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
Jump to page : FirstPrevious 1 2 3 4 5 6 NextLast
Format:  Go
Grenfell
AuthorMessage
userBirdbrain
Posted: 8 November 2019 5:06 PM
Subject: RE: Grenfell
 


Epic contributor

Posts: 1965
10005001001001001002525


A certain member from day one made Grenfell a political side-show ... One of his lap dogs screams now of an inquiry whitewash without a dot of evidence ... Not nice ... Not nice at all ... Regards
userJohn52
Posted: 8 November 2019 5:13 PM
Subject: RE: Grenfell
 


Lord of the posts

Posts: 5087
5000252525
Location: Pissindoon, Scotland


jumpstart - 2019-11-08 1:51 P

Thought we decided one couldn’t use the term “whitewash”.


Who is 'we'
userJohn52
Posted: 8 November 2019 5:19 PM
Subject: RE: Grenfell
 


Lord of the posts

Posts: 5087
5000252525
Location: Pissindoon, Scotland


Birdbrain - 2019-11-08 5:06 PM

A certain member from day one made Grenfell a political side-show ... One of his lap dogs screams now of an inquiry whitewash without a dot of evidence ... Not nice ... Not nice at all ... Regards


I ask again what evidence of the 'inquiry' can be produced before its published?
Oh & try reading the quote from Derbyshire Chief Fire & Rescue Officer
Thats 100 miles away from Grenfell, and he's retired, so who could be more independent?

'Politics is at the root of Grenfell,'
userBirdbrain
Posted: 8 November 2019 5:25 PM
Subject: RE: Grenfell
 


Epic contributor

Posts: 1965
10005001001001001002525


John52 - 2019-11-08 5:19 PM

Birdbrain - 2019-11-08 5:06 PM

A certain member from day one made Grenfell a political side-show ... One of his lap dogs screams now of an inquiry whitewash without a dot of evidence ... Not nice ... Not nice at all ... Regards


I ask again what evidence of the 'inquiry' can be produced before its published?
Oh & try reading the quote from Derbyshire Chief Fire & Rescue Officer
Thats 100 miles away from Grenfell, and he's retired, so who could be more independent?

'Politics is at the root of Grenfell,'


Why talk of a whitewash before its published then princess ??? What your other guff is about Christ knows
userBrian Kirby
Posted: 8 November 2019 5:49 PM
Subject: RE: Grenfell
 


5000500050001000500100100100
Location: East Sussex. Motorhome: Knaus Boxstar 600 Street


Fast Pat - 2019-11-08 4:57 PM

Below is a post from former chief fire officer from Derbyshire fire and rescue ( very good and highly respected chief)

Grenfell...

Who’d be a fire chief?
Who’d be a firefighter?

I’ve not read the Grenfell Inquiry yet. Something to look forward to next week...................................Who’d be a chief?
Who’d be a firefighter now?

I like this man, he speaks sense from knowledge, and he speaks well!

I agree with him that the removal of Fire Officers from the building regulations approval process was a big mistake, ditto the removal of their statutory periodic building inspections (unobstructed escapes, extinguishers in place and up to date, hoses and risers present, unobstructed and in working condition, etc.), that in many high rise residential buildings were also conducted. These guys know at first hand what the dangers are, and what stupid things are done by the innocent in the name of convenience. Those now carrying out such inspections are unlikely to have the required experience - unless they are also ex-Fire Officers.

He doesn't refer to the ways in which the fire performance of building materials have been re-classified, in some cases using terminology that, while technically accurate, can result in confusion over what it actually means. But maybe he was already a "former fire chief" by the time those changes were introduced.

So yes, "politics" (note, small "p") is at the root of the Grenfell fire but, ultimately, I suspect, it won't be any one party whose political instincts have led to this mess. The timescale spans the periods in office of both main parties and the coalition, so where relaxations have been introduced, piecemeal, over time, I doubt any party will emerge with their tin star shining bright - and that is what I've been tying to say.

On the face of it, looking at the actual regulation as I quoted it above, I find it very hard to understand the route by which flammable materials have apparently been approved for use on the outsides of approximately 400 tall buildings, spread across the UK, both private and public, under political administrations of all persuasions, in complete contravention of the legal requirement. So, what have I missed? That is what I'm hoping the final phase of the enquiry will tell me - in detail.
userBulletguy
Posted: 8 November 2019 6:02 PM
Subject: RE: Grenfell
 


The special one

Posts: 11432
50005000100010010010010025
Location: Cheshire. Ford Transit Autosleeper Duetto


Fast Pat - 2019-11-08 4:57 PM

Below is a post from former chief fire officer from Derbyshire fire and rescue ( very good and highly respected chief)

Grenfell...

Who’d be a fire chief?
Who’d be a firefighter?

I’ve not read the Grenfell Inquiry yet. Something to look forward to next week.

As a firefighter, you spend decades being told to follow procedures and training. They work, fires get put out, you get to go home safely.

You are told you did a good job, you are audited and the auditors tell you that you are competent and professional. It is reaffirming and reassuring.

Step outside those procedures and you fail your assessment, you are not competent. You don’t want to be there.

All these procedures are written to tackle fire in buildings built to a regulated standard.

The building is supposed to behave in a predictable way. Arm Chair enthusiasts would imagine that fire is not predictable. Well, you are wrong, it is a matter of scientific fact that fire develops and behaves predictably depending on the fuel, air and environment.

That is why firefighters can have standard operating procedures (SOPs) that for the most part work and do the job. If fire was unpredictable you could not have an SOP.

For decades building regs worked and we never suffered a Grenfell even in the 80 and 90s when there were 40% more fires than we have today.

