Sableagle wrote:In updates on Grenfell Tower, the bad news is that the "rush around the country frantically replacing all that flammable cladding with the non-flammable kind we should have used in the first place" doesn't include replacing the flammable insulation behind the cladding ... and the good news is that the rent the residents have been charged since the night of the fire is going to be refunded.
It's all very confusing and/or badly reported. Newsnight said they'd used the "slightly less fireproof version" of the cladding, which to me implies it was maybe a few percent more flammable, whereas the media make it sound like they used cotton wool soaked in kerosene or something. I heard somebody on the radio saying that it didn't make sense that every single sample from tower blocks all over the country had failed the tests: that surely they must be testing it wrongly. He also mentioned the insulation behind the cladding, and suggested that the whole assembly was a system that needed to be tested as a whole. Possibly those other buildings were safe, and the problem at Grenfell was somehow the unsafe combination of elements that were each acceptable individually. I'm hoping that's the conclusion, anyway. The alternative, a widespread and grossly negligent disregard for human life, is something I truly hope wouldn't happen in my city.