You are logged in as a guest. 
  Home Forums Home  Search our Forums Search our Forums    Log in to the Forums Log in to the Forums  register Register on the Forums  

 Forums ->  General Chat -> Chatterbox
Format:  Go
Grenfell Tower
AuthorMessage
userantony1969
Posted: 29 November 2018 6:36 AM
Subject: RE: Grenfell Tower
 


The special one

Posts: 10906
50005000500100100100100
Location: Sunny Huddersfield


Bulletguy - 2018-11-28 8:52 PM

Brian Kirby - 2018-11-28 6:25 PM

antony1969 - 2018-11-28 5:40 PM

So many Cockneys willing to make money out of death ... https://news.sky.com/story/the-fraudsters-who-took-advantage-of-grenfell-11559444 ... Those ruddy Cockneys ... Weird names though

However appalling those people may be Antony - and they are totally appalling - Cockneys they are not. That is a gross slur on the Cockneys who are, in general, honest, hard working, people, who merely happen to inhabit a particular part of London. Grenfell is in west London, the Cockneys inhabit the east, north of the Thames, traditionally within the sound of Bow Bells (the bells of the church of St Mary le Bow. So, should we take your knowledge of Cockneys to be equivalent to your knowledge of immigrants?

It's on a par with his 'knowledge' of the 'indigenous' Yorkshire folks!


I have a fair amount of knowledge on "Yorkshire folks!" ... Not as much as you though , you hunt out their home addresses dont ya
userBrian Kirby
Posted: 29 November 2018 10:54 AM
Subject: RE: Grenfell Tower
 


500050005000200050025
Location: East Sussex. Motorhome: Knaus Boxstar 600 Street


antony1969 - 2018-11-28 6:34 PM..................Not at all Brian ... I was of course taking the wizz to see which of our resident Grenfelllites would bite ... Rather surprised its you

Why? I have tried to maintain a factual, and neutral, approach to the Grenfell Tower fire from the outset. It is in that connection that I took issue with you for seeking to blame Cockneys for the disgraceful acts of fraud you instanced. None of those people were, or could be supposed to be, Cockneys.
userantony1969
Posted: 29 November 2018 11:47 AM
Subject: RE: Grenfell Tower
 


The special one

Posts: 10906
50005000500100100100100
Location: Sunny Huddersfield


Brian Kirby - 2018-11-29 10:54 AM

antony1969 - 2018-11-28 6:34 PM..................Not at all Brian ... I was of course taking the wizz to see which of our resident Grenfelllites would bite ... Rather surprised its you

Why? I have tried to maintain a factual, and neutral, approach to the Grenfell Tower fire from the outset. It is in that connection that I took issue with you for seeking to blame Cockneys for the disgraceful acts of fraud you instanced. None of those people were, or could be supposed to be, Cockneys.


I did say I was surprised it was you rather than a couple of others ... I would like to say your Grenfell comments have always been non political unless to justify a valid point which can't be said to their shame for a couple of others who claim to care ... As for what makes a Cockney I would say if asked a lot of folk would just say Londoners in general wether that's wrong as you've explained , a simple mistake ... It's a bit like one of our members mistaking Huddersfield for a city rather than the town it is ... One thing we can agree on though is those fraudsters are the face of the new London Cockneys or not
userBulletguy
Posted: 29 November 2018 1:29 PM
Subject: RE: Grenfell Tower
 


The special one

Posts: 13192
5000500020001000100252525
Location: Cheshire


antony1969 - 2018-11-29 11:47 AM

Brian Kirby - 2018-11-29 10:54 AM

antony1969 - 2018-11-28 6:34 PM..................Not at all Brian ... I was of course taking the wizz to see which of our resident Grenfelllites would bite ... Rather surprised its you

Why? I have tried to maintain a factual, and neutral, approach to the Grenfell Tower fire from the outset. It is in that connection that I took issue with you for seeking to blame Cockneys for the disgraceful acts of fraud you instanced. None of those people were, or could be supposed to be, Cockneys.


