Talk:New Cross house fire

Link to the Brixton riot?
Well it been said that the new cross fire was part of the caus of the brixton riot because after the new cross fire it was said that they was nothin done about


 * in ISBN:9781849010092 McSmith certainly thinks so (McSmith 2010, pg. 84-87)(Rowanburrows (talk) 11:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC))

Memorial in Fordham Park
I've added information about the memorial in Fordham Park, but I've not been able to find any supporting evidence, other than that of my own eyes. Sorry - I have not had time to do an extensive search.Crinoline (talk) 19:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * A photo would be useful. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:48, 23 November 2019 (UTC).

Not very informative
The article leaves a lot about the cause and course of the fire to the imagination. I'd assume (never having been to New Cross, and especially not 1981) that if a fire occured in a "front room" during a "party", a) someone would notice it pretty quickly and b) people would evacuate past the room to the front and/or by the rear door/windows. Now if there were say 100 people at the party who would have to leave, 13 dead may be "normal" for a house fire, but the article only states that there were two survivors and 13 out of 15 dead would be quite extraordinary. --Tim Landscheidt (talk) 01:37, 2 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Although the article doesn't say how many attended the party, it certainly doesn't say there were only two survivors, although it does only specifically name two survivors (one as to ones of the party celebrants, the other as a later suicide). The forensic evidence now suggests that the fire started in an armchair in the living room, possibly from a discarded match or cigarette. As it occurred at 05:40 in the morning, many attendees would have already left, and some if not all of those still there may well have fallen asleep. Nick Cooper (talk) 20:02, 11 July 2017 (UTC)


 * That is exactly what I was trying to point out: For me, a "party" is not people collectively leaving or sleeping, but chatting, listening to music, eating, drinking, dancing. In this article, this interpretation is even further fuelled by statements like: "The party was a joint birthday celebration for Yvonne Ruddock (one of the victims of the fire) and Angela Jackson (who survived) and was held at No. 439, New Cross Road.  It began on the evening of Saturday, 17 January 1981 and continued throughout the night and into the early hours of Sunday."  There is not a hint in the article that some or all attendees may have been asleep when the fire broke out.  --Tim Landscheidt (talk) 12:57, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * There are several things which this article doesn't explain. How many attendees were there? Was the party ongoing when the fire started? If the party was ongoing, why was the fire not noticed until it was at an advanced stage & some of those there were killed? If the party had ended, why were so many of them still there? Party attendees usually leave after it ends & some leave before it ends. 13 people sleeping over after a party ends is far from usual for an inner-city house which would probably have been quite small. Is it usual for parents to have no problem with their 14-y-o kids attending an all-night party? I don't know any parents who'd allow that. Jim Michael (talk) 08:53, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The house in New Cross is not small, and has several floors. Fire spreads quickly and is very deadly.  I'm not sure this speculation about how people may or may not have partied, why the deaths happened as they did etc. is particularly helpful, though it is understandable that people will have a lot of questions about how so many young people met an untimely death.  Casting judgement on the families of the deceased and the survivors seems insensitive given what happened, especially in the absence of facts.  Perhaps what's needed here is for someone to delve into the archives and find more information.  This event happened within living memory, and needs to be treated sensitively and accurately, particularly as people who were affected by the events may read the article and the talk page.  Crinoline (talk) 08:13, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Crinoline, I agree with you about the speculation. I have added some detail on what the forensic science report found. Unfortunately, from what I can see, it does not conclusively find that the fire was an accident (for instance via a lighted cigarette). But the foam used in chairs sold in the UK before 1988 was highly inflammable, resulting in a number of lethal accidental fires before the rules were changed. I have also added a link to the relevant Wiki page on Upholstery. Theeurocrat (talk) 17:44, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Jill Knight slogan
There's a real problem with the suggestion that a slogan from the march after the fire said "Dame Jill Knight set the fire alight" - which is that Jill Knight was not made a Dame until 5 years after the fire took place. I've tried looking for a reference for this - but all I can find are the odd references that come back to Wikipedia. If this can be sourced accurately (or if the slogan just said 'Jill Knight set the fire alight') that would be very helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpmaytum (talk • contribs) 08:03, 19 April 2022 (UTC)