bluethrunthru
Well-Known Member
No - its really just an upper class flyer for his business lol - next letter was from Liz of Buck House referencing her "The Mall" pizza home delivery service ha ha ha
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Grenfell Tower block disaster
- Thread starter TCIB
- Start date
No - its really just an upper class flyer for his business lol - next letter was from Liz of Buck House referencing her "The Mall" pizza home delivery service ha ha ha
bluethrunthru
Well-Known Member
Interesting article from the beeb on how building standards have been bypassed.
Why do England's high-rises keep failing fire tests? - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40418266
It would appear the change in the regulatory mechanisms in 2006 for design safety compliance is indeed the loophole through which the Building Industry via the Building Control Alliance (BCA) industry body has driven a tank through called "BCA guidance documentation" that provides a 'desktop study' mechanism fir certifying cladding materials.
Ladies and gentlemen I give you exhibit A; the 'Smoking Gun'
Fecking unbelievable....
another triumph resulting from "light touch" regulation......
East Level 2
Well-Known Member
Can a public inquiry suggest that the loopholes were so obviously dangerous that any designer/manufacturer/installer etc taking advantage of them was deviating from good practice and hence knowingly exposing residents to risk?Interesting article from the beeb on how building standards have been bypassed.
Why do England's high-rises keep failing fire tests? - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40418266
It would appear the change in the regulatory mechanisms in 2006 for design safety compliance is indeed the loophole through which the Building Industry via the Building Control Alliance (BCA) industry body has driven a tank through called "BCA guidance documentation" that provides a 'desktop study' mechanism fir certifying cladding materials.
Ladies and gentlemen I give you exhibit A; the 'Smoking Gun'
Fecking unbelievable....
BlueAnorak
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 31 Oct 2010
- Messages
- 30,173
I'm sure they can, but as the article suggests, if everyone was doing it, it's unlikely that any legal charges will stick in a court of law.Can a public inquiry suggest that the loopholes were so obviously dangerous that any designer/manufacturer/installer etc taking advantage of them was deviating from good practice and hence knowingly exposing residents to risk?
BlueAnorak
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 31 Oct 2010
- Messages
- 30,173
Yes indeed.another triumph resulting from "light touch" regulation......
I wonder when John McDonnell and co will start having a pop at those in the Labour party who were responsible for this bloody awful legislation that was brought in in 2006 that allowed this to happen?
Of course they only opened a loop hole that the industry exploited but they have been rather keen to throw mud.
SilverFox2
Well-Known Member
Interesting article from the beeb on how building standards have been bypassed.
Why do England's high-rises keep failing fire tests? - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40418266
It would appear the change in the regulatory mechanisms in 2006 for design safety compliance is indeed the loophole through which the Building Industry via the Building Control Alliance (BCA) industry body has driven a tank through called "BCA guidance documentation" that provides a 'desktop study' mechanism fir certifying cladding materials.
Ladies and gentlemen I give you exhibit A; the 'Smoking Gun'
Fecking unbelievable....
I echo your last sentence BA and believe the last sentence in the BBC report says it all:
´´Accepted professional practice has systematically reduced the fire resistance of our tall buildings.´´
Never again must we quote professional to mean upholding standards and values.
The individual Professional Organisations appear to have done their best to assist their members to make profits at the expense of Safety via loopholes that they knew were exactly that.
This differs from Financial Advisers who seek loopholes in Tax Systems with a victim less objective in that these Construction Professionals exploited loopholes at the expense of Fire Safety and ultimately lives.
Very angry residents on BBC
shouting and standing up to the housing minister.
Shocking stuff really, no order. The housing minister is trying to answer questions, but they have already judged him and don't care what he says.
There's a guy on there called Sid which keeps taking over, needs to calm down as they are not doing themselves any favours.
shouting and standing up to the housing minister.
Shocking stuff really, no order. The housing minister is trying to answer questions, but they have already judged him and don't care what he says.
There's a guy on there called Sid which keeps taking over, needs to calm down as they are not doing themselves any favours.
Yes indeed.
I wonder when John McDonnell and co will start having a pop at those in the Labour party who were responsible for this bloody awful legislation that was brought in in 2006 that allowed this to happen?
Of course they only opened a loop hole that the industry exploited but they have been rather keen to throw mud.
McDonnell said "political decisions over decades". But what exactly is this bloody awful legislation that was brought in in 2006?
BobKowalski
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 17 May 2007
- Messages
- 21,511
McDonnell said "political decisions over decades". But what exactly is this bloody awful legislation that was brought in in 2006?
I believe it was passing on fire check inspections onto local councils. Which initself is not a problem but if you then reduce funding to councils then you may get a situation where checks are not carried out properly if at all. Not that blaming New Labour will cause Corbyn and co. to lose any sleep anyway.
BobKowalski
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 17 May 2007
- Messages
- 21,511
Corbyn is trying to turn this political but Labour have as much blood on their hands and Tony Blair.
This is political. No amount of hand wringing and pleading not to make it political is going to wash. 120 blocks were clad in flammable plastic contrary to building regs which were not so much regs but polite advice. How do you expect this not to be political?
