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
userJohn52
Posted: 17 June 2017 9:08 PM
Subject: RE: Grenfell Tower
 


Lord of the posts

Posts: 7254
500020001001002525
Location: No Fixed Abode


nowtelse2do - 2017-06-17 8:55 PM

PJay - 2017-06-17 3:13 PM

nowtelse2do - 2017-06-16 6:28 PM

I know there are a lot of questions to be asked. My first question would be, " what the hell was in the fridge to enable an explosion that could blow the door off"?

Dave


A bomb Maybe? He helped the fire to spread by leaving his door open and not containing the fire
PJay


I doubt it Pauline. The chap has been here about 20yr I believe. There is some type of gas in a fridge that is flammable, but how much gas I've no idea. There's also a compressor so a fault in that could be a factor.

Dave


A spark from thermostat contacts could ignite gas if there was a leak elsewhere.
userJohn52
Posted: 17 June 2017 9:25 PM
Subject: RE: Grenfell Tower
 


Lord of the posts

Posts: 7254
500020001001002525
Location: No Fixed Abode


Brian Kirby - 2017-06-17 5:47 PM

The police are now saying the number of suspected dead and missing is 58, and expected to rise. Whatever their status or origins, these were people. To read some of the comments in this string, one could imagine they might have been rodents. Humanity seems in short supply in some quarters, with this catastrophic failure being used to promote some posters' pet political and ethnic prejudices.

This fire should not have been possible. Each flat is supposed to be a fire compartment that, under normal circumstances of a domestic fire, will retain its integrity so that the fire cannot spread. That is the reason people are advised to stay put while the fire brigade extinguishes the fire. Mass evacuation of the estimated 400-600 inhabitants would lose valuable time, as the staircase would be choked by the evacuees, preventing the fire brigade from gaining access.

There is a procedure for approving the form of construction, the materials used, the way pipes and cables pass from one fire compartment to another, the position and specification of doors, both inside flats and on escape routes, to ensure that these standards are observed, and the work is inspected as it progresses. Occupation can only take place when all approvals have been granted and the finished work certified completed to standard.

This fire did not appear to spread internally, but by breaking out of a window of the flat first affected, and then igniting thermal insulation that had been applied to the exterior of the building.

At 24 storeys, the building will have been a little over 200 feet tall. So, you now have 200+ feet of vertical insulation enveloping the building. It is clear from the pictures that the fire ran up the exterior, so will have broken in to upper floors through windows, either open or shattered by the heat.

My experience of fire regulations in London is that no combustible material may be used on the exterior of a building, even to the extend of insisting that timber battens could not be used to attach metal cladding, and that non-combustible battens must be substituted. National Building Regulations also ban the use of combustible materials in or on the external walls of residential buildings in multiple occupation, for exactly the reason that fire could then spread vertically from floor to floor.

Unless someone has catastrophically relaxed the regulations over the past few years, and I'm unaware that they have, that fire should not have been possible. That it did occur, and that it spread up the building so fast, points to an error of almost unimaginable proportions somewhere in the design, approval, installation, inspection, or certification process.

It is there, and not which politician went walkabout first, or which party had a majority in the council or government at the time, that the answers will be found. The nature of the design, the procedure for approval, the adherence to specification, the inspection regime, and the certification for occupation are all documented, and all those involved at each stage all have copies of drawings, specifications, and contracts.

Because of the high loss of life there will be a criminal investigation, and documents will be combed to establish who authorised what, and on what conditions. The lower floors of the building still have apparently undamaged cladding in place. Those will be examined to verify that what was used was what had been specified. I would imagine tests will be set up at the Fire Research Station to replicate, and observe, how the materials behave in fire, and whether the materials themselves behave as they were supposed to.

When all the facts are known it seems to me likely that prosecution, possibly prosecutions, will follow. Whether those will be of individuals or companies, or both, will have to await the outcomes of the various investigations now proceeding. Only then will we know what went wrong, and why.

It seems to me basic decency to await the facts, rather than continue using a human tragedy on this scale to score petty political points on an internet forum primarily dedicated to motorhoming. Is it just me?



Thatcher shifted the onus on fire prevention from the fire authority to the landlord.
Spending money on cheap combustible pretty cladding instead of fire sprinklers is not the decision of a fireman is it?
Thats the decision of a politician
userpelmetman
Posted: 17 June 2017 9:45 PM
Subject: RE: Grenfell Tower
 


Walks with the gods

Posts: 31927
500050005000500050005000100050010010010010025
Location: Brexit On Sea. 1990 Ford Travelhome.


John52 - 2017-06-17 9:25 PM

Thatcher shifted the onus on fire prevention from the fire authority to the landlord.
Spending money on cheap combustible pretty cladding instead of fire sprinklers is not the decision of a fireman is it?
Thats the decision of a politician


Remind me John?........For how many years after Thatcher were Labour in power? ........

