Jump to content

Will health & safety prove to be the ultimate culprit for the deaths at Grenfell?.........


Guest pelmetman

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 226
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Oh and why is the Royal Tory Borough 'responsible' for Grenfell Tower, which has become the richest borough in the country through fleecing motorists and can well afford to pay for Grenfell, being given £50 million from poorer boroughs byTheresa May >:-)

Whilst those ''responsible' are paid many times the average salary, the ones on the fronr line picking up the pieces are largely volunteers http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-44295397

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest pelmetman
John52 - 2018-05-30 9:05 AM

 

Oh and why is the Royal Tory Borough 'responsible' for Grenfell Tower, which has become the richest borough in the country through fleecing motorists and can well afford to pay for Grenfell, being given £50 million from poorer boroughs byTheresa May >:-)

Whilst those ''responsible' are paid many times the average salary, the ones on the fronr line picking up the pieces are largely volunteers http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-44295397

 

So if you agree health & safety was the culprit ;-) ........The fact it happened in a borough run by the Tories is purely incidental, and you loony lefties are just using this disaster as a stick to beat the Tories with >:-) ...........How very Corbynasty *-) ........

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. The ultimate culprit can only be the installation of flammable cladding to the outside walls of the building in contravention of the Building Regulations. Without the cladding, the fire would not have spread as it did, and could have been dealt with as normal.

 

Grenfell is not the only example of a fire in a tower block, it is not even the only example of a fire in a tower block in UK where flammable cladding had been applied.

 

Unfortunately, it performed exactly as fire research had predicted for a building clad in flammable material, as was demonstrated at a conference held in May 2013 at BRE. Examples of fires spreading via cladding back to 1999, both in UK and abroad, including extensive testing on systems, were presented.

 

Given all this, plus the clear requirement in the Regulations that flammable materials must not be used, it is extraordinary that the combination of materials as used on Grenfell was adopted.

 

The questions that then arise are who approved that non-compliant cladding, and why? This points to corruption, fraud, negligence, or incompetence (or a combination of any/all).

 

It could be due to a disastrous mistake on the part of a person or persons (presently unknown), who did not adequately understand either the regulations or the fire test results on the materials used (or both!), so had no idea of the safety implications of their decision. But, it is very difficult indeed to understand how such an incopentent person could ever have been in a position to take those fateful decisions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest pelmetman
Brian Kirby - 2018-05-30 11:54 AM

 

No. The ultimate culprit can only be the installation of flammable cladding to the outside walls of the building in contravention of the Building Regulations. Without the cladding, the fire would not have spread as it did, and could have been dealt with as normal.

 

Grenfell is not the only example of a fire in a tower block, it is not even the only example of a fire in a tower block in UK where flammable cladding had been applied.

 

Unfortunately, it performed exactly as fire research had predicted for a building clad in flammable material, as was demonstrated at a conference held in May 2013 at BRE. Examples of fires spreading via cladding back to 1999, both in UK and abroad, including extensive testing on systems, were presented.

 

Given all this, plus the clear requirement in the Regulations that flammable materials must not be used, it is extraordinary that the combination of materials as used on Grenfell was adopted.

 

The questions that then arise are who approved that non-compliant cladding, and why? This points to corruption, fraud, negligence, or incompetence (or a combination of any/all).

 

It could be due to a disastrous mistake on the part of a person or persons (presently unknown), who did not adequately understand either the regulations or the fire test results on the materials used (or both!), so had no idea of the safety implications of their decision. But, it is very difficult indeed to understand how such an incopentent person could ever have been in a position to take those fateful decisions.

 

So not the Tories fault as the loony left would have us believe ;-) ..........

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

pelmetman - 2018-05-30 2:13 PM

So not the Tories fault as the loony left would have us believe ;-) ..........

 

 

The Royal Tory Borough has been Tory continuously since 1964 - before Grenfell Tower even got on to the drawing board.

By what logic does the Mad Hatter deduce it wasn't their fault *-)

And Why is Theresa May sending them £50 million from poorer boroughs >:-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Illegal immigrants claimed over £100,000 - it was almost a year before the Royal Tory Borough finally realised the council flat they claim to have lived in never existed. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/may/30/pair-face-jail-after-posing-as-grenfell-victims-to-claim-125000

Meanwhile genuine victims were relying on volunteers and charity

By what Mad Hatter logic is that not the Royal Tory Borough's fault either

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John52 - 2018-05-30 4:04 PM

 

Brian Kirby - 2018-05-30 11:54 AM

The questions that then arise are who approved that non-compliant cladding, and why? .