I did say I was surprised it was you rather than a couple of others ... I would like to say your Grenfell comments have always been non political unless to justify a valid point which can't be said to their shame for a couple of others who claim to care ... As for what makes a Cockney I would say if asked a lot of folk would just say Londoners in general wether that's wrong as you've explained , a simple mistake ... It's a bit like one of our members mistaking Huddersfield for a city rather than the town it is ... One thing we can agree on though is those fraudsters are the face of the new London Cockneys or not

Stop squirming like a little worm. You got rightly called out.
userBrian Kirby
Posted: 29 November 2018 2:47 PM
Subject: RE: Grenfell Tower
 


500050005000200050025
Location: East Sussex. Motorhome: Knaus Boxstar 600 Street


antony1969 - 2018-11-29 11:47 AM

Brian Kirby - 2018-11-29 10:54 AM

antony1969 - 2018-11-28 6:34 PM..................Not at all Brian ... I was of course taking the wizz to see which of our resident Grenfelllites would bite ... Rather surprised its you

Why? I have tried to maintain a factual, and neutral, approach to the Grenfell Tower fire from the outset. It is in that connection that I took issue with you for seeking to blame Cockneys for the disgraceful acts of fraud you instanced. None of those people were, or could be supposed to be, Cockneys.


I did say I was surprised it was you rather than a couple of others ... I would like to say your Grenfell comments have always been non political unless to justify a valid point which can't be said to their shame for a couple of others who claim to care ... As for what makes a Cockney I would say if asked a lot of folk would just say Londoners in general wether that's wrong as you've explained , a simple mistake ... It's a bit like one of our members mistaking Huddersfield for a city rather than the town it is ... One thing we can agree on though is those fraudsters are the face of the new London Cockneys or not

Diamond geezer! I'm just off down the frog to see one of me old chinas, then back to me pope, open the Rory, kiss the trouble, and up the apples to uncle ned! You'll get there! :-)

Edited by Brian Kirby 2018-11-29 2:48 PM
userantony1969
Posted: 29 November 2018 7:06 PM
Subject: RE: Grenfell Tower
 


The special one

Posts: 10906
50005000500100100100100
Location: Sunny Huddersfield


Brian Kirby - 2018-11-29 2:47 PM

antony1969 - 2018-11-29 11:47 AM

Brian Kirby - 2018-11-29 10:54 AM

antony1969 - 2018-11-28 6:34 PM..................Not at all Brian ... I was of course taking the wizz to see which of our resident Grenfelllites would bite ... Rather surprised its you

Why? I have tried to maintain a factual, and neutral, approach to the Grenfell Tower fire from the outset. It is in that connection that I took issue with you for seeking to blame Cockneys for the disgraceful acts of fraud you instanced. None of those people were, or could be supposed to be, Cockneys.


I did say I was surprised it was you rather than a couple of others ... I would like to say your Grenfell comments have always been non political unless to justify a valid point which can't be said to their shame for a couple of others who claim to care ... As for what makes a Cockney I would say if asked a lot of folk would just say Londoners in general wether that's wrong as you've explained , a simple mistake ... It's a bit like one of our members mistaking Huddersfield for a city rather than the town it is ... One thing we can agree on though is those fraudsters are the face of the new London Cockneys or not

Diamond geezer! I'm just off down the frog to see one of me old chinas, then back to me pope, open the Rory, kiss the trouble, and up the apples to uncle ned! You'll get there!


... Pretty soon though that Cockney slang will be brown bread
userantony1969
Posted: 12 December 2018 7:03 PM
Subject: RE: Grenfell Tower
 


The special one

Posts: 10906
50005000500100100100100
Location: Sunny Huddersfield


Oh no not another Cockney (Londoner) ... https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6487101/Father-five-claimed-sister-nephew-died-Grenfell-fire-secure-35-000-payout.html ... Lordy how many Londoners now is that who've tried swizzing £££s from the deaths of fellow Londoners ... Nice folk these new Londoners
userJohn52
Posted: 12 December 2018 8:45 PM
Subject: RE: Grenfell Tower
 


Lord of the posts

Posts: 6586
50001000500252525
Location: Pissindoon, Scotland


antony1969 - 2018-12-12 7:03 PM

Oh no not another Cockney (Londoner) ... https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6487101/Father-five-claimed-sister-nephew-died-Grenfell-fire-secure-35-000-payout.html ... Lordy how many Londoners now is that who've tried swizzing £££s from the deaths of fellow Londoners ... Nice folk these new Londoners