And as I keep saying Corbyn will happily drag Blair through this shite as he will the Tories. New Labour to Corbyn was just 'Tory lite'. I don't agree with his assessment of New Labour but the fact remains Corbyn ain't a fan and won't care.
And do you really think MPs or ministers wade through 84 pages of fire safety standards, and understand it? I'm not truing to exculpate politicians - and I hope I've got this right - but the previous Building Regs from 1991 had just 400 words on fire safety, and on the topic that now concerns us, they said:
"The external walls of the building shall resist the spread of fire over the walls and from one building to another, having regard to the height, use and position of the building." That's it. So while the "limited combustibility" get-out, and the vagueness over how to comply, will be a factor in the inquiry (and already), you can't just talk about "bloody awful legislation" that was miles better than what went before. The scandal is that MPs on the select committee were warning of the dangers.
"The external walls of the building shall resist the spread of fire over the walls and from one building to another, having regard to the height, use and position of the building." That's it. So while the "limited combustibility" get-out, and the vagueness over how to comply, will be a factor in the inquiry (and already), you can't just talk about "bloody awful legislation" that was miles better than what went before. The scandal is that MPs on the select committee were warning of the dangers.
SilverFox2
Well-Known Member
And do you really think MPs or ministers wade through 84 pages of fire safety standards, and understand it? I'm not truing to exculpate politicians - and I hope I've got this right - but the previous Building Regs from 1991 had just 400 words on fire safety, and on the topic that now concerns us, they said:
"The external walls of the building shall resist the spread of fire over the walls and from one building to another, having regard to the height, use and position of the building." That's it. So while the "limited combustibility" get-out, and the vagueness over how to comply, will be a factor in the inquiry (and already), you can't just talk about "bloody awful legislation" that was miles better than what went before. The scandal is that MPs on the select committee were warning of the dangers.
Thats the problem of course, politicians and their aspiring apprentices at local government level cannot be bothered to check through the regs..
This leaves the door open so I wonder who else waits until accidents occur before they start to make themselves blameless ?
bluethrunthru
Well-Known Member
watching Newsnight just now the conclusion is why are we continuing to test? 100% failure rate means that waiting for a block to fail is just delaying the inevitable - lets get on with removal and sorting it out - the damage is done - nobody in a tower block feels safe now surely
watching Newsnight just now the conclusion is why are we continuing to test? 100% failure rate means that waiting for a block to fail is just delaying the inevitable - lets get on with removal and sorting it out - the damage is done - nobody in a tower block feels safe now surely
They were told to test first those buildings that were thought most likely to fail. Eventually they should get to the "not sure" buildings. I agree that they need to get on with removal of the cladding, but its important that they continue to test to establish the full extent of the problem.
Corbyn is trying to turn this political but Labour have as much blood on their hands and Tony Blair.
I blame Thatcher and free market economics. Why do we need regulation? The market will sort it as unsafe buildings will become unsellable.
Ifwecouldjust.......
Well-Known Member
this stuff is on schools, hospitals, hotels etc.....
They were told to test first those buildings that were thought most likely to fail. Eventually they should get to the "not sure" buildings. I agree that they need to get on with removal of the cladding, but its important that they continue to test to establish the full extent of the problem.
I'm rather fed up with how much more information can make us more ignorant. What has actually failed? The polyethylene has limited combustibility so of course if you apply enough heat it will burn. Or is the category of "limited" a misnomer and it's less limited than thought? Have they tested non-combustible rockwool insulation to see if it is non-combustible?
And I'm still waiting for someone to say in public that once it gets outside the building fire will travel, usually up, even if the building is made of brick or concrete, and then weaken and crack windows or frames and break into rooms above (sometimes with explosive effect as it gets fresh oxygen). Flammable cladding may be an accelerant but it won't stop physics.
Internal sprinklers would stop fires from getting outside but I've not heard anyone say whether it's feasible (technically or cost) to have systems on the roof that would douse external fire (or sprinklers over each window).
SilverFox2
Well-Known Member
I'm rather fed up with how much more information can make us more ignorant. What has actually failed? The polyethylene has limited combustibility so of course if you apply enough heat it will burn. Or is the category of "limited" a misnomer and it's less limited than thought? Have they tested non-combustible rockwool insulation to see if it is non-combustible?
And I'm still waiting for someone to say in public that once it gets outside the building fire will travel, usually up, even if the building is made of brick or concrete, and then weaken and crack windows or frames and break into rooms above (sometimes with explosive effect as it gets fresh oxygen). Flammable cladding may be an accelerant but it won't stop physics.
Internal sprinklers would stop fires from getting outside but I've not heard anyone say whether it's feasible (technically or cost) to have systems on the roof that would douse external fire (or sprinklers over each window).
You make a good point about limited combustibility, I wonder if the higher temperatures have been caused by the so called chimney effect that allowed a draught of air unlimited access to the height of the tower blocks ?
As I recall original loft insulation it was mostly trapped air within a fibreglass type of open texture in quite large rolls. It filled the space between the wooden joists.
We then got the Kingspan type of laminate which achieved the same insulation capability at much lower thicknesses. Just thinking that if a thinner more modern laminate is put into a space originally designed for a thicker insulation then the wind tunnel is effectively formed and any fire within that space can be literally fanned which would achieve those higher temperatures.