 

Should be a simple enough question to answer

So why are we still waiting >:-)

 

Well the answer has to be The Tories doesnt it ??? They seem to have taken all the blame ... If its not tha's guna be a few folk with eggy faces

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely the situation here is that an architect specified a cladding for the building and one assumes that it would be of an appropriate specification and legally acceptable for that particular installation. The company doing the installation would required to buy the right material and install in accordance with the makers/architects instructions. Those responsible for the management of the building would be expected to ensure the appropriate safety instructions and procedures met in full the requirements to comply with the Health and Safety regulations. If any of these things were not done those responsible should be held to account.

If no one failed in their duty to comply with the above then the blame can only lie elsewhere.

 

The fact that there may be persons or groups who believed that the legal requirements and specifications for such cladding were not adequate does not alter the fact that those involved in the installation did comply with the law, and are not, therefore, culpable. The people making the laws and issuing the specifications may have failed to do their job as thoroughly as they should, so maybe they are the ones who should be held to account.

 

AGD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All true, Bill, but there is also a requirement for approval. The detailed drawings and specifications have to be submitted for approval under Building Regulations, either to the local authority building control department, or one of a number of private approval companies. That approval is intended to be the final pre-construction check that all is in order.

 

There is also the question of who was responsible for obtaining that approval. In this case I understand it was the builder, under some form of design and construct contract.

 

Even then, it remains possible that the proper materials were approved, but that someone, either in error, or in order to save money, substituted an inferior product for the one approved not realising the implications of that switch.

 

There should have been supervision of the work on site, as a backstop against such substitutions, but the only people who apparently (until someone says otherwise) visited to check were from RBKC's building control department, and they seem not to have noticed that what was being installed was non-compliant.

 

It is very odd indeed that what was actually used ever got through all those checks without being spotted. In the final analysis, that is the real reason the enquiry is so important. It is in everyone's interest that the error is identified and appropriate measures taken to fix the system. We all use buildings, and we should all be able to feel confident of their safety. It is fundamental.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

antony1969 - 2018-05-30 6:35 PM

 

Oh Lordy ... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-44303823 ... How many foreign looking types now is that who've conned us to claim on the back of Grenfell ... Multicultural Britain you gotta love it

 

A simple check would have revealed it was a fraud before any money was paid out !!!!!

They were successfully claimimg to have lived in a Royal Tory Borough flat that never existed!!!!.

The Chief exec gets paid much more than the illegal immigrants fiddled

Doesn't the Royal Tory Borough bear any responsibility for paying the money out?

Or indeed any responsibility for the safety of the flats they rent out?

If not - why are we paying them so much?.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest pelmetman

Oh dear.......Looks like "LABOURS" Blair is in the frame for relaxing building regulations :-| ..........

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

pelmetman - 2018-05-31 7:45 AM

 

Oh dear.......Looks like "LABOURS" Blair is in the frame for relaxing building regulations :-| ..........

 

 

That was NEW Labour back in the year BC.

And it does not absolve the Royal Tory Borough.

So now we have to put illegal immigrants in prison, at more expense, and they will come out worse than they went in.

All because the Royal Tory Borough did not carry out the most basic of checks - like the fact they were illegal immigrants and the flat they claimed to live in never even existed!!!

Just like everything else to do with Grenfell Tower.

The only thing the Royal Tory Borough is good at is sucking up to the Royal Family, and abusing their powers to fleece visiting motorists, so they become the Richest Borough in Britain and can cut council tax for the wealthy - who will then encourage everyone to vote for them.

And Then Theresa May gives them £50million of our money >:-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest pelmetman
John52 - 2018-05-31 9:25 AM

 

pelmetman - 2018-05-31 7:45 AM

 

Oh dear.......Looks like "LABOURS" Blair is in the frame for relaxing building regulations :-| ..........

 

 

That was NEW Labour back in the year BC.

And it does not absolve the Royal Tory Borough.

So now we have to put illegal immigrants in prison, at more expense, and they will come out worse than they went in.

All because the Royal Tory Borough did not carry out the most basic of checks - like the fact they were illegal immigrants and the flat they claimed to live in never even existed!!!

Just like everything else to do with Grenfell Tower.

The only thing the Royal Tory Borough is good at is sucking up to the Royal Family, and abusing their powers to fleece visiting motorists, so they become the Richest Borough in Britain and can cut council tax for the wealthy - who will then encourage everyone to vote for them.