More shameless loony lefty bullsh*t ......




Edited by pelmetman 2017-06-17 9:46 PM
userJohn52
Posted: 17 June 2017 10:21 PM
Subject: RE: Grenfell Tower
 


Lord of the posts

Posts: 7254
500020001001002525
Location: No Fixed Abode


pelmetman - 2017-06-17 9:45 PM
..For how many years after Thatcher were Labour in power? ........
[/QUOTE
Well none actually - that was 'New Labour
But thats beside the point
What part of my post do you disagree with. ...
Thatcher shifted the onus on fire prevention from the fire authority to the landlord.
Spending money on cheap combustible pretty cladding instead of fire sprinklers is not the decision of a fireman is it?
Thats the decision of a politician
userBrian Kirby
Posted: 17 June 2017 10:36 PM
Subject: RE: Grenfell Tower
 


50005000500020001000
Location: East Sussex. Motorhome: Knaus Boxstar 600 Street


John52 - 2017-06-17 9:25 PM................................
1 Thatcher shifted the onus on fire prevention from the fire authority to the landlord.
2 Spending money on cheap combustible pretty cladding instead of fire sprinklers is not the decision of a fireman is it?
3 Thats the decision of a politician

1 Not on any project I've even been involved in. If I said where's your evidence for that, what would you say?
2 According to statements made by the senior fire officer involved, as I understand him, yes, it still is. Sprinklers are not a panacea for safety, and have always been second preference to compartmentation. I wouldn't want to bet on which would have been the cheapest, the sprinklers or the cladding, but I'd be a mite surprised if either would prove much different in cost to the other.
3 Well who actually made that decision? Do you know?
userBrian Kirby
Posted: 17 June 2017 10:42 PM
Subject: RE: Grenfell Tower
 


50005000500020001000
Location: East Sussex. Motorhome: Knaus Boxstar 600 Street


nowtelse2do - 2017-06-16 6:28 PM

I know there are a lot of questions to be asked. My first question would be, " what the hell was in the fridge to enable an explosion that could blow the door off"?

Dave

How about a can of drink? Pressure rises with temperature, so a boiling can of fizz (fire in kitchen) would be liable to burst. Pressure bursts have considerable force. Not suggesting, just speculating.
userJohn52
Posted: 17 June 2017 10:46 PM
Subject: RE: Grenfell Tower
 


Lord of the posts

Posts: 7254
500020001001002525
Location: No Fixed Abode


Brian Kirby - 2017-06-17 10:36 PM

John52 - 2017-06-17 9:25 PM................................
1 Thatcher shifted the onus on fire prevention from the fire authority to the landlord.
2 Spending money on cheap combustible pretty cladding instead of fire sprinklers is not the decision of a fireman is it?
3 Thats the decision of a politician

1 Not on any project I've even been involved in. If I said where's your evidence for that, what would you say?
2 According to statements made by the senior fire officer involved, as I understand him, yes, it still is. Sprinklers are not a panacea for safety, and have always been second preference to compartmentation. I wouldn't want to bet on which would have been the cheapest, the sprinklers or the cladding, but I'd be a mite surprised if either would prove much different in cost to the other.
3 Well who actually made that decision? Do you know?


I read it recently about Thatcher moving fire inspection responsibilities from the Fire Brigade I think in the FT and will try and find it again
The link I posted earlier compares the cost of sprinklers and cladding http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-40290158
userJohn52
Posted: 18 June 2017 7:13 AM
Subject: RE: Grenfell Tower
 


Lord of the posts

Posts: 7254
500020001001002525
Location: No Fixed Abode


Brian Kirby - 2017-06-17 10:36 PM
Well who actually made that decision? (to spend the money on flammable pretty cladding instead of fire sprinklers) Do you know?

No - but I can't believe it was a fireman.
userantony1969
Posted: 18 June 2017 9:55 AM
Subject: RE: Grenfell Tower
 


The special one

Posts: 10906
50005000500100100100100
Location: Sunny Huddersfield


£500 per week per unit in Grenfell ... Wonder who paid most of those rents at £25.000 a year ... Suppose its the same in many of Londons tower blocks ... The tax payer pays a lot out for little or no return

Edited by antony1969 2017-06-18 10:00 AM
userBrian Kirby
Posted: 18 June 2017 11:29 AM
Subject: RE: Grenfell Tower
 


50005000500020001000
Location: East Sussex. Motorhome: Knaus Boxstar 600 Street


John52 - 2017-06-17 10:46 PM.......................I read it recently about Thatcher moving fire inspection responsibilities from the Fire Brigade I think in the FT and will try and find it again

Thanks.

The link I posted earlier compares the cost of sprinklers and cladding http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-40290158

Yes but using figures from the BASFA (a trade association whose function is to promote the installation of sprinklers - plus the Beeb used 2012 figures from a BASFA report without adjusting for 2017 prices!)! Nevertheless, the conclusion was that installation of sprinklers would have been a lot cheaper (£K128) than the cladding job (£M2.6), so that hardly supports the idea that this was a cheapo solution.