Likelihood and severity, you’ve heard these banded around. In the nineties the likelihood was massive but it seems nowadays the severity has mushroomed as whole buildings are burning down on a regular basis.

If you ever drove through Salford in the 90s a single burnt-out flat was a common sight as you looked up at the high rise buildings. Like a broken tooth.

A fire put out using tried and tested procedure in a building designed to contain the fire to the flat of origin. Most people in the other flats wouldn’t even know that a fire had occurred until the morning after.

No common fire alarm, no mobile phones yet a successful outcome and no mass evacuation.

Why?

Because the buildings were not wrapped in flammable material allowing unchecked spread up the facade and ingress through windows.

Because the internal separation was solid and fire-resistant, because mostly the fire doors unless vandalised worked.

At this time the fire brigade was the responsible authority for fire legislation. We issued fire certificates and our word was law.

Admittedly we didn’t issue certs on domestic property but such was our regulatory power in other premises the local authority building control accepted that we knew what we were about and went with our recommendation

All that changed through deregulation at the end of the 90s. (The reform act of 2005 in fact). I was in fire protection at the time and I remember the old hands predicting a disaster.

It was like giving the kids the keys to the sweet shop. Building owners were now (2006) responsible for the fire safety standards in the same way a manager is responsible for health and safety at work. Some do it well, some do it badly, some do what they can afford and hope it’s enough.

Well, it’s not good enough and it is coming home to roost.

As a chief, you expect your firefighters to follow the policy and be competent, you have the dubious pleasure of being ultimately responsible for making sure that this is the case. It is a massive responsibility, you do your best. You audit the boys and girls to death. They are sick of being assessed. But they are safe, competent and they go home at the end of the shift.

Grenfell.

Imagine turning up at a building where everything has gone wrong the whole fire protection system had failed and the fire is spreading through what should be concrete fire-resistant rooms and up the outside beyond your capability to reach it.

You now need to tell 200 firefighters to forget everything they ever learned and do things completely outside of every procedure they have trained on. Things that could get them killed. It’s a miracle none were.

Every fibre in your body is screaming to do something new and evacuate whilst every professional brain cell is saying “are you mad” if you evacuate the people in the flats with no breathing apparatus they are doomed and it will be seen to have been your call.

Evacuating a burning building means taking people from what you understand to be a place of relative safety (or at least it should be if built right) and asking them to enter smoke-filled corridors and stairs knowing some won’t make it. We are talking about people of all ages and abilities here. Your mum, your grandad, your kids.

What would you do?
How brave are you now sitting in your armchair with the daily mail sword drawn about to slay the guilty?

Making life and death decisions outside of policy because a building had been let slide as a result of a succession of systematic governmental failure, safe in the knowledge that if you lose one firefighter or members of the public are found in stairwells dead you will be squarely in the frame of “going outside of procedure”.

Not so easy is it.

It is no surprise that candidates for chief fire officers jobs total one or two per position when advertised these days.

I stand with Dany Cotton and I stand with London Fire Brigade.

I look forward to part two of the report that looks at root cause including building regs and I sincerely hope the author does his job properly.

I hope everyone understands that firefighters turn up when everyone else’s risk assessment had gone wrong and are tasked with sorting out the mess.

We are not chefs, a missed instruction does not result in a ruined dish. We have to take what ingredients we have been given and bake a cake on the hoof whilst the kitchen is on fire and then have some armchair baker who may have watched his mum make a jam tart once tell us how well we have done.

Don’t get me started on sprinklers. I’ve been vocal, been on the telly, been sat in front of ministers with hard evidence to prove the case and been fobbed off.

Politics is at the root of Grenfell, I doubt any politician will be vilified in the way firefighters and chiefs have this week

Who’d be a chief?
Who’d be a firefighter now?

Thanks for posting that Pat....it's a brilliant read and he makes a lot of interesting points. I liked the bit about "buildings were not wrapped in flammable material allowing unchecked spread up the facade and ingress through windows." He also partly answers my questions by explaining where their word used to be law, it changed at the end of the 90's with deregulation thereby making building owners responsible for fire safety standards which seems a bit bonkers.
userBrian Kirby
Posted: 8 November 2019 6:30 PM
Subject: RE: Grenfell
 


5000500050001000500100100100
Location: East Sussex. Motorhome: Knaus Boxstar 600 Street


Bulletguy - 2019-11-08 3:53 PM.....................….I'm looking for accountability from the top down rather than the reverse which you yourself seem to be in agreement on given your final para.

Who initially chose the cladding (not just for Grenfell) and why that particular cladding? Who authorised the fitting of it.....local government or national?

The info i looked at is all in the Grenfell Action Group website which is huge with many links.

https://grenfellactiongroup.wordpress.com/2017/06/14/grenfell-tower-fire/


So am I Paul, but it seems we differ over where the top really is!

The Building Regulations are issued by government, along with the requirements for applying for, and granting approval for, building works in the UK.

Approvals can be given by local authority building control departments, by "competent persons" (private contractors who self-certify that their work complies with regulations - for example replacement windows installers) or, since 2000, by "approved inspectors" (usually private firms of surveyors who have registered, and been accepted as competent to grant approvals).

All these schemes and methods have been authorised by government, who set the rules under which they must be operated. So, for me, whereas it will be interesting to see who, actually, approved that non-compliant cladding, the real interest will be who authorised those persons to grant such approvals, or authorised the standards that allowed them to be used, and whoever that was is where I think "the top" resides.

At present, unless there has been a fraudulent and deliberate attempt to subvert the requirements of the regulations (not impossible), that seems to me to implicate government, and in particular a government minister in what is now DCLG. That is where the responsibility for the whole building regulations system lies and so, ultimately, where responsibility for its failures, as at Grenfell, must also lie.