And Then Theresa May gives them £50million of our money >:-)

 

Aaah so it's now the Royal Tory Boroughs fault that illegal immigrants have fleeced the taxpayer? 8-) .......

 

How very raving loony lefty (lol) ........Are you Corbynistas trying to reinvent Stupid? >:-) ........

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest pelmetman
Brian Kirby - 2018-05-31 10:06 AM

 

pelmetman - 2018-05-31 7:45 AM

 

Oh dear.......Looks like "LABOURS" Blair is in the frame for relaxing building regulations :-| ..........

Have you missed out a quote Dave? If so, I'd be interested to see it, because I haven't yet heard about that. :-)

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/28/grenfell-tower-fire-was-tory-austerity-to-blame-or-do-problems-date-back-to-blair

 

“The cladding of tower blocks began under the Blair government,” said May, adding that the key issue was not the laws involved but how inflammable materials that did not comply with building regulations were put up in at least 120 tower blocks.

 

In particular, she pinpointed the 2005 regulatory reform (fire safety) order introduced under Blair’s government that shifted the responsibility for fire inspection from the fire brigade to the local council. She claimed it had “ended the practice of routine fire inspections”.

 

;-) .........

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

pelmetman - 2018-05-31 11:47 AM

 

Brian Kirby - 2018-05-31 10:06 AM

 

pelmetman - 2018-05-31 7:45 AM

 

Oh dear.......Looks like "LABOURS" Blair is in the frame for relaxing building regulations :-| ..........

Have you missed out a quote Dave? If so, I'd be interested to see it, because I haven't yet heard about that. :-)

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/28/grenfell-tower-fire-was-tory-austerity-to-blame-or-do-problems-date-back-to-blair

 

“The cladding of tower blocks began under the Blair government,” said May, adding that the key issue was not the laws involved but how inflammable materials that did not comply with building regulations were put up in at least 120 tower blocks.

 

In particular, she pinpointed the 2005 regulatory reform (fire safety) order introduced under Blair’s government that shifted the responsibility for fire inspection from the fire brigade to the local council. She claimed it had “ended the practice of routine fire inspections”.

 

;-) .........

 

 

Oh Lordy ... That's awkward isn't it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

pelmetman - 2018-05-31 9:49 AM

Aaah so it's now the Royal Tory Boroughs fault that illegal immigrants have fleeced the taxpayer? 8-) .......

Whose fault is it illegal immigrants in the Royal Tory Borough have been ALLOWED to fleece the taxpayer *-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

antony1969 - 2018-05-31 12:24 PM

 

pelmetman - 2018-05-31 11:47 AM

 

Brian Kirby - 2018-05-31 10:06 AM

 

pelmetman - 2018-05-31 7:45 AM

 

Oh dear.......Looks like "LABOURS" Blair is in the frame for relaxing building regulations :-| ..........

Have you missed out a quote Dave? If so, I'd be interested to see it, because I haven't yet heard about that. :-)

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/28/grenfell-tower-fire-was-tory-austerity-to-blame-or-do-problems-date-back-to-blair

 

“The cladding of tower blocks began under the Blair government,” said May, adding that the key issue was not the laws involved but how inflammable materials that did not comply with building regulations were put up in at least 120 tower blocks.

 

In particular, she pinpointed the 2005 regulatory reform (fire safety) order introduced under Blair’s government that shifted the responsibility for fire inspection from the fire brigade to the local council. She claimed it had “ended the practice of routine fire inspections”.

 

;-) .........

 

 

Oh Lordy ... That's awkward isn't it

 

Yep - especially since the responsibility fire inspection lies with the Royal Tory Borough who designed, built and approved Grenfell as well.

Lets see you blame Corbyn for that one *-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest pelmetman
John52 - 2018-05-31 3:32 PM

 

pelmetman - 2018-05-31 9:49 AM

Aaah so it's now the Royal Tory Boroughs fault that illegal immigrants have fleeced the taxpayer? 8-) .......

Whose fault is it illegal immigrants in the Royal Tory Borough have been ALLOWED to fleece the taxpayer *-)

 

Folk like Corbyn and you >:-) .........

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest pelmetman
John52 - 2018-05-31 3:36 PM

 

Yep - especially since the responsibility fire inspection lies with the Royal Tory Borough who designed, built and approved Grenfell as well.

Lets see you blame Corbyn for that one *-)

 

So was it designed and built differently to those built by Labour councils? :-| .........

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...