Lets have it right.
Daily Mail wrongly states money came from the Royal Tory Borough
In fact its money that Theresa May took from poorer boroughs to give to said Britain's Richest Borough so we would have to pay compensation for their reckless negligence
Then they used our money to pay out 6 figure claims without so much as bothering to check their own records to see whether the flat even existed

Edited by John52 2018-12-12 8:47 PM
userantony1969
Posted: 13 December 2018 6:27 AM
Subject: RE: Grenfell Tower
 


The special one

Posts: 10906
50005000500100100100100
Location: Sunny Huddersfield


John52 - 2018-12-12 8:45 PM

antony1969 - 2018-12-12 7:03 PM

Oh no not another Cockney (Londoner) ... https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6487101/Father-five-claimed-sister-nephew-died-Grenfell-fire-secure-35-000-payout.html ... Lordy how many Londoners now is that who've tried swizzing £££s from the deaths of fellow Londoners ... Nice folk these new Londoners

Lets have it right.
Daily Mail wrongly states money came from the Royal Tory Borough
In fact its money that Theresa May took from poorer boroughs to give to said Britain's Richest Borough so we would have to pay compensation for their reckless negligence
Then they used our money to pay out 6 figure claims without so much as bothering to check their own records to see whether the flat even existed


Mrs Mays fault then that Londoner Abolaji Onafuye stole on the back of other similar Londoners deaths
userJohn52
Posted: 13 December 2018 9:08 PM
Subject: RE: Grenfell Tower
 


Lord of the posts

Posts: 6586
50001000500252525
Location: Pissindoon, Scotland


antony1969 - 2018-12-13 6:27 AM
Mrs Mays fault then that Londoner Abolaji Onafuye stole on the back of other similar Londoners deaths


Does the Royal Tory Borough bear any responsibility for handing out 6 figure sums of poorer borough's money without even bothering to check their own records so see whether the claimed for flat even existed?
userantony1969
Posted: 14 December 2018 6:21 AM
Subject: RE: Grenfell Tower
 


The special one

Posts: 10906
50005000500100100100100
Location: Sunny Huddersfield


John52 - 2018-12-13 9:08 PM

antony1969 - 2018-12-13 6:27 AM
Mrs Mays fault then that Londoner Abolaji Onafuye stole on the back of other similar Londoners deaths


Does the Royal Tory Borough bear any responsibility for handing out 6 figure sums of poorer borough's money without even bothering to check their own records so see whether the claimed for flat even existed?


None
userantony1969
Posted: 19 December 2018 6:27 PM
Subject: RE: Grenfell Tower
 


The special one

Posts: 10906
50005000500100100100100
Location: Sunny Huddersfield


Oh no ... Please ... Not more Londoners robbing off the back of the dead ... https://news.sky.com/story/woman-jailed-for-three-years-over-fraudulent-grenfell-and-terror-attack-insurance-claims-11586118 ... When will it end with these new Londoners
userpelmetman
Posted: 19 December 2018 6:44 PM
Subject: RE: Grenfell Tower
 


Walks with the gods

Posts: 30905
500050005000500050005000500100100100100
Location: Brexit On Sea. 1990 Ford Travelhome.


antony1969 - 2018-12-19 6:27 PM

Oh no ... Please ... Not more Londoners robbing off the back of the dead ... https://news.sky.com/story/woman-jailed-for-three-years-over-fraudulent-grenfell-and-terror-attack-insurance-claims-11586118 ... When will it end with these new Londoners


I wonder how long it'll be before Peter/John52/etc victims .......

Actually out number the victims? .......



userantony1969
Posted: 19 December 2018 6:55 PM
Subject: RE: Grenfell Tower
 


The special one

Posts: 10906
50005000500100100100100
Location: Sunny Huddersfield


pelmetman - 2018-12-19 6:44 PM

antony1969 - 2018-12-19 6:27 PM

Oh no ... Please ... Not more Londoners robbing off the back of the dead ... https://news.sky.com/story/woman-jailed-for-three-years-over-fraudulent-grenfell-and-terror-attack-insurance-claims-11586118 ... When will it end with these new Londoners


I wonder how long it'll be before Peter/John52/etc victims .......

Actually out number the victims? .......