Thanks for the link, but I couldn't find anything that pre-dated the fire.

Edited by Brian Kirby 2019-11-08 6:46 PM
userBulletguy
Posted: 8 November 2019 7:54 PM
Subject: RE: Grenfell
 


The special one

Posts: 11432
50005000100010010010010025
Location: Cheshire. Ford Transit Autosleeper Duetto


Brian Kirby - 2019-11-08 6:30 PM

Bulletguy - 2019-11-08 3:53 PM.....................….I'm looking for accountability from the top down rather than the reverse which you yourself seem to be in agreement on given your final para.

Who initially chose the cladding (not just for Grenfell) and why that particular cladding? Who authorised the fitting of it.....local government or national?

The info i looked at is all in the Grenfell Action Group website which is huge with many links.

https://grenfellactiongroup.wordpress.com/2017/06/14/grenfell-tower-fire/


So am I Paul, but it seems we differ over where the top really is!

The Building Regulations are issued by government, along with the requirements for applying for, and granting approval for, building works in the UK.

Approvals can be given by local authority building control departments, by "competent persons" (private contractors who self-certify that their work complies with regulations - for example replacement windows installers) or, since 2000, by "approved inspectors" (usually private firms of surveyors who have registered, and been accepted as competent to grant approvals).

All these schemes and methods have been authorised by government, who set the rules under which they must be operated. So, for me, whereas it will be interesting to see who, actually, approved that non-compliant cladding, the real interest will be who authorised those persons to grant such approvals, or authorised the standards that allowed them to be used, and whoever that was is where I think "the top" resides.

At present, unless there has been a fraudulent and deliberate attempt to subvert the requirements of the regulations (not impossible), that seems to me to implicate government, and in particular a government minister in what is now DCLG. That is where the responsibility for the whole building regulations system lies and so, ultimately, where responsibility for its failures, as at Grenfell, must also lie.

Thanks for the link, but I couldn't find anything that pre-dated the fire.

Where "the top" is has been partly answered by comments from the article Pat posted where the fire officer who wrote it explained how their word used to be law on all buildings but since deregulation the building owner is responsible for fire safety.

So, who made that decision to deregulate? We can use that as a start point if you like as "the top". It can only have come from central government as far as i'm aware, then implemented by the building owner....local government.

Next point on is who initially chose the cladding (not just for Grenfell) and why that particular cladding? Who authorised the fitting of it.....local government or national?

So we are gradually working our way down but in the right direction imo. I empathise with his sentiments over the LFB because as soon as i heard the initial reports i felt the criticism was totally unjustified to the point of them being scapegoated....which happens all too often in many other industries/professions when something goes badly wrong.

Re. the Grenfell Action Group, all the main links on the site pre-date the fire. They're clearly dated when first posted such as this one on March 14th 2017.....three months before the fire.

https://grenfellactiongroup.wordpress.com/2017/03/14/kctmo-feeling-the-heat/
userViolet1956
Posted: 8 November 2019 9:55 PM
Subject: RE: Grenfell
 


2000500100100252525


The Grenfell enquiry panel consists of a Judge, an architect and an academic said to have an international reputation in housing and participatory design and planning. Seems to me the panel could have benefit from an additional member with expertise in firefighting before it could issue a judgement that would have the confidence of the LFB. It also is unfortunate that the results of the enquiry begin with the publication of their findings in relation to the competence of people who had to risk their own lives responding to a situation they played no part in creating.
userJohn52
Posted: 9 November 2019 5:36 AM
Subject: RE: Grenfell
 


Lord of the posts

Posts: 5087
5000252525
Location: Pissindoon, Scotland


Birdbrain - 2019-11-08 5:25 PM


Why talk of a whitewash before its published then princess ???

Why ask her?
I would have told you if you asked me
userJohn52
Posted: 9 November 2019 5:40 AM
Subject: RE: Grenfell
 


Lord of the posts

Posts: 5087
5000252525
Location: Pissindoon, Scotland


Brian Kirby - 2019-11-08 6:30 PM
it will be interesting to see who, actually, approved that non-compliant cladding,

How long should it take to find that out?
And how long have we been waiting?
This is one of the reasons I smell whitewash
userpelmetman
Posted: 9 November 2019 8:24 AM
Subject: RE: Grenfell
 


Walks with the gods

Posts: 28709
5000500050005000500020001000500100100
Location: 1990 Ford Travelhome.Currently of no fixed abode..


John52 - 2019-11-09 5:40 AM

Brian Kirby - 2019-11-08 6:30 PM
it will be interesting to see who, actually, approved that non-compliant cladding,

How long should it take to find that out?
And how long have we been waiting?
This is one of the reasons I smell whitewash


Have you left one of your Poo bags open? .........

Coz I smell lefty bullsh*t ........

userBrian Kirby
Posted: 9 November 2019 5:20 PM
Subject: RE: Grenfell
 


5000500050001000500100100100
Location: East Sussex. Motorhome: Knaus Boxstar 600 Street


Bulletguy - 2019-11-08 7:54 PM....................
1 Where "the top" is has been partly answered by comments from the article Pat posted where the fire officer who wrote it explained how their word used to be law on all buildings but since deregulation the building owner is responsible for fire safety.

2 So, who made that decision to deregulate? We can use that as a start point if you like as "the top". It can only have come from central government as far as i'm aware, then implemented by the building owner....local government.

3 Next point on is who initially chose the cladding (not just for Grenfell) and why that particular cladding? Who authorised the fitting of it.....local government or national?

