About The Grenfell Tower Disaster

I don’t know if there are readers who are unfamiliar with the above. Briefly, a tower block of flats in Kensington, London, caught fire. Out of around 350 ‘known’ inhabitants, some 70 died. It was a terrible tragedy, made all the worse because TV cameras captured the flames and horror.

I have been reading, yesterday and today, a book about the disaster:


It is not a long book – I read it in two days intermittently. The author did his best to ‘make some sense’ of what happened. The trouble is that the first part sort of it ‘sanctifies’ the inhabitants. It is a bit gooey. Without being ‘racist’, what I found odd was the predominance of weird names and how there seemed to be a vast majority of immigrants housed in the tower. I may be wrong about that, but hardly anyone mentioned seemed to have an ‘English’ name. It is just weird. Some people had lived in the block since it was built. It is all very confusing.

If you can get past the first, gooey part, then more ‘facts’ are revealed. The Local Authority, Fire Brigade, etc swung into action immediately. But the fire was uncontrollable. At one point, the Fire Brigade thought that they had it under control, but that turned out to be wrong. People were advised to stay in their flats, which seems to have been the standard advice in such circumstances, but there was a difference – the fire was spreading on the outside of the building via the insulation on the outside of the building.

But it is what happened politically which is most sickening. The Government was quite happy to let the local Council take the blame, even though it was a Tory-led Council. But the emphasis, at the time, was on the failure of the Council to ‘help’ the survivors. The reality was that everyone in the Council was working round the clock to help the survivors.

As I read the book, I was waiting for a least some mention of why the tower block was cladded with insulation on the outside in the first place. What was the point? St Paul’s Cathedral is not cladded with insulation. Why was that insulation applied to the outside of the building in the first place? What was it intended to achieve?

The book says nothing about it. Many similar housing blocks have been similarly cladded up and down the country at enormous expense using the same materials. All that stuff will now have to be stripped off and replaced at enormous expense.

But why do it in the first place?

For the last three weeks or so, the sun has been shining down on my house. The sunshine has infra red radiation. The fabric of my house has been absorbing infra red radiation from the sun. The roof tiles, walls, timberwork, etc, have been absorbing heat. The last thing that I would want is ‘insulation’ which stopped the fabric of my house absorbing infra red radiation from the sun. I want the sun to be able to warm my house so that I have no need to have fires on.

So why did the Gov promote outside insulation, which negated the natural tendency for the fabric of buildings to absorb infra red radiation during the summer?

But there is another thing. Just because the atmosphere in winter is cold, that does not mean that infra red radiation from the sun diminishes. Even when the sun is low in the sky, it emits infra red radiation. It is not as powerful in winter than in summer, but it is still there.

It is stupid to exclude the warmth of the sun. It is free. It creates a ‘heat sink’ in our buildings and in the soil of our land. That is why crops of the right plants can prosper.

So who is to ultimately blame for the Grenfell  Disaster?

It is Climate Control. Politicians are enamoured with the idea that insulation will save the planet. But that is because they are too engrossed with ‘doing what they can’. That attitude is the reason that the poorest people are being persecuted by taxes.

Masses of money were dispensed upon the survivors of the Grenfell fire. It is probable that the same situation still applies. A few prosecutions for fraudulent claims does not excuse the massive expense of keeping the survivors in luxury. Living in a hotel with everything provided, including meals and generous allowances, is the height of luxury.

I am not saying that rewarding survivors is wrong. I am saying that the reason that Grenfell Tower was cladded was to do with Global Warming. What on Earth did the proponents of excluding the best source of free energy, The Sun, from Grenfell Tower hope to achieve?

But the important point is the gullibility of politicians. The Grenfell Tower inferno was the result of Global Warming propaganda. It is a sad indictment of our political establishment that it believes that insulating a few building in England will stop Global Cooling.

7 Responses to “About The Grenfell Tower Disaster”

  1. Blazeaway Says:

    Quite right that global warming propaganda was the cause of the cladding.

    And the far-left claims of ‘racism’ and ‘spending cuts’ were also untrue. The cost of cladding EACH flat was an astronomical £24000 – to save each tenant peanuts. No shortage of money.

    You are also correct that few people had English names. I read that only one English family lived in the block. I don’t know if that’s true but it probably is as the block was being used to house immigrants.

    The block has become a cause celebre of the far left who wrongly claim that money wasn’t being spent on the residents because they were immigrants. We now know that money had been spent in abundance and that blame may have attached to the emergency services. Most of the ‘campaigners’ have no shame.

  2. Rose Says:

    As I read the book, I was waiting for a least some mention of why the tower block was cladded with insulation on the outside in the first place. What was the point?

    It’s beginning to look like another over-zealous implementation of an EU directive to decrease carbon emissions, without thought to the possible consequences, in a similar way to “Make Way For Water” that ended up flooding the Somerset Levels well beyond it’s capacity.

    “A much more immediately relevant point, however, on which the forthcoming inquiry will certainly have to focus, Booker says, is what might be called the “European” dimension to this tragedy. So far wholly missed has been the fact that making construction regulations, including those relating to fire risk, is an exclusive “competence” of the EU. Britain has no right to make its own, without Brussels permission.”