But, the reason for installing the cladding doesn't seem to have been fire protection, it seems it was because they were upgrading the heating systems in the flats and, under current Building Regulations, they needed to also upgrade the thermal insulation of the building to gain approval for that work. That would have been the reason for upgrading the windows (double glazed etc.) and for the addition of external insulation (installing internal insulation would, presumably, have been impractical), so the cladding would presumably have been added to provide impact and weather protection to the insulation. The product used is manufactured by a French subsidiary of Alcoa, and is (apparently) Reynobond. Looking at the spec, it certainly won't have been cheap.

So, the questions really comedown to whether the correct grade of Reynobond was approved (there appear to be 3, one that has no designated fire performance, one that is classed fire retardant, and one that is classed fire resistant), whether the approved grade was actually fitted, whether the insulation fitted behind the cladding panels was properly approved, and whether the approved material was actually fitted, and if not in any of these cases, why? One is looking for error, incompetence, or possibly, fraud. Interesting mix, no?
userBrian Kirby
Posted: 18 June 2017 11:41 AM
Subject: RE: Grenfell Tower
 


50005000500020001000
Location: East Sussex. Motorhome: Knaus Boxstar 600 Street


John52 - 2017-06-18 7:13 AM

Brian Kirby - 2017-06-17 10:36 PM
Well who actually made that decision? (to spend the money on flammable pretty cladding instead of fire sprinklers) Do you know?

No - but I can't believe it was a fireman.

It wouldn't have been, but the person who approved it's use should have been a fire officer.
userBrian Kirby
Posted: 18 June 2017 11:45 AM
Subject: RE: Grenfell Tower
 


50005000500020001000
Location: East Sussex. Motorhome: Knaus Boxstar 600 Street


antony1969 - 2017-06-18 9:55 AM

£500 per week per unit in Grenfell ... Wonder who paid most of those rents at £25.000 a year ... Suppose its the same in many of Londons tower blocks ... The tax payer pays a lot out for little or no return

Try as I might, Antony, I can't see what relevance that has to the fire.
userBulletguy
Posted: 18 June 2017 12:07 PM
Subject: RE: Grenfell Tower
 


The special one

Posts: 13719
5000500020001000500100100
Location: Cheshire


John52 - 2017-06-17 10:46 PM

Brian Kirby - 2017-06-17 10:36 PM

John52 - 2017-06-17 9:25 PM................................
1 Thatcher shifted the onus on fire prevention from the fire authority to the landlord.
2 Spending money on cheap combustible pretty cladding instead of fire sprinklers is not the decision of a fireman is it?
3 Thats the decision of a politician

1 Not on any project I've even been involved in. If I said where's your evidence for that, what would you say?
2 According to statements made by the senior fire officer involved, as I understand him, yes, it still is. Sprinklers are not a panacea for safety, and have always been second preference to compartmentation. I wouldn't want to bet on which would have been the cheapest, the sprinklers or the cladding, but I'd be a mite surprised if either would prove much different in cost to the other.
3 Well who actually made that decision? Do you know?


I read it recently about Thatcher moving fire inspection responsibilities from the Fire Brigade I think in the FT and will try and find it again
The link I posted earlier compares the cost of sprinklers and cladding http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-40290158

Apart from the known extreme divisions in the London wealth gap, this bit in that linked article stood out to me.

The International Fire Sprinkler Association (IFSA) says that automatic fire sprinkler systems are the single most effective fire protection measure available, and are able to make up for a wide range of other fire protection deficiencies.

There has never been a multiple loss of life from a fire developing in a building protected by a properly designed, installed and maintained fire sprinkler system. While fire sprinkler systems have been required in new high-rise residential buildings in England since 2007, it is not compulsory to retrofit them into existing buildings. So Grenfell Tower had none.


From it's build history Grenfell Tower seems to be yet another 'modern day' slum which should have been condemned years ago, but we continue to hold on to these shoddy relics The same can be said for new build estates....tiny little boxes with folk living cheek by jowl. It's just a modern version of 1930's terraced property though possibly poorer built.

UK has masses open land but the only way to realise just how much is taking a flight on one of those rare cloudless blue sky days. Estates are clumped together like wagon trains from the wild west, then absolutely nothing but open land for mile after mile.....until the next estate appears.
userantony1969
Posted: 18 June 2017 12:30 PM
Subject: RE: Grenfell Tower
 


The special one

Posts: 10906
50005000500100100100100
Location: Sunny Huddersfield


Brian Kirby - 2017-06-18 11:45 AM

antony1969 - 2017-06-18 9:55 AM

£500 per week per unit in Grenfell ... Wonder who paid most of those rents at £25.000 a year ... Suppose its the same in many of Londons tower blocks ... The tax payer pays a lot out for little or no return

Try as I might, Antony, I can't see what relevance that has to the fire.


The same relevance that's been thrown about by the wets regarding the rich and poor of London ... if living rent free to the tune of 25 grand a year in a 10 million quid renovation block is poor then I don't how to describe my poor departed old grandparents lot in life
userBulletguy
Posted: 18 June 2017 1:11 PM
Subject: RE: Grenfell Tower
 


The special one

Posts: 13719
5000500020001000500100100
Location: Cheshire


antony1969 - 2017-06-18 12:30 PM

Brian Kirby - 2017-06-18 11:45 AM

antony1969 - 2017-06-18 9:55 AM

£500 per week per unit in Grenfell ... Wonder who paid most of those rents at £25.000 a year ... Suppose its the same in many of Londons tower blocks ... The tax payer pays a lot out for little or no return

Try as I might, Antony, I can't see what relevance that has to the fire.


The same relevance that's been thrown about by the wets regarding the rich and poor of London ... if living rent free to the tune of 25 grand a year in a 10 million quid renovation block is poor then I don't how to describe my poor departed old grandparents lot in life

£10 million 'renovation' is the sort of money people like Rinat Akhmetov or John Caudwell would spend on new light fittings for their apartment at One Hyde Park.

Whether "living rent free to the tune of 25 grand a year" or not (do you have statistics to support that claim?) does not excuse lax and unsafe housing. This was a preventable accident just waiting to happen and concerns had been raised before......but they were deemed "trouble makers" and ignored.

Well, they are dead now.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/grenfell-tower-fire-london-dead-legal-action-campaign-fire-safety-mariem-elgwahry-nadia-choucair-a7795586.html
userantony1969
Posted: 18 June 2017 1:22 PM
Subject: RE: Grenfell Tower
 


The special one

Posts: 10906
50005000500100100100100
Location: Sunny Huddersfield


Bulletguy - 2017-06-18 1:11 PM

antony1969 - 2017-06-18 12:30 PM

Brian Kirby - 2017-06-18 11:45 AM

antony1969 - 2017-06-18 9:55 AM

£500 per week per unit in Grenfell ... Wonder who paid most of those rents at £25.000 a year ... Suppose its the same in many of Londons tower blocks ... The tax payer pays a lot out for little or no return

Try as I might, Antony, I can't see what relevance that has to the fire.


The same relevance that's been thrown about by the wets regarding the rich and poor of London ... if living rent free to the tune of 25 grand a year in a 10 million quid renovation block is poor then I don't how to describe my poor departed old grandparents lot in life

£10 million 'renovation' is the sort of money people like Rinat Akhmetov or John Caudwell would spend on new light fittings for their apartment at One Hyde Park.

Whether "living rent free to the tune of 25 grand a year" or not (do you have statistics to support that claim?) does not excuse lax and unsafe housing. This was a preventable accident just waiting to happen and concerns had been raised before......but they were deemed "trouble makers" and ignored.

Well, they are dead now.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/grenfell-tower-fire-london-dead-legal-action-campaign-fire-safety-mariem-elgwahry-nadia-choucair-a7795586.html


Did I say it did excuse unsafe housing ??? ... Time will tell if it was unsafe won't it so why don't you let the law do its job and hopefully provide answers rather than second guessing ... £10 million on new light fittings ( do you have statistics to support that claim ? ) ... Here we go ... https://twitter.com/Third_Position/status/875874732222107648 ... It was cos they is black init ... Or like a Muslim woman said on the Beeb it was whites retaliating against Muslim terror acts who set it on fire ... Or like another black fella said it was the rich folks fault who live across the road cos they made the council put on cheap cladding cos they didn't want to look at a horrible building ... Oh dear

Edited by antony1969 2017-06-18 1:27 PM
userBop
Posted: 18 June 2017 1:58 PM
Subject: RE: Grenfell Tower
 
A posting machine

Posts: 388
100100100252525
Location: Durham - MY19 H-Line Globecar


There was a very interesting article on Radio-4 yesterday in which a few of the phone-in guests highlighted the various tendering processes for council-related projects (UK-wide) and how they were fundamentally flawed.

Some of the points highlighted were:

1. Council groups did not have the necessary skilled staff to define the correct specification of tenders during the initial scoping process to potential contractors.

2. Council projects were largely self-supervised by the contractor due to a lack of knowledge and lack of suitably qualified supervisors in the various council departments.

3. The Scope Of Work for a contract would often be redefined by the council after the chosen tender had been evaluated and subsequently awarded to said contractor.

4. The contractor would be asked to make savings during the execution phase of the project.

5. The contractor would need to employ a dynamic strategy to help it stay within budget.

6. It was mentioned that the financial margins (by contractors) for some council projects were only 2% gross of the total contract value which gave no room for error but did give ample opportunity for bits to be left out; i.e. Like the wall-ties problem, or lack of them, in the recent Scottish Governments' School Projects.

The are many other points that could be added in terms of council and contractor deficiencies so I'm convinced there are hundreds of problems out there still waiting to happen.
userBarryd999
Posted: 18 June 2017 3:08 PM
Subject: RE: Grenfell Tower
 


Legendary contributor

Posts: 8341
50002000100010010010025
Location: North Yorkshire Dales - Kontiki 640 Hank the Tank


As was mentioned earlier, There should be a full inquest not just a government led inquiry. There are several petitions calling for this. Here is one. https://www.change.org/p/this-government-must-carry-out-a-fully-transparent-investigation-into-the-grenfell-tragedy-allowing-for-meaningful-participation-of-the-residents-their-families-and-the-surrounding-community-their-voices-must-be-heard

As for the place being unsafe or not. As well as the two girls above who were silenced. Have a read of this by the Grenfell Action Group from November. Chilling reading. https://grenfellactiongroup.wordpress.com/2016/11/20/kctmo-playing-with-fire/

And theres more. https://grenfellactiongroup.wordpress.com/

This could topple the Government. Not that they will need much help in that department anyway shortly.
userBulletguy
Posted: 18 June 2017 3:16 PM
Subject: RE: Grenfell Tower
 


The special one

Posts: 13719
5000500020001000500100100
Location: Cheshire


antony1969 - 2017-06-18 1:22 PM

Bulletguy - 2017-06-18 1:11 PM

antony1969 - 2017-06-18 12:30 PM

Brian Kirby - 2017-06-18 11:45 AM

antony1969 - 2017-06-18 9:55 AM

£500 per week per unit in Grenfell ... Wonder who paid most of those rents at £25.000 a year ... Suppose its the same in many of Londons tower blocks ... The tax payer pays a lot out for little or no return

Try as I might, Antony, I can't see what relevance that has to the fire.


The same relevance that's been thrown about by the wets regarding the rich and poor of London ... if living rent free to the tune of 25 grand a year in a 10 million quid renovation block is poor then I don't how to describe my poor departed old grandparents lot in life

£10 million 'renovation' is the sort of money people like Rinat Akhmetov or John Caudwell would spend on new light fittings for their apartment at One Hyde Park.

Whether "living rent free to the tune of 25 grand a year" or not (do you have statistics to support that claim?) does not excuse lax and unsafe housing. This was a preventable accident just waiting to happen and concerns had been raised before......but they were deemed "trouble makers" and ignored.

Well, they are dead now.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/grenfell-tower-fire-london-dead-legal-action-campaign-fire-safety-mariem-elgwahry-nadia-choucair-a7795586.html


Did I say it did excuse unsafe housing ??? ...

Maybe you should phrase your postings better as you appear to believe people should be grateful for "living rent free to the tune of 25 grand a year in a 10 million quid renovation block". I've no idea at all where you draw this sort of misinformation from.....no doubt some extremist alt-right blog.



Yes "oh dear" indeed. You couldn't have picked a worse example to post than that though you seem to spend your life dwelling among those sort of sites. Third Positionists go back to the Nazi days and Night of the Long Knives.........neofascists in today's terms. Metzger, US white supremacist and former KKK leader is an advocate of Third Positionism which he promotes in his rag paper WAR (White Aryan Resistance).

Edited by Bulletguy 2017-06-18 3:16 PM
userBulletguy
Posted: 18 June 2017 5:15 PM
Subject: RE: Grenfell Tower
 


The special one

Posts: 13719
5000500020001000500100100
Location: Cheshire


Barryd999 - 2017-06-18 3:08 PM

As was mentioned earlier, There should be a full inquest not just a government led inquiry. There are several petitions calling for this. Here is one. https://www.change.org/p/this-government-must-carry-out-a-fully-transparent-investigation-into-the-grenfell-tragedy-allowing-for-meaningful-participation-of-the-residents-their-families-and-the-surrounding-community-their-voices-must-be-heard

As for the place being unsafe or not. As well as the two girls above who were silenced. Have a read of this by the Grenfell Action Group from November. Chilling reading. https://grenfellactiongroup.wordpress.com/2016/11/20/kctmo-playing-with-fire/

And theres more. https://grenfellactiongroup.wordpress.com/

This could topple the Government. Not that they will need much help in that department anyway shortly.

Chilling reading indeed and mention of reported electrical power surges, dodgy wiring and uncollected rubbish left piled up reminded me of the "Towering Inferno" movie scenes where Paul Newman (architect) first discovers his specified wiring had been replaced for a cheaper but less safe alternative. Later he and McQueen (fire chief) discover building rubble and set concrete blocking a fire door. All dramatic stuff of course, but very real.

Where i used to work we once suffered a serious explosion in one of the powder rooms (small secured building where one single canister was mounted to feed powder to machines for 'live' round loading). The roof was totally blown off and the large heavy double bolted blast door ripped off and discovered almost 150mtr away. Fortunately nobody was working in the area that night though normally it would have been running. Fatalities would have been a certainty. I was working in the block next door and felt an earth tremor, then heard this weird roaring sound. It was an experience i will never forget.

Certainly KCTMO and the Tory led Borough Council have some extremely serious issues to account for and it will prove interesting to see how they respond. Apparently some of the flats were privately owned.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/grenfell-tower-fire-latest-jeremy-corbyn-attacks-kensington-council-lack-of-resources-a7795656.html
userBrian Kirby
Posted: 18 June 2017 6:08 PM
Subject: RE: Grenfell Tower
 


50005000500020001000
Location: East Sussex. Motorhome: Knaus Boxstar 600 Street


Bulletguy - 2017-06-18 12:07 PM

John52 - 2017-06-17 10:46 PM

Brian Kirby - 2017-06-17 10:36 PM

John52 - 2017-06-17 9:25 PM................................
1 Thatcher shifted the onus on fire prevention from the fire authority to the landlord.
2 Spending money on cheap combustible pretty cladding instead of fire sprinklers is not the decision of a fireman is it?
3 Thats the decision of a politician

1 Not on any project I've even been involved in. If I said where's your evidence for that, what would you say?
2 According to statements made by the senior fire officer involved, as I understand him, yes, it still is. Sprinklers are not a panacea for safety, and have always been second preference to compartmentation. I wouldn't want to bet on which would have been the cheapest, the sprinklers or the cladding, but I'd be a mite surprised if either would prove much different in cost to the other.
3 Well who actually made that decision? Do you know?


I read it recently about Thatcher moving fire inspection responsibilities from the Fire Brigade I think in the FT and will try and find it again
The link I posted earlier compares the cost of sprinklers and cladding http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-40290158

Apart from the known extreme divisions in the London wealth gap, this bit in that linked article stood out to me.

The International Fire Sprinkler Association (IFSA) says that automatic fire sprinkler systems are the single most effective fire protection measure available, and are able to make up for a wide range of other fire protection deficiencies.

There has never been a multiple loss of life from a fire developing in a building protected by a properly designed, installed and maintained fire sprinkler system. While fire sprinkler systems have been required in new high-rise residential buildings in England since 2007, it is not compulsory to retrofit them into existing buildings. So Grenfell Tower had none.


From it's build history Grenfell Tower seems to be yet another 'modern day' slum which should have been condemned years ago, but we continue to hold on to these shoddy relics The same can be said for new build estates....tiny little boxes with folk living cheek by jowl. It's just a modern version of 1930's terraced property though possibly poorer built.

UK has masses open land but the only way to realise just how much is taking a flight on one of those rare cloudless blue sky days. Estates are clumped together like wagon trains from the wild west, then absolutely nothing but open land for mile after mile.....until the next estate appears.

So, where, in a country that is not even self-sufficient in milk, would you put the cows?
userBrian Kirby
Posted: 18 June 2017 6:09 PM
Subject: RE: Grenfell Tower
 


50005000500020001000
Location: East Sussex. Motorhome: Knaus Boxstar 600 Street


antony1969 - 2017-06-18 12:30 PM

Brian Kirby - 2017-06-18 11:45 AM

antony1969 - 2017-06-18 9:55 AM

£500 per week per unit in Grenfell ... Wonder who paid most of those rents at £25.000 a year ... Suppose its the same in many of Londons tower blocks ... The tax payer pays a lot out for little or no return

Try as I might, Antony, I can't see what relevance that has to the fire.


The same relevance that's been thrown about by the wets regarding the rich and poor of London ... if living rent free to the tune of 25 grand a year in a 10 million quid renovation block is poor then I don't how to describe my poor departed old grandparents lot in life

But the fire?
userBrian Kirby
Posted: 18 June 2017 6:19 PM
Subject: RE: Grenfell Tower
 


50005000500020001000
Location: East Sussex. Motorhome: Knaus Boxstar 600 Street


Bop - 2017-06-18 1:58 PM

There was a very interesting article on Radio-4 yesterday in which a few of the phone-in guests highlighted the various tendering processes for council-related projects (UK-wide) and how they were fundamentally flawed.

Some of the points highlighted were:

1. Council groups did not have the necessary skilled staff to define the correct specification of tenders during the initial scoping process to potential contractors.

2. Council projects were largely self-supervised by the contractor due to a lack of knowledge and lack of suitably qualified supervisors in the various council departments.

3. The Scope Of Work for a contract would often be redefined by the council after the chosen tender had been evaluated and subsequently awarded to said contractor.

4. The contractor would be asked to make savings during the execution phase of the project.

5. The contractor would need to employ a dynamic strategy to help it stay within budget.

6. It was mentioned that the financial margins (by contractors) for some council projects were only 2% gross of the total contract value which gave no room for error but did give ample opportunity for bits to be left out; i.e. Like the wall-ties problem, or lack of them, in the recent Scottish Governments' School Projects.

The are many other points that could be added in terms of council and contractor deficiencies so I'm convinced there are hundreds of problems out there still waiting to happen.

Interesting, but there are plenty of professionally trained and competent consultancies available around the country to fill those skill deficiencies, so why don't the councils employ them when their own resources are inadequate? After all, almost all councils used to have their own in-house construction professionals, but almost all such departments have now been closed down. Why is that?
userantony1969
Posted: 18 June 2017 6:49 PM
Subject: RE: Grenfell Tower
 


The special one

Posts: 10906
50005000500100100100100
Location: Sunny Huddersfield


Bulletguy - 2017-06-18 3:16 PM

antony1969 - 2017-06-18 1:22 PM

Bulletguy - 2017-06-18 1:11 PM

antony1969 - 2017-06-18 12:30 PM

Brian Kirby - 2017-06-18 11:45 AM

antony1969 - 2017-06-18 9:55 AM

£500 per week per unit in Grenfell ... Wonder who paid most of those rents at £25.000 a year ... Suppose its the same in many of Londons tower blocks ... The tax payer pays a lot out for little or no return

Try as I might, Antony, I can't see what relevance that has to the fire.


The same relevance that's been thrown about by the wets regarding the rich and poor of London ... if living rent free to the tune of 25 grand a year in a 10 million quid renovation block is poor then I don't how to describe my poor departed old grandparents lot in life

£10 million 'renovation' is the sort of money people like Rinat Akhmetov or John Caudwell would spend on new light fittings for their apartment at One Hyde Park.

Whether "living rent free to the tune of 25 grand a year" or not (do you have statistics to support that claim?) does not excuse lax and unsafe housing. This was a preventable accident just waiting to happen and concerns had been raised before......but they were deemed "trouble makers" and ignored.

Well, they are dead now.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/grenfell-tower-fire-london-dead-legal-action-campaign-fire-safety-mariem-elgwahry-nadia-choucair-a7795586.html


Did I say it did excuse unsafe housing ??? ...

Maybe you should phrase your postings better as you appear to believe people should be grateful for "living rent free to the tune of 25 grand a year in a 10 million quid renovation block". I've no idea at all where you draw this sort of misinformation from.....no doubt some extremist alt-right blog.



Yes "oh dear" indeed. You couldn't have picked a worse example to post than that though you seem to spend your life dwelling among those sort of sites. Third Positionists go back to the Nazi days and Night of the Long Knives.........neofascists in today's terms. Metzger, US white supremacist and former KKK leader is an advocate of Third Positionism which he promotes in his rag paper WAR (White Aryan Resistance).


People should be damn grateful to live rent free in such a place and even more so considering the countries some of those living in the block originally came from ... How does the site where the video came from effect what was coming out of the black fellas mush ??? ... White fella blacked up trying to cause problems probably eh ???
userantony1969
Posted: 18 June 2017 6:51 PM
Subject: RE: Grenfell Tower
 


The special one

Posts: 10906
50005000500100100100100
Location: Sunny Huddersfield


Brian Kirby - 2017-06-18 6:09 PM

antony1969 - 2017-06-18 12:30 PM

Brian Kirby - 2017-06-18 11:45 AM

antony1969 - 2017-06-18 9:55 AM

£500 per week per unit in Grenfell ... Wonder who paid most of those rents at £25.000 a year ... Suppose its the same in many of Londons tower blocks ... The tax payer pays a lot out for little or no return

Try as I might, Antony, I can't see what relevance that has to the fire.


The same relevance that's been thrown about by the wets regarding the rich and poor of London ... if living rent free to the tune of 25 grand a year in a 10 million quid renovation block is poor then I don't how to describe my poor departed old grandparents lot in life

But the fire?


Its out Brian though the left may be using it to start another
userJohn52
Posted: 18 June 2017 7:14 PM
Subject: RE: Grenfell Tower
 


Lord of the posts

Posts: 7254
500020001001002525
Location: No Fixed Abode


antony1969 - 2017-06-18 6:49 PM
People should be damn grateful to live rent free in such a place?

But they don't see any of the money spent on their rent. That goes to somone else. All they get is a fire trap slave box.
Kensington & Chelsea Council is ultimately responsible for Grenfell Tower, and they have been Tory since 1964 - before it even got on to the drawing board.
So how can we say anything about it without you accusing us of scoring left wing political points?
userJohn52
Posted: 18 June 2017 7:17 PM
Subject: RE: Grenfell Tower
 


Lord of the posts

Posts: 7254
500020001001002525
Location: No Fixed Abode


Brian Kirby - 2017-06-18 6:08 PM

Bulletguy - 2017-06-18 12:07 PM

John52 - 2017-06-17 10:46 PM

Brian Kirby - 2017-06-17 10:36 PM

John52 - 2017-06-17 9:25 PM................................
1 Thatcher shifted the onus on fire prevention from the fire authority to the landlord.
2 Spending money on cheap combustible pretty cladding instead of fire sprinklers is not the decision of a fireman is it?
3 Thats the decision of a politician

1 Not on any project I've even been involved in. If I said where's your evidence for that, what would you say?
2 According to statements made by the senior fire officer involved, as I understand him, yes, it still is. Sprinklers are not a panacea for safety, and have always been second preference to compartmentation. I wouldn't want to bet on which would have been the cheapest, the sprinklers or the cladding, but I'd be a mite surprised if either would prove much different in cost to the other.
3 Well who actually made that decision? Do you know?


I read it recently about Thatcher moving fire inspection responsibilities from the Fire Brigade I think in the FT and will try and find it again
The link I posted earlier compares the cost of sprinklers and cladding http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-40290158

Apart from the known extreme divisions in the London wealth gap, this bit in that linked article stood out to me.

The International Fire Sprinkler Association (IFSA) says that automatic fire sprinkler systems are the single most effective fire protection measure available, and are able to make up for a wide range of other fire protection deficiencies.

There has never been a multiple loss of life from a fire developing in a building protected by a properly designed, installed and maintained fire sprinkler system. While fire sprinkler systems have been required in new high-rise residential buildings in England since 2007, it is not compulsory to retrofit them into existing buildings. So Grenfell Tower had none.


From it's build history Grenfell Tower seems to be yet another 'modern day' slum which should have been condemned years ago, but we continue to hold on to these shoddy relics The same can be said for new build estates....tiny little boxes with folk living cheek by jowl. It's just a modern version of 1930's terraced property though possibly poorer built.

UK has masses open land but the only way to realise just how much is taking a flight on one of those rare cloudless blue sky days. Estates are clumped together like wagon trains from the wild west, then absolutely nothing but open land for mile after mile.....until the next estate appears.

So, where, in a country that is not even self-sufficient in milk, would you put the cows?


Wouldn't easing the housing crisis be worth importing a little more of our food?
userJohn52
Posted: 18 June 2017 7:23 PM
Subject: RE: Grenfell Tower
 


Lord of the posts

Posts: 7254
500020001001002525
Location: No Fixed Abode


Brian Kirby - 2017-06-18 11:41 AM

John52 - 2017-06-18 7:13 AM

Brian Kirby - 2017-06-17 10:36 PM
Well who actually made that decision? (to spend the money on flammable pretty cladding instead of fire sprinklers) Do you know?

No - but I can't believe it was a fireman.

It wouldn't have been, but the person who approved it's use should have been a fire officer.


Unfortunately not had time to find where I read it yet. But I recall it saying the inspection time of such a block had been cut from 6 hours to half an hour by leaving most of it to the landlord.
We've had 30 years of cutting 'red tape' like safety regulations, amid far-fetched stories in the billionaire press about 'Elf & Safety Gone Mad'
Also said the cladding on Grenfell Tower is banned in Germany
userantony1969
Posted: 18 June 2017 7:31 PM
Subject: RE: Grenfell Tower
 


The special one

Posts: 10906
50005000500100100100100
Location: Sunny Huddersfield


John52 - 2017-06-18 7:14 PM

antony1969 - 2017-06-18 6:49 PM
People should be damn grateful to live rent free in such a place?

But they don't see any of the money spent on their rent. That goes to somone else. All they get is a fire trap slave box.
Kensington & Chelsea Council is ultimately responsible for Grenfell Tower, and they have been Tory since 1964 - before it even got on to the drawing board.
So how can we say anything about it without you accusing us of scoring left wing political points?


When I had a mortgage I didn't see any of that so what's your point ... they are provided with free , yes free accommodation probably without paying much into the system or ever paid anything in ... The rent is paid to the landlord directly on their behalf as they'd probably spend it on necessary things like phones and cigs otherwise
userBulletguy
Posted: 18 June 2017 7:31 PM
Subject: RE: Grenfell Tower
 


The special one

Posts: 13719
5000500020001000500100100
Location: Cheshire


antony1969 - 2017-06-18 6:49 PM

People should be damn grateful to live rent free in such a place and even more so considering the countries some of those living in the block originally came from ...

You keep banging on about "25 grand a year rent free living" but you've provided absolutely no evidence to substantiate this wild assumption. How many of the residents were employed......or are you just going to hazzard a guess at that too?

And tell me Antony.....why are you so concerned about where the victims "originally came from" who have died in such a horrific fire? Where and how is a persons country of origin relevant to this tragedy? Maybe some were refugees fleeing war torn countries, maybe some were white British.......does that really matter? Is there some kind of preferential status in Antony World?

How does the site where the video came from effect what was coming out of the black fellas mush ??? ... White fella blacked up trying to cause problems probably eh ???

I explained the ideology behind Third Positionism which was where that Twitter post originated from. If you believe neofascism is the way forward.....then sadly you are more extreme right than i ever thought.
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