Well tha's a lot of em init ... Dont know if we missed Londoner Mr Abolaji Onafuye but seems he got sentenced t"other day ... Look after one another them new Londoners do ... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-46608283
userBulletguy
Posted: 16 January 2020 8:22 PM
Subject: RE: Grenfell Tower
 


The special one

Posts: 13192
5000500020001000100252525
Location: Cheshire



Boris Johnson appointed a key figure to the Grenfell Tower inquiry who has links to the company which made the cladding blamed for accelerating the fatal fire, the Guardian can reveal.

Last month, the prime minister picked Benita Mehra, an engineer, to assist Sir Martin Moore-Bick, a retired judge who is leading the inquiry into the disaster that claimed 72 lives. Mehra previously ran an organisation that received a £71,000 grant from the charitable arm of Arconic, the US conglomerate that made the aluminium composite cladding panels used on Grenfell.

Survivors and the bereaved said the grant created a clear conflict of interest and described Mehra’s appointment as “a slap in the face” for their hopes of justice.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jan/16/benita-mehra-grenfell-inquiry-boris-johnson-appoints-engineer-with-links-to-cladding-firm

According to this she will be a decision-making panel member.

http://www.government-world.com/name-of-grenfell-tower-inquiry-panel-member-announced-23-december-2019/
userBrian Kirby
Posted: 17 January 2020 12:53 PM
Subject: RE: Grenfell Tower
 


500050005000200050025
Location: East Sussex. Motorhome: Knaus Boxstar 600 Street


But, her field is electrical engineering - she is a member of the IET. She is not appropriately qualified, so her choice seems odd. I'm sure she is clever, and quick on the uptake, so may be able to bring an unbiased and clear mind to the enquiry that perhaps more appropriately qualified people might lack.

I'm more than a little sceptical about this enquiry at present and fear that it may head down the same rabbit hole that the Leveson enquiry fell into. People talk of whitewashes. I seem to be seeing middens. Those huge wasteheaps that adjoined all human settlements up to the age of organised waste disposal, of which it used to be said that if one wanted to commit the perfect murder one had only to dispose of the corpse into the local midden - where it would quickly decompose to conceal all evidence of the crime.

Leveson produced a five volume report, each volume being in the region of 600 pages long, to total in the region of 3,000 pages - within which there is a detailed record of the way in which the public were being fed exaggerated and distorted reportage of perfectly sensible studies and policies that did not suit the political agendas of its editors' or proprietors' political preferences. That information is buried in a few pages of one volume, and is not fully apparent unless one searches out the actual evidence submitted at the national archives.

I see the Grenfell enquiry heading the same way.

Consider. A flat in a high-rise block catches fire. This has happened on numerous previous occasions, in various high-rise blocks around the country, and in all but a very small number of cases, the fire was extinguished with no loss of life (and even where life was lost, it was most likely to be the unfortunate occupant of the flat who perished).

At Grenfell, exceptionally, the fire broke out of the flat and travelled across the exterior of the building, breaking into other flats successively until the whole block was engulfed. The consequence we all know. The obvious question is what was different about Grenfell that allowed this fire to spread so quickly and lethally?

The answer is that in the case of Grenfell, the exterior of the building had been over-clad with a combustible mix of insulation and cladding material.

So, how could the installation of the cladding have been permitted? There is a (IMO) perfectly clear regulation that says

"External Fire Spread

B4. (1) The external walls of the building shall adequately 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 requirement, demonstrably, was not met. The reason was that the cladding and insulation in combination, instead of "adequately resisting", facilitated, the "spread of fire over the walls". All the enquiry has to establish is how the use of that cladding could have been permitted in the face of so clear a requirement.

Instead of following the approval procedure (most probably carried out by an "approved inspector") from application to approval, including the supervision of the work on site, it has gone off on a long examination of the London Fire Brigade (in the process unfairly, IMO, singling out one senior fire officer for criticism), investigating the behaviour of the Tenant Management Association, and taking hours of evidence from justifiably aggrieved relatives of the dead and occupants who escaped, none of which will cast the slightest light onto the central issue - why was that flammable cladding approved in contravention of the regulation?

It seems to me a classic case "of when you're up to your arse (sorry Antiony, I merely quote others! ) in alligators, it is sometimes difficult to remember that the job was to drain the swamp!

Knowingly or unknowingly, it seems to me that Moore-Bick (as Leveson) is constructing a midden of words in which the identities of the true culprits will be buried.

I strongly suspect that is because the finger will eventually point at some ill-judged regulatory relaxation in the types of materials that are "deemed" to meet the requirement, leaving the government as the stand-out culprit, and so liable for all that flows from that responsibility - including compensating those directly and indirectly affected, plus the cost of replacing all similar cladding where inappropriately used elsewhere, plus perhaps, at the extreme, the need to pay for constructing a replacement of Grenfell tower for R B Kensington and Chelsea. That will be quite a bill, all for making ill-informed changes to well tried and tested regulations in order to pursue the dogma driven political desire for a "bonfire of the regulations"!

I hope not, as the lesson needs to be learned, but I'm not holding my breath!
usercolin
Posted: 17 January 2020 3:49 PM
Subject: RE: Grenfell Tower
 


Legendary contributor

Posts: 8050
5000200010002525
Location: Bedfordshire, Globecar 636SB


https://www.insidehousing.co.uk/news/news/the-paper-trail-the-failure-of-building-regulations-55445
userJohn52
Posted: 17 January 2020 4:07 PM
Subject: RE: Grenfell Tower
 


Lord of the posts

Posts: 6586
50001000500252525
Location: Pissindoon, Scotland


The Tory Government already gave its verdict when Theresa May sent the Tory Council £250 million taken from poorer boroughs to pay the compensation.
And the Tory council showed their continued recklessness by handing out 6 figure sums to scammers without even checking the Council flats they claimed to live in even existed.
userBulletguy
Posted: 17 January 2020 4:32 PM
Subject: RE: Grenfell Tower
 


The special one

Posts: 13192
5000500020001000100252525
Location: Cheshire


Brian Kirby - 2020-01-17 12:53 PM

But, her field is electrical engineering - she is a member of the IET. She is not appropriately qualified, so her choice seems odd. I'm sure she is clever, and quick on the uptake, so may be able to bring an unbiased and clear mind to the enquiry that perhaps more appropriately qualified people might lack.

I'm more than a little sceptical about this enquiry at present and fear that it may head down the same rabbit hole that the Leveson enquiry fell into. People talk of whitewashes. I seem to be seeing middens. Those huge wasteheaps that adjoined all human settlements up to the age of organised waste disposal, of which it used to be said that if one wanted to commit the perfect murder one had only to dispose of the corpse into the local midden - where it would quickly decompose to conceal all evidence of the crime.

Instead of following the approval procedure (most probably carried out by an "approved inspector") from application to approval, including the supervision of the work on site, it has gone off on a long examination of the London Fire Brigade (in the process unfairly, IMO, singling out one senior fire officer for criticism), investigating the behaviour of the Tenant Management Association, and taking hours of evidence from justifiably aggrieved relatives of the dead and occupants who escaped, none of which will cast the slightest light onto the central issue - why was that flammable cladding approved in contravention of the regulation?

It seems to me a classic case "of when you're up to your arse (sorry Antiony, I merely quote others! ) in alligators, it is sometimes difficult to remember that the job was to drain the swamp!

Knowingly or unknowingly, it seems to me that Moore-Bick (as Leveson) is constructing a midden of words in which the identities of the true culprits will be buried.

I strongly suspect that is because the finger will eventually point at some ill-judged regulatory relaxation in the types of materials that are "deemed" to meet the requirement, leaving the government as the stand-out culprit, and so liable for all that flows from that responsibility - including compensating those directly and indirectly affected, plus the cost of replacing all similar cladding where inappropriately used elsewhere, plus perhaps, at the extreme, the need to pay for constructing a replacement of Grenfell tower for R B Kensington and Chelsea. That will be quite a bill, all for making ill-informed changes to well tried and tested regulations in order to pursue the dogma driven political desire for a "bonfire of the regulations"!

I hope not, as the lesson needs to be learned, but I'm not holding my breath!

Every reason to be sceptical. Prior to be being on the panel she was Director of Strategic Assets at the London Ambulance Service and also responsible for the runaways at Heathrow airport and their fleet of fire tenders. How does any of that qualify her as a 'decision-making' panel member re Grenfell.....not to mention the obvious conflict of interest?

It seems Mehra is Johnsons choice;

https://tinyurl.com/tsegbeu

https://tinyurl.com/sgt3ygh
userBulletguy
Posted: 17 January 2020 4:38 PM
Subject: RE: Grenfell Tower
 


The special one

Posts: 13192
5000500020001000100252525
Location: Cheshire



Interesting link Colin.

Since the mid-1980s, English building regulations have been based on what is known as a ‘performance-based’ system. This means that rather than setting out prescriptive rules or lists of banned materials, the regulations outline broad outcomes which buildings must achieve. It is then, theoretically, up to the industry to decide how to meet these standards.

This change, introduced by Margaret Thatcher's government in 1985, swept away 306 pages of building regulations and replaced them with just 24.


Three hundred and six pages of regulations 'binned'.....replaced with just 24!
userBrian Kirby
Posted: 18 January 2020 1:52 PM
Subject: RE: Grenfell Tower
 


500050005000200050025
Location: East Sussex. Motorhome: Knaus Boxstar 600 Street



Thanks for the link, Colin. Very interesting, and extraordinary work on the part of Inside Housing. They have poured a lot of resource into their investigations of Grenfell. It just frustrates me that we don't seem to see the same application to detail by the government - who we pay to do it.
userBulletguy
Posted: 18 January 2020 2:32 PM
Subject: RE: Grenfell Tower
 


The special one

Posts: 13192
5000500020001000100252525
Location: Cheshire



Families and friends of the Hillsborough victims have backed calls for Boris Johnson to cancel his appointment of Benita Mehra to the Grenfell inquiry.

“The families have a right to say we are not accepting this.” said Aspinall, (chair of the Hillsborough family support group), warning of the danger of a repeat of the decades-long search for truth endured by the families of 96 Liverpool fans who died in a crush at a 1989 FA Cup semi-final.

“How can we get to the truth when there is someone on the panel with this association? I would hate for them to go through what we had to go through, but it looks like it is going to happen.”


https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jan/17/grenfell-johnson-urged-to-ditch-panelist-with-links-to-cladding-firm
userFunsterJohn
Posted: 18 January 2020 2:42 PM
Subject: RE: Grenfell Tower
 
50010025
Location: Cheshire and France


John52 - 2020-01-17 5:07 PM

The Tory Government already gave its verdict when Theresa May sent the Tory Council £250 million taken from poorer boroughs to pay the compensation.
And the Tory council showed their continued recklessness by handing out 6 figure sums to scammers without even checking the Council flats they claimed to live in even existed.


Will you please supply a link to information proving that the Tory government gave £250 million to Westminster and Chelsea Council and can you tell us which poorer boroughs had money taken from them and how much those boroughs lost?
userBrian Kirby
Posted: 18 January 2020 6:04 PM
Subject: RE: Grenfell Tower
 


500050005000200050025
Location: East Sussex. Motorhome: Knaus Boxstar 600 Street


FunsterJohn - 2020-01-18 2:42 PM

John52 - 2020-01-17 5:07 PM

The Tory Government already gave its verdict when Theresa May sent the Tory Council £250 million taken from poorer boroughs to pay the compensation.
And the Tory council showed their continued recklessness by handing out 6 figure sums to scammers without even checking the Council flats they claimed to live in even existed.


Will you please supply a link to information proving that the Tory government gave £250 million to Westminster and Chelsea Council and can you tell us which poorer boroughs had money taken from them and how much those boroughs lost?

May I enter a plea for John to please ignore the above. Otherwise all we'll get is an unending stream of party political ping-pong, as in so many other strings, which merely gets in the way of posts relevant to the subject of the string.
userBulletguy
Posted: 19 January 2020 2:08 PM
Subject: RE: Grenfell Tower
 


The special one

Posts: 13192
5000500020001000100252525
Location: Cheshire



A useful link here to the Inquiry. As Phase 1 has been completed there are lots of pdf files there....Phase 2 simply sets out the planned schedule.

https://www.grenfelltowerinquiry.org.uk/
userBulletguy
Posted: 25 January 2020 9:02 PM
Subject: RE: Grenfell Tower
 


The special one

Posts: 13192
5000500020001000100252525
Location: Cheshire



The right decision.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51252297
userBrian Kirby
Posted: 26 January 2020 5:43 PM
Subject: RE: Grenfell Tower
 


500050005000200050025
Location: East Sussex. Motorhome: Knaus Boxstar 600 Street


Bulletguy - 2020-01-17 4:38 PM


Interesting link Colin.

Since the mid-1980s, English building regulations have been based on what is known as a ‘performance-based’ system. This means that rather than setting out prescriptive rules or lists of banned materials, the regulations outline broad outcomes which buildings must achieve. It is then, theoretically, up to the industry to decide how to meet these standards.

This change, introduced by Margaret Thatcher's government in 1985, swept away 306 pages of building regulations and replaced them with just 24.


Three hundred and six pages of regulations 'binned'.....replaced with just 24!

Unfortunately, the above quote gives a somewhat over-simplified impression of what happened. Technically, it is correct, but the Documents usually referred to as the Building Regulations are these; http://tinyurl.com/ug3wb5d properly known as the Approved Documents and, as will be seen by following the link, they extend to many more than 306 pages.

The regulations express the legal requirement, and are set out in the Building Act 1984. They are, as stated, performance requirements and the Approved Documents (issued as Statutory Instruments under the Act) then present pre-determined ways to meet the legal requirements (compliance with which is intended to secure approval), while leaving open the option to present alternative solutions - on condition that any alternative proposed is fully tested by an appropriate accredited test institute.

The problem that has arisen, as so well documented by the Inside Housing article, is not in the number of pages lost or gained, but in the changes and relaxations that have been introduced to the classification of materials that are deemed compliant, as well as confusion over what is meant by the technical terms used to describe various ways of specifying different aspects of fire resistance.

For example "surface spread of flame" which refers to fire travelling over a surface without actually consuming the material itself - such as a flammable wall covering applied over plasterboard - where the plasterboard is not itself "burned" but the wall covering acts as a vector for the fire to travel to other parts of a building. So it is necessary to stipulate not only the inherent resistance of the plasterboard (and its underlying support system) to the passage of fire through it (usually expressed in terms of time, i.e. "one hour's fire resistance") but also the capacity of any material covering the plasterboard to facilitate the travel of a fire across it (usually expressed as complying with one of four numeric standards that denote the distance per minute at which a fire spreads over the surface).

There is also a problem over the substitution of "desk studies" for actual tests of proposed forms of construction to determine suitability under the Regulations.

This would all be OK if the specifiers and the approval authorities all understand exactly what is required. However, whereas all approvals had originally to be given by the relevant Local Authority Building Control Department, first the concept of "self certification" for contractors (who had to have been accepted onto a government scheme as "Competent Persons" - usually single trades such as electricians, gas fitters, window fitters etc) was introduced, but later added to by "Approved Inspectors" who are private companies authorised by government to give Building Regulations approval in lieu of Building Control Departments. I have been unable to find out what formal qualification, if any, is required to be admitted to the CICA register of Approved Inspectors.

The flaw, IMO, in all these schemes, is that being private businesses they are in competition with each other for the business of giving approval, which carries the danger that in pursuit of further business the practitioners will be tempted to adopt "cooperative" attitudes to granting approval. I suspect any such business that gains a reputation for being exacting in what they approval will dine on very thin gruel indeed! Thus, I suspect, we begat Grenfell. So does Lord Gary Porter CBE, Conservative peer and head of the Local Government Association.
userBulletguy
Posted: 27 January 2020 2:52 PM
Subject: RE: Grenfell Tower
 


The special one

Posts: 13192
5000500020001000100252525
Location: Cheshire



Phase 2 of the inquiry opened today with the cladding manufacturer Arconic stating they 'knew in 2011 they were “not suitable for use on building facades” and performed worse in fire tests than declared on safety certificates,' but “its representative was pleased when its product was selected”.

The packed inquiry room in Paddington heard from Richard Millett QC, the counsel to the inquiry, that almost all the organisations responsible for refurbishing Grenfell Tower were refusing to accept any responsibility for the disaster. They had, he complained, engaged in “a merry-go-round of buck-passing”.

Millett revealed the architect, contractors, cladding manufacturer and others had made statements to the inquiry about their role in the disastrous refurbishment which contain “no trace of any acceptance of any responsibility for what happened at Grenfell Tower”.

“Not from the architects, the contract managers, the main contractor, the specialist cladding subcontractors, the fire safety engineers or the TMO,” Millett said, adding that in every case “it was someone else’s fault”.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jan/27/grenfell-tower-inquiry-companies-passing-the-buck-on-responsibility
userBrian Kirby
Posted: 27 January 2020 5:40 PM
Subject: RE: Grenfell Tower
 


500050005000200050025
Location: East Sussex. Motorhome: Knaus Boxstar 600 Street


That is broadly what I would expect at this stage. No-one is going to concede liability in the public enquiry when there are likely to be criminal proceedings over who was actually responsible for what. To do so would be to put their own head in the noose. Also, each participant will have their own PII, and will almost certainly have been instructed by their insurer not to concede anything if they wish to maintain their cover. Ultimately, I think the finger will point at whoever gave the proposal approval, and possibly through them at whoever provided the assurances that the materials specified were compliant, and how.

The actual liability will have to be determined by the courts, probably as a result of a series of different cases testing how conclusions as to suitability were arrived at. Anyone saying the wrong thing at this stage will prejudice their defence in those future cases. The two most likely guilty parties will be the organisation that gave the proposals approval under Building Regulations, or the Fire Engineers who presumably conducted a "desk study" on the use of the cladding system materials to be able to conclude that in combination they complied with the requirements of the Regulations.

It is usual where professionals are employed that the people employing them rely on their advice as to what is safe and legal. Otherwise, why employ them? The legal outcomes are likely to turn on what claims those professionals have made as to their particular expertise in order to obtain their engagement on the project, and on how assertive they were in their conclusion that the proposed materials complied.

But, RBKC will be liable to carry at least some of the liability because they are a public body which, I assume, will be presumed competent (as an employer of Building Control Officers) to know whether what was proposed by those it engaged was, in fact, compliant. In that position, they cannot pretend innocence. They will also be presumed competent to assess the suitability of those they engaged to carry out the work.

Much will depend on the terms of the contracts that were let, and whether Rydon, as contractor, had responsibility for more than delivering the project to someone else's designs and specifications at one end of the scale, or for undertaking the work on a "turn-key" basis assuming full responsibility for all design, specification, obtaining necessary approvals and execution at the other end of the scale.

It ain't gonna be quick! In fact, I wouldn't be entirely surprised if, due to the danger of participants incriminating themselves, they are advised on legal grounds to say nothing more, and the enquiry has to be suspended while the various individual cases are tried to determine legal liability.
userBulletguy
Posted: 28 January 2020 4:13 PM
Subject: RE: Grenfell Tower
 


The special one

Posts: 13192
5000500020001000100252525
Location: Cheshire


Brian Kirby - 2020-01-27 5:40 PM

That is broadly what I would expect at this stage. No-one is going to concede liability in the public enquiry when there are likely to be criminal proceedings over who was actually responsible for what. To do so would be to put their own head in the noose.

It ain't gonna be quick! In fact, I wouldn't be entirely surprised if, due to the danger of participants incriminating themselves, they are advised on legal grounds to say nothing more, and the enquiry has to be suspended while the various individual cases are tried to determine legal liability.

I realise this Brian and if Hillsborough is anything to go by, it will take years to settle and worse still those at fault walking away scot free. People have to be held to account. When they take these jobs on, often very highly rewarded, they must also realise a high level of responsibility comes with the job too? When something goes belly up you shouldn't expect to get away with playing the blame game looking for some lower down to throw under the bus. There's too much of this going on and Hillsborough was a prime example.

It will be interesting to see what the inquiry findings turn up with the RBKC. Also KCTMO as the landlord. Emails have now emerged showing how it was well known the cladding would fail in event of a fire and Celotex said its insulation was sold as combustible and its use was down to “a myriad of failings on behalf of the designers, contractors, consultants and building control inspectors”.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jan/28/grenfell-tower-refurbishers-knew-cladding-would-fail-inquiry-told
Printer friendly version
E-mail a link to this thread
Jump to forum :


(Delete all cookies set by this site)(Return to Homepage)

Any problems? Contact the administrator