4 So we are gradually working our way down but in the right direction imo. I empathise with his sentiments over the LFB because as soon as i heard the initial reports i felt the criticism was totally unjustified to the point of them being scapegoated....which happens all too often in many other industries/professions when something goes badly wrong.

5 Re. the Grenfell Action Group, all the main links on the site pre-date the fire. They're clearly dated when first posted such as this one on March 14th 2017.....three months before the fire.

https://grenfellactiongroup.wordpress.com/2017/03/14/kctmo-feeling-the-heat/

1 I think "de-regulation" is too strong, Paul. The regulations were not withdrawn or watered down, it was just that the formal role of the fire brigades in approving applications under building regulations was withdrawn. I did not, and do not, think that was a good idea, precisely because the experience of the ex-fire fighters gave them insights into risks that others are less likely to foresee. It was not that their word was law - they couldn't make it up - just that they understood better than most the risks the regulations were intended to avert.

2 That decision (same caveat about de-regulate ) was made by the Secretary of State (probably the then Secretary of State for the Environment), under the 1984 Building Act.

3 Who chose? I don't know. Architects were initially involved, and proposed the use of cladding over external insulation as the best solution, but they don't seem to have been retained to arrange tenders and oversee the work. That seems to have gone to Rydon Homes, who are primarily a house builder, but I have no idea whether Rydon's contract with RBKC was to develop and construct (in which case they would have specified all materials as part of their work) or whether they were to execute to designs and specifications handed to them. Building Regs approval appears to have been part of Rydon's responsibility, which points to develop and construct. RBKC seem not to have granted approval ('though their building control officers made frequent visit to the site). So, that leaves an approved inspector as the most likely body. Unless, of course, some bright spark persuaded everyone that the installation of cladding did not constitute building work, so was not subject to Building Regs approval!

Why that cladding? It will have been decided on a balance of aesthetics, suitability, durability, functional adequacy and cost. But why that particular cladding? That has to be discovered. Especially why Reynobond PE was used instead of Reynobond FR. If FR had been approved and specified, an agreement to vary the contract to substitute PE would have been required from both the employer (RBKC) and the approval authority. This is the real question. How and why did flammable cladding (not forgetting the Celotex insulation - which stipulates in its technical literature that it has been fully tested as part of a cladding system that incorporated an incombustible rainscreen, and goes on to state that any variation to that design would require a full scale re-test. Seems that bit was missed as well.) Questions, questions!

4 Agreed.

5 Yes, I noticed that, but none of their complaints from before the fire seemed to question the proposed cladding system. They'd identified a number of valid issues, but not the central issue. This is not a criticism, I wouldn't expect them to have been able to do so. I'm just answering your point that the TMA identified the risk and, so far as I can see, they had not. Identified risks, yes, but not the risk.
userBrian Kirby
Posted: 9 November 2019 5:27 PM
Subject: RE: Grenfell
 


5000500050001000500100100100
Location: East Sussex. Motorhome: Knaus Boxstar 600 Street


John52 - 2019-11-09 5:40 AM

Brian Kirby - 2019-11-08 6:30 PM
it will be interesting to see who, actually, approved that non-compliant cladding,

How long should it take to find that out?
And how long have we been waiting?
This is one of the reasons I smell whitewash

You might think that, but I couldn't possibly comment! That is why I'm surprised that Moore-Bick focused on the events of the day first, leaving investigation of the records of the approvals procedure at risk (unless the police have lifted them all as evidence) to being, ahem, lost. It seems he bowed to the public outcry to let those directly affected have their say, which is understandable, but ultimately, I think, a mistake.
userBrian Kirby
Posted: 9 November 2019 5:44 PM
Subject: RE: Grenfell
 


5000500050001000500100100100
Location: East Sussex. Motorhome: Knaus Boxstar 600 Street


Violet1956 - 2019-11-08 9:55 PM

The Grenfell enquiry panel consists of a Judge, an architect and an academic said to have an international reputation in housing and participatory design and planning. Seems to me the panel could have benefit from an additional member with expertise in firefighting before it could issue a judgement that would have the confidence of the LFB. It also is unfortunate that the results of the enquiry begin with the publication of their findings in relation to the competence of people who had to risk their own lives responding to a situation they played no part in creating.

Agreed. The expert witnesses are looking at all the relevant aspects of the fire, and how the materials came to be used and, from their credentials, are well qualified to do so. I think we'll get there.

It has to be appreciated that firemen are trained to work in teams, and that they must have confidence that buildings they enter are constructed and maintained in accordance with the regulations, and so will perform predictably, because that is the basis of their training. Without that side of the bargain being upheld by the authorities, they are at incalculable risk when they enter burning buildings. It is largely a matter of luck, coupled with their experience of building fires, that none were killed at Grenfell. No-one should be surprised that they didn't work out why and how the fire was spreading so fast: what had been created was illegal, and should not have been re-occupied in its post refurbishment condition.
userFast Pat
Posted: 9 November 2019 5:46 PM
Subject: RE: Grenfell
 
Epic contributor

Posts: 1508
1000500
Location: Hymer Exsis 588


Eric Pickles cut the regs as part of the reduction in red tape mantra "The review aimed to cut red tape for house builders, and simplify government regulations and standards into one key set, driven by Building Regulations."

https://www.bregroup.com/press-releases/eric-pickles-announces-conclusion-to-housing-standards-review/

And the TMO, since disbanded, has some key questions to answer. Grenfell Tower management company chief sent warning memo during fire

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/nov/15/grenfell-tower-management-company-chief-sent-warning-memo-during-fire?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

Edited by Fast Pat 2019-11-09 5:51 PM
userpelmetman
Posted: 9 November 2019 5:54 PM
Subject: RE: Grenfell
 


Walks with the gods

Posts: 28709
5000500050005000500020001000500100100
Location: 1990 Ford Travelhome.Currently of no fixed abode..