    “Furthermore in 2014 the Department of Energy and Climate Change issued its National Energy Efficiency Action Plan, setting out how it planned to meet its EU targets for reducing “carbon emissions” (and also those set under our own Climate Change Act).

    In particular, it emphasised the need to comply with Directive 2012/27/EU on “energy efficiency”. This explained that the top priority was to improve the insulation of buildings, responsible for 40 percent of all emissions. Local authorities were thus made aware of the section on renovating older buildings, adding an extra impetus to the growing body of climate change legislation.

    When Kensington and Chelsea council chose the new cladding for Grenfell Tower it would, therefore, have known that top of the list was the need for “thermal efficiency”. On this score, plastics such as polyurethane, polyethylene or polyisocyanurate rated most highly, despite their fire risk. There was even financing available under the government’s Green Deal scheme.”

    Somerset Levels

    “Just so that there should be no doubts as to where the policy thrust lay, DG Environment in 2011 issued a note, stressing that flood risk management “should work with nature, rather than against it”, building up the “green infrastructure” and thus offering a “triple-win” which included restoration (i.e., flooding) of the floodplain.

    By then, the Environment Agency needed no encouragement. In its March 2008 plan it had decided that, “providing a robust economic case for maintenance works on the Somerset Levels and Moors remains a challenge” (p.131).

    We believe, the Agency said, that “it is appropriate to look again at the benefits derived from our work, particularly focusing more on the infrastructure and the environmental benefits, which previous studies have probably underestimated”.

    We have, they added, “international obligations to maintain and enhance the habitats and species in the Somerset Levels and Moors, and it is within this context that all decisions have to be made”.

    And, with that, they were “doubtful that all the pumping stations on the Somerset Levels and Moors are required for flood risk management purposes. Many pumping stations are relatively old and in some cases difficult to maintain. It is necessary to decide which ones are necessary particularly in the context of redistributing water”.

    Of six policy options, the Agency thus adopted the sixth, to: “Take action to increase the frequency of flooding to deliver benefits locally or elsewhere, which may constitute an overall flood risk reduction”. This policy option, they said, “involves a strategic increase in flooding in allocated areas” (p.142). The Levels were to be allowed to flood, as a matter of deliberate policy.

    Thus, when the BBC reported that the government had been “slow to act”, it could not have been more wrong. Our true government, the EU, had been there years before, planning to make the disaster that has overtaken the people of that part of Somerset a routine occurrence. The flooding was not so much man-made as made by government.”

    UK flooding: Environment Agency boss Lord Smith refuses to say sorry as he visits Somerset Levels
    7 Feb 2014

    “Chairman Lord Smith angers flood-hit residents in Somerset by insisting he is ‘proud’ of the Environment Agency’s work”

    “The residents of the Somerset Levels had waited weeks for Lord Smith of Finsbury to say sorry. Instead, when the Environment Agency chairman finally visited the submerged wasteland on Friday, he chose another adjective to sum up his feelings: “proud.”

    “The Prime Minister chose his words far more carefully than Lord Smith, admitting mistakes of the past, particularly the decision to stop dredging local rivers in the 1990s. “That was wrong and we need to get dredging again,” he said.”
    https: //www.telegraph.co.uk/news/weather/10625594/Environment-Agency-boss-Lord-Smith-refuses-to-say-sorry-as-he-visits-Somerset-Levels.html

    But now so many lives have been lost in this terrible tragedy, we can only imagine what will come out from this enquiry.

    Not to mention any possible gold-plating that may have taken place.

    “Gold plating is a term used to describe the process where a basic EU directive is given extra strength when being incorporated into UK law.”

    • junican Says:

      Your quotes are typical of what has been going on in ‘high places’. Who on earth interpreted the ‘Global Warming’ stuff to mean flooding places? The two are not connected.
      The whole fiasco leads us to conclude that the politicians are in no way in control. They do not make the decisions. They announce decisions made by ‘The Deep State’. But ‘The Deep State’ incumbents must have names. Who are they?

  3. Tony Halford Says:

    It was cladded because before it was considered “unsightly” by the other residents of that particular borough. So people had to die because the better off residents didn’t want to be reminded there are poor people about.
    As for those weird names…all sorts of people have weird sounding names these days both natural born British and Immigrants but frankly, I don’t see why you’d even mention it. People are people and regardless where they come from, they shouldn’t be expected to die horribly.

    • Rose Says:

      So local councils up and down the country have clad their tower blocks and other buildings in the same or similar materials to Grenfell at great expense, just to please better off people living in the vicinity and improve their view?

      Well it’s a theory, but it seems very unlikely to me, especially as it’s been there since the 70’s and this sudden fashion for cladding seems to have started fairly recently.

    • junican Says:

      I don’t know if you read the book, but the point about ‘posh’ neighbours claiming that the tower being ugly was examined in the book. Even if such complaints were made, which is very doubtful, there is no evidence that anyone took any notice. Do you think that the Council would have spent millions of pound on cladding to please a few toffs?

      About the ‘funny’ names, the book also details the origins of those people, mostly, but not all, in the recent past. Those named were from anywhere except England. Read the first part of the book.
      My point is not racist. I have never been racist. My point is housing.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: