a firefighter since 1989, had heard 25 pumps mentioned on his radio and knew it was an "exceptional" situation, and that "something very serious was going on". He is surprised there aren't more high-ranking officers at the scene already.

He asks Mr Dowden how many people were still in the building, but he doesn't have a number. He says many people have already come out from the lower floors, and Mr O'Loughlin estimates there are between 100-200 people still in there.

The stay put instruction was finally revoked at 2.35am. over an hour and a half after the fire brigade arrived. And over an hour after someone on the 22nd floor called to say their flat was burning. 

So Steve at what point do you think you would have realised the encapsulation wasn't working.
When the flames were racing up the cladding, No? ( perhaps you think glass windows are fire proof?)
Maybe when a person 18 floors above the first fire says its spread to their flat, No? perhaps you think its just a coincidence?)

You know that pedantry you are constantly accused of Steve? 



An honest mistake in the frantic minutes after the fire spread, maybe. But 91 minutes later its no longer an honest mistake, not asking for help from a more senior officer after admitting he felt "out of my comfort zone" and "helpless" is not an honest mistake.

My objection is that it was not an honest mistake, it was a guy following the numbers because he believed that would be the best outcome for himself.
Public bodies encourage this as they don't like anyone breaking ranks and making those above them extra work. Far better to insist on someone following legislation number FS1456789/23 part two, than having to consider particular circumstances. 

Thus the bean counters get promotion and the 'trouble makers' leave. 
That is why I feel this guy must answer for his mistake, to break the cycle of "I was just following the rules"

The stay put strategy was based on the inevitable risks associated with a mass evacuation AND the assurances the Fire Service had been given (not least by the local authority and the infamous Carl Stokes) that the building met the compartmentalisation standards 'stay put' is based on.

Somehow I figure you'd have been one of the first to blame the fire services if 'stay put' had been appropriate and people had died because someone on the ground decided 'that all rules and procedures are wrong, that Zany assures me of it'

As I said. I want him bought to account as well.

Fact is the media is in general studiously avoiding this part of the story. Same as on here. 

Zany you said no fire officers were allowed in the building.  It was a woefully wrong and grossly misleading statement.

No pedantry by me when we're talking about a malicious and very hurtful wrong assertion.

Now see if you can tell me at what point the Fire Services knew that they'd been lied to about the safety of the building.