Fast Pat - 2019-11-09 5:46 PM

Eric Pickles cut the regs as part of the reduction in red tape mantra "The review aimed to cut red tape for house builders, and simplify government regulations and standards into one key set, driven by Building Regulations."

https://www.bregroup.com/press-releases/eric-pickles-announces-conclusion-to-housing-standards-review/


So it was Eric Pickles fault the same cladding was applied on Labour coucil flats and across the world as far as Australia? .........

Damn Paddy you are becoming as desperate as Dumb Dumb and John/Peter/James or what ever his current name is to blame the Tories .........

userFast Pat
Posted: 9 November 2019 6:12 PM
Subject: RE: Grenfell
 
Epic contributor

Posts: 1508
1000500
Location: Hymer Exsis 588


pelmetman - 2019-11-09 5:54 PM

Fast Pat - 2019-11-09 5:46 PM

Eric Pickles cut the regs as part of the reduction in red tape mantra "The review aimed to cut red tape for house builders, and simplify government regulations and standards into one key set, driven by Building Regulations."

https://www.bregroup.com/press-releases/eric-pickles-announces-conclusion-to-housing-standards-review/


So it was Eric Pickles fault the same cladding was applied on Labour coucil flats and across the world as far as Australia? .........

Damn Paddy you are becoming as desperate as Dumb Dumb and John/Peter/James or what ever his current name is to blame the Tories .........



Don't know about Australia but certainly in the UK, yes it was Pickles and co that watered down building regs

https://www.insidehousing.co.uk/insight/insight/whos-been-signing-off-grenfell-style-cladding-60498

It was actually Pickles predecessor that privatised Building Control which removed the checks and balances- again all the interest of the "free market ".
userpelmetman
Posted: 9 November 2019 6:17 PM
Subject: RE: Grenfell
 


Walks with the gods

Posts: 28709
5000500050005000500020001000500100100
Location: 1990 Ford Travelhome.Currently of no fixed abode..


Fast Pat - 2019-11-09 6:12 PM

pelmetman - 2019-11-09 5:54 PM

Fast Pat - 2019-11-09 5:46 PM

Eric Pickles cut the regs as part of the reduction in red tape mantra "The review aimed to cut red tape for house builders, and simplify government regulations and standards into one key set, driven by Building Regulations."

https://www.bregroup.com/press-releases/eric-pickles-announces-conclusion-to-housing-standards-review/


So it was Eric Pickles fault the same cladding was applied on Labour coucil flats and across the world as far as Australia? .........

Damn Paddy you are becoming as desperate as Dumb Dumb and John/Peter/James or what ever his current name is to blame the Tories .........



Don't know about Australia but certainly in the UK, yes it was Pickles and co that watered down building regs

https://www.insidehousing.co.uk/insight/insight/whos-been-signing-off-grenfell-style-cladding-60498

It was actually Pickles predecessor that privatised Building Control which removed the checks and balances- again all the interest of the "free market ".


Get over yourself Paddy ..........

The cladding companies are multi nationals .......

Fancy a bet on whether your EU chums are currently working out how many 10's of 1000's of flats have the same cladding in the EU? ........



Edited by pelmetman 2019-11-09 6:18 PM
userFast Pat
Posted: 9 November 2019 6:29 PM
Subject: RE: Grenfell
 
Epic contributor

Posts: 1508
1000500
Location: Hymer Exsis 588


pelmetman - 2019-11-09 6:17 PM

Fast Pat - 2019-11-09 6:12 PM

pelmetman - 2019-11-09 5:54 PM

Fast Pat - 2019-11-09 5:46 PM

Eric Pickles cut the regs as part of the reduction in red tape mantra "The review aimed to cut red tape for house builders, and simplify government regulations and standards into one key set, driven by Building Regulations."

https://www.bregroup.com/press-releases/eric-pickles-announces-conclusion-to-housing-standards-review/


So it was Eric Pickles fault the same cladding was applied on Labour coucil flats and across the world as far as Australia? .........

Damn Paddy you are becoming as desperate as Dumb Dumb and John/Peter/James or what ever his current name is to blame the Tories .........



Don't know about Australia but certainly in the UK, yes it was Pickles and co that watered down building regs

https://www.insidehousing.co.uk/insight/insight/whos-been-signing-off-grenfell-style-cladding-60498

It was actually Pickles predecessor that privatised Building Control which removed the checks and balances- again all the interest of the "free market ".


Get over yourself Paddy ..........

The cladding companies are multi nationals .......

Fancy a bet on whether your EU chums are currently working out how many 10's of 1000's of flats have the same cladding in the EU? ........



I'll safely bet that you know feck all about cladding or building regs? Yes cladding is used worldwide but not this cladding on highrise buildings in other countries.

https://metro.co.uk/2017/06/16/why-is-cladding-banned-in-the-us-and-germany-used-on-buildings-in-the-uk-6712578/
userpelmetman
Posted: 9 November 2019 6:34 PM
Subject: RE: Grenfell
 


Walks with the gods

Posts: 28709
5000500050005000500020001000500100100
Location: 1990 Ford Travelhome.Currently of no fixed abode..


Fast Pat - 2019-11-09 6:29 PM

pelmetman - 2019-11-09 6:17 PM

Fast Pat - 2019-11-09 6:12 PM

pelmetman - 2019-11-09 5:54 PM

Fast Pat - 2019-11-09 5:46 PM

Eric Pickles cut the regs as part of the reduction in red tape mantra "The review aimed to cut red tape for house builders, and simplify government regulations and standards into one key set, driven by Building Regulations."

https://www.bregroup.com/press-releases/eric-pickles-announces-conclusion-to-housing-standards-review/


So it was Eric Pickles fault the same cladding was applied on Labour coucil flats and across the world as far as Australia? .........

Damn Paddy you are becoming as desperate as Dumb Dumb and John/Peter/James or what ever his current name is to blame the Tories .........



Don't know about Australia but certainly in the UK, yes it was Pickles and co that watered down building regs

https://www.insidehousing.co.uk/insight/insight/whos-been-signing-off-grenfell-style-cladding-60498

It was actually Pickles predecessor that privatised Building Control which removed the checks and balances- again all the interest of the "free market ".


Get over yourself Paddy ..........

The cladding companies are multi nationals .......

Fancy a bet on whether your EU chums are currently working out how many 10's of 1000's of flats have the same cladding in the EU? ........



I'll safely bet that you know feck all about cladding or building regs? Yes cladding is used worldwide but not this cladding on highrise buildings in other countries.

https://metro.co.uk/2017/06/16/why-is-cladding-banned-in-the-us-and-germany-used-on-buildings-in-the-uk-6712578/


I bet I know far more about so called Fire retardant materials than you ........

I used to burn fire retardant left over stuff ..........



Edited by pelmetman 2019-11-09 6:36 PM
userBirdbrain
Posted: 9 November 2019 6:35 PM
Subject: RE: Grenfell
 


Epic contributor

Posts: 1965
10005001001001001002525


Fast Pat - 2019-11-09 6:29 PM

pelmetman - 2019-11-09 6:17 PM

Fast Pat - 2019-11-09 6:12 PM

pelmetman - 2019-11-09 5:54 PM

Fast Pat - 2019-11-09 5:46 PM

Eric Pickles cut the regs as part of the reduction in red tape mantra "The review aimed to cut red tape for house builders, and simplify government regulations and standards into one key set, driven by Building Regulations."

https://www.bregroup.com/press-releases/eric-pickles-announces-conclusion-to-housing-standards-review/


So it was Eric Pickles fault the same cladding was applied on Labour coucil flats and across the world as far as Australia? .........

Damn Paddy you are becoming as desperate as Dumb Dumb and John/Peter/James or what ever his current name is to blame the Tories .........



Don't know about Australia but certainly in the UK, yes it was Pickles and co that watered down building regs

https://www.insidehousing.co.uk/insight/insight/whos-been-signing-off-grenfell-style-cladding-60498

It was actually Pickles predecessor that privatised Building Control which removed the checks and balances- again all the interest of the "free market ".


Get over yourself Paddy ..........

The cladding companies are multi nationals .......

Fancy a bet on whether your EU chums are currently working out how many 10's of 1000's of flats have the same cladding in the EU? ........



I'll safely bet that you know feck all about cladding or building regs? Yes cladding is used worldwide but not this cladding on highrise buildings in other countries.

https://metro.co.uk/2017/06/16/why-is-cladding-banned-in-the-us-and-germany-used-on-buildings-in-the-uk-6712578/


You'll "safely bet" ... Your girlfriend Bulletgay told the world he could "safely say" why German building regs were better than the UKs only a couple of weeks ago ... Trouble is when taken up on it he went all shy and refused to answer ... I think its safe to say you and your girlfriend aint got much of a clue over anything ... Regards
userBulletguy
Posted: 9 November 2019 6:35 PM
Subject: RE: Grenfell
 


The special one

Posts: 11432
50005000100010010010010025
Location: Cheshire. Ford Transit Autosleeper Duetto


Brian Kirby - 2019-11-09 5:20 PM

Bulletguy - 2019-11-08 7:54 PM....................
1 Where "the top" is has been partly answered by comments from the article Pat posted where the fire officer who wrote it explained how their word used to be law on all buildings but since deregulation the building owner is responsible for fire safety.

2 So, who made that decision to deregulate? We can use that as a start point if you like as "the top". It can only have come from central government as far as i'm aware, then implemented by the building owner....local government.

3 Next point on is who initially chose the cladding (not just for Grenfell) and why that particular cladding? Who authorised the fitting of it.....local government or national?

4 So we are gradually working our way down but in the right direction imo. I empathise with his sentiments over the LFB because as soon as i heard the initial reports i felt the criticism was totally unjustified to the point of them being scapegoated....which happens all too often in many other industries/professions when something goes badly wrong.

5 Re. the Grenfell Action Group, all the main links on the site pre-date the fire. They're clearly dated when first posted such as this one on March 14th 2017.....three months before the fire.

https://grenfellactiongroup.wordpress.com/2017/03/14/kctmo-feeling-the-heat/

1 I think "de-regulation" is too strong, Paul. The regulations were not withdrawn or watered down, it was just that the formal role of the fire brigades in approving applications under building regulations was withdrawn. I did not, and do not, think that was a good idea, precisely because the experience of the ex-fire fighters gave them insights into risks that others are less likely to foresee. It was not that their word was law - they couldn't make it up - just that they understood better than most the risks the regulations were intended to avert.

2 That decision (same caveat about de-regulate ) was made by the Secretary of State (probably the then Secretary of State for the Environment), under the 1984 Building Act.

3 Who chose? I don't know. Architects were initially involved, and proposed the use of cladding over external insulation as the best solution, but they don't seem to have been retained to arrange tenders and oversee the work. That seems to have gone to Rydon Homes, who are primarily a house builder, but I have no idea whether Rydon's contract with RBKC was to develop and construct (in which case they would have specified all materials as part of their work) or whether they were to execute to designs and specifications handed to them. Building Regs approval appears to have been part of Rydon's responsibility, which points to develop and construct. RBKC seem not to have granted approval ('though their building control officers made frequent visit to the site). So, that leaves an approved inspector as the most likely body. Unless, of course, some bright spark persuaded everyone that the installation of cladding did not constitute building work, so was not subject to Building Regs approval!

Why that cladding? It will have been decided on a balance of aesthetics, suitability, durability, functional adequacy and cost. But why that particular cladding? That has to be discovered. Especially why Reynobond PE was used instead of Reynobond FR. If FR had been approved and specified, an agreement to vary the contract to substitute PE would have been required from both the employer (RBKC) and the approval authority. This is the real question. How and why did flammable cladding (not forgetting the Celotex insulation - which stipulates in its technical literature that it has been fully tested as part of a cladding system that incorporated an incombustible rainscreen, and goes on to state that any variation to that design would require a full scale re-test. Seems that bit was missed as well.) Questions, questions!

4 Agreed.

5 Yes, I noticed that, but none of their complaints from before the fire seemed to question the proposed cladding system. They'd identified a number of valid issues, but not the central issue. This is not a criticism, I wouldn't expect them to have been able to do so. I'm just answering your point that the TMA identified the risk and, so far as I can see, they had not. Identified risks, yes, but not the risk.

1) I was simply using the same term that fire officer stated in the article Pat posted. "All that changed through deregulation at the end of the 90s. (The reform act of 2005 in fact). I was in fire protection at the time and I remember the old hands predicting a disaster."

It seemed a bit daft to me cutting the experts out of the loop but resulted in the responsibility for fire safety standards being passed to the building owner. Who owned Grenfell? Apart from the basics, what do building owners know about fire safety?

3) Is where i hope the inquiry will seriously drill down into the many unanswered questions as to me, i think this is where they should have started. Cost is always going to be a factor. I assume there must be a variety of non-flammable insulation material made for buildings so why would anyone wrap a building in flammable cladding which was a disaster waiting to happen....cost? Are we seriously prepared to risk lives to shave a few grand off a social housing property refurb which was already poorly maintained?

https://www.insidehousing.co.uk/insight/insight/grenfell-inquiry-what-to-expect-in-phase-two-64030

https://www.insidehousing.co.uk/news/news/landlords-braced-for-block-management-overhaul-after-grenfell-inquiry-changes-64060
userpelmetman
Posted: 9 November 2019 6:37 PM
Subject: RE: Grenfell
 


Walks with the gods

Posts: 28709
5000500050005000500020001000500100100
Location: 1990 Ford Travelhome.Currently of no fixed abode..


pelmetman - 2019-11-09 6:34 PM

Fast Pat - 2019-11-09 6:29 PM

pelmetman - 2019-11-09 6:17 PM

Fast Pat - 2019-11-09 6:12 PM

pelmetman - 2019-11-09 5:54 PM

Fast Pat - 2019-11-09 5:46 PM

Eric Pickles cut the regs as part of the reduction in red tape mantra "The review aimed to cut red tape for house builders, and simplify government regulations and standards into one key set, driven by Building Regulations."

https://www.bregroup.com/press-releases/eric-pickles-announces-conclusion-to-housing-standards-review/


So it was Eric Pickles fault the same cladding was applied on Labour coucil flats and across the world as far as Australia? .........

Damn Paddy you are becoming as desperate as Dumb Dumb and John/Peter/James or what ever his current name is to blame the Tories .........



Don't know about Australia but certainly in the UK, yes it was Pickles and co that watered down building regs

https://www.insidehousing.co.uk/insight/insight/whos-been-signing-off-grenfell-style-cladding-60498

It was actually Pickles predecessor that privatised Building Control which removed the checks and balances- again all the interest of the "free market ".


Get over yourself Paddy ..........

The cladding companies are multi nationals .......

Fancy a bet on whether your EU chums are currently working out how many 10's of 1000's of flats have the same cladding in the EU? ........



I'll safely bet that you know feck all about cladding or building regs? Yes cladding is used worldwide but not this cladding on highrise buildings in other countries.

https://metro.co.uk/2017/06/16/why-is-cladding-banned-in-the-us-and-germany-used-on-buildings-in-the-uk-6712578/


I bet I know far more about so called Fire retardant materials than you ........

I used to burn fire retardant left over stuff ..........



Paddy Bump ........

userBulletguy
Posted: 9 November 2019 8:15 PM
Subject: RE: Grenfell
 


The special one

Posts: 11432
50005000100010010010010025
Location: Cheshire. Ford Transit Autosleeper Duetto


Birdbrain - 2019-11-09 6:35 PM

You'll "safely bet" ... Your girlfriend Bulletgay told the world he could "safely say" why German building regs were better than the UKs only a couple of weeks ago

No i didn't, i said property build standards not 'regs'. Big difference. I know you've been desperately trolling and baiting with your ridiculous nonsense which i ignored as it was patently clear in that thread you hadn't actually been inside any properties there, which i suggested you should, and then you would see for yourself.

Grow up.
userpelmetman
Posted: 9 November 2019 8:20 PM
Subject: RE: Grenfell
 


Walks with the gods

Posts: 28709
5000500050005000500020001000500100100
Location: 1990 Ford Travelhome.Currently of no fixed abode..


Bulletguy - 2019-11-09 8:15 PM

Birdbrain - 2019-11-09 6:35 PM

You'll "safely bet" ... Your girlfriend Bulletgay told the world he could "safely say" why German building regs were better than the UKs only a couple of weeks ago

No i didn't, i said property build standards not 'regs'. Big difference. I know you've been desperately trolling and baiting with your ridiculous nonsense which i ignored as it was patently clear in that thread you hadn't actually been inside any properties there, which i suggested you should, and then you would see for yourself.

Grow up.


WTF would you know about proper building standards? ........

Have you ever built anything bigger than your Communist lefty ego? ........

userBirdbrain
Posted: 9 November 2019 8:26 PM
Subject: RE: Grenfell
 


Epic contributor

Posts: 1965
10005001001001001002525


Bulletguy - 2019-11-09 8:15 PM

Birdbrain - 2019-11-09 6:35 PM

You'll "safely bet" ... Your girlfriend Bulletgay told the world he could "safely say" why German building regs were better than the UKs only a couple of weeks ago

No i didn't, i said property build standards not 'regs'. Big difference. I know you've been desperately trolling and baiting with your ridiculous nonsense which i ignored as it was patently clear in that thread you hadn't actually been inside any properties there, which i suggested you should, and then you would see for yourself.

Grow up.


Utter guff ... Visited Germany on 3 separate occasions and been in loads of buildings thanks ... I cant say as someone who's in the building trade Ive noticed their super build standards though , you obviously have so please enlighten me and the rest of Chatterbox otherwise you are as usual just trolling me ... I'll "safely bet" you cant name a God damn thing

Edited by Birdbrain 2019-11-09 8:27 PM
userBulletguy
Posted: 9 November 2019 8:47 PM
Subject: RE: Grenfell
 


The special one

Posts: 11432
50005000100010010010010025
Location: Cheshire. Ford Transit Autosleeper Duetto


Birdbrain - 2019-11-09 8:26 PM

Bulletguy - 2019-11-09 8:15 PM

Birdbrain - 2019-11-09 6:35 PM

You'll "safely bet" ... Your girlfriend Bulletgay told the world he could "safely say" why German building regs were better than the UKs only a couple of weeks ago

No i didn't, i said property build standards not 'regs'. Big difference. I know you've been desperately trolling and baiting with your ridiculous nonsense which i ignored as it was patently clear in that thread you hadn't actually been inside any properties there, which i suggested you should, and then you would see for yourself.

Grow up.


Utter guff ... Visited Germany on 3 separate occasions and been in loads of buildings thanks ... I cant say as someone who's in the building trade Ive noticed their super build standards though.

"Loads of buildings". Get a grip.....you're going all Hollywood again. Only visiting three times gives scope for little more than a few bars and supermarkets. And slapping tiles on a roof hardly equates to "building trade".
userBirdbrain
Posted: 9 November 2019 9:10 PM
Subject: RE: Grenfell
 


Epic contributor

Posts: 1965
10005001001001001002525


Bulletguy - 2019-11-09 8:47 PM

Birdbrain - 2019-11-09 8:26 PM

Bulletguy - 2019-11-09 8:15 PM

Birdbrain - 2019-11-09 6:35 PM

You'll "safely bet" ... Your girlfriend Bulletgay told the world he could "safely say" why German building regs were better than the UKs only a couple of weeks ago

No i didn't, i said property build standards not 'regs'. Big difference. I know you've been desperately trolling and baiting with your ridiculous nonsense which i ignored as it was patently clear in that thread you hadn't actually been inside any properties there, which i suggested you should, and then you would see for yourself.

Grow up.


Utter guff ... Visited Germany on 3 separate occasions and been in loads of buildings thanks ... I cant say as someone who's in the building trade Ive noticed their super build standards though.

"Loads of buildings". Get a grip.....you're going all Hollywood again. Only visiting three times gives scope for little more than a few bars and supermarkets. And slapping tiles on a roof hardly equates to "building trade".


Youve been caught out again and now your going all red rage again aren't ya princess ... You simply cant back up what you claimed you could "safely say" princess and instead of admitting that youve gone totally Spielberg ??? ... Instead of the guff prove what you claim , it'll make your family if they remember ya very proud ... As for "slapping tiles" on a roof I don't put tiles on roofs sweetie thats for common building site types and tha's no money in that for me though slapping tiles on a roof as much as you protest does come under the building trade unless you can prove me wrong ??? ... Off you pop princess
userpelmetman
Posted: 9 November 2019 9:22 PM
Subject: RE: Grenfell
 


Walks with the gods

Posts: 28709
5000500050005000500020001000500100100
Location: 1990 Ford Travelhome.Currently of no fixed abode..


Bulletguy - 2019-11-09 8:47 PM

Birdbrain - 2019-11-09 8:26 PM

Bulletguy - 2019-11-09 8:15 PM

Birdbrain - 2019-11-09 6:35 PM

You'll "safely bet" ... Your girlfriend Bulletgay told the world he could "safely say" why German building regs were better than the UKs only a couple of weeks ago

No i didn't, i said property build standards not 'regs'. Big difference. I know you've been desperately trolling and baiting with your ridiculous nonsense which i ignored as it was patently clear in that thread you hadn't actually been inside any properties there, which i suggested you should, and then you would see for yourself.

Grow up.


Utter guff ... Visited Germany on 3 separate occasions and been in loads of buildings thanks ... I cant say as someone who's in the building trade Ive noticed their super build standards though.

"Loads of buildings". Get a grip.....you're going all Hollywood again. Only visiting three times gives scope for little more than a few bars and supermarkets. And slapping tiles on a roof hardly equates to "building trade".


Come on Bullet .........Man up ........What have you ever had built? .......

Jump to page : FirstPrevious 1 2 3 4 5 6 NextLast
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