Birdbrain Posted November 6, 2019 Author Share Posted November 6, 2019 John52 - 2019-11-06 10:24 AM Birdbrain - 2019-11-05 7:50 PM pelmetman - 2019-11-05 7:46 PM 747 - 2019-11-05 7:33 PM I give up with John/Peter/Dumbo whatever. I have not had the training needed to be able to get through to special needs people. *-) I admit he does take years of experience to handle ;-) .......... Fortunately I've had years of practice with his various personas :-| ....... But he's easy to spot.........His white van camper will be easily recognized with the copious amounts of Plumber mate oozing from the seals..........along with occupants penchant for crapping in bin bags 8-) ....... Ive seen the homeless at times looking through bins for scraps ... Suppose John/Peter/james believes hes doing his duty and sharing it with the more desperate amongst us ... Nice What were they expecting to find in dog waste bins *-) Who mentioned dog waste bins ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birdbrain Posted November 6, 2019 Author Share Posted November 6, 2019 John52 - 2019-11-06 10:39 AM Birdbrain - 2019-11-05 7:09 PM awfully racist whitewash According to the Cambridge English Dictionary; WHITEWASH (noun) : attempt to hide 'an attempt to stop people finding out the true facts about a situation' https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/whitewash But according to you its racist Who am I to believe *-) According to you a town in Devon is racist for naming itself after its white houses so whats sillier ??? ... Now youve found out what whitewash means maybe you could offer up the proof of that Grenfell whitewash you keep on banging on about ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted November 6, 2019 Share Posted November 6, 2019 Fast Pat - 2019-11-06 2:11 PM thebishbus - 2019-11-05 10:54 PM John 52.You did not answer my question about staying in the building.I will ask you again. If you were in that building,would you have taken the advice of the FIRE BRIGADE and stayed in the building, or used your common sense and left.? Brian B. Why the Fire Brigade gave that advice https://www.cibsejournal.com/general/time-for-change-grenfell-tower-evidence/ The Tories say the victims of Grenfell didn’t have common sense. I’ll tell you what’s common sense: Don’t put flammable cladding on people’s homes. Don’t close fire stations and don't cut fire fighters. And don’t ignore residents when they tell you their home is a death trap. That's a very informative link and interesting comments from Dr Lane who said, "the single escape stairs and lobbies, and the fire-safety provisions within them, were designed to operate on one floor only, based on the assumption that fire would be contained in one flat." Because of the cladding fire, however, a whole-building fire occurred, so the stairs and its lobbies became the most important life-safety feature. However, Lane said she had ‘considerable concern’ about the fire-safety provision within them. In her report, she said the smoke-ventilation system design did not follow guidance in Fire Safety: Approved Document B (ADB) 2013 because it was a bespoke system. There was also evidence that it did not perform as designed, with automatically opening vents (AOVs) not closing correctly. The bespoke system was also found to be faulty, which, Lane said, contributed to the spread of smoke to the single route of escape. On the Stay Put policy of which much has been said, it's been a British standard code of practice since 1962. https://www.insidehousing.co.uk/insight/where-did-the-stay-put-policy-come-from-and-where-do-we-go-now-63957 https://www.nationalfirechiefs.org.uk/Stay-Put-position Housing association Hyde conducted intrusive assessments of the fire risks in its 86 high rises, and it found problems in all of them. One industry source says: “We have had 30 years of people throwing up buildings cheaply and quickly. That has created issues with fire performance that are pretty widespread.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted November 6, 2019 Share Posted November 6, 2019 Birdbrain - 2019-11-06 4:26 PM Who mentioned dog waste bins ??? I did. But you missed out the dog waste bit to call them just 'bins' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted November 6, 2019 Share Posted November 6, 2019 Fast Pat - 2019-11-06 2:11 PM https://www.cibsejournal.com/general/time-for-change-grenfell-tower-evidence/ . Which shows the tragedy was not caused by the cladding alone. So the Royal Tory Borough should not be allowed to evade their responsibility by saying the cladding was used elsewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted November 6, 2019 Share Posted November 6, 2019 Birdbrain - 2019-11-06 4:29 PM According to you a town in Devon is racist for naming itself after its white houses Can you quote where I said that *-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birdbrain Posted November 6, 2019 Author Share Posted November 6, 2019 John52 - 2019-11-06 7:12 PM Birdbrain - 2019-11-06 4:29 PM According to you a town in Devon is racist for naming itself after its white houses Can you quote where I said that *-) "I didn't think it was difficult to see the connotations between white town and racism" .... Next Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birdbrain Posted November 6, 2019 Author Share Posted November 6, 2019 John52 - 2019-11-06 7:08 PM Birdbrain - 2019-11-06 4:26 PM Who mentioned dog waste bins ??? I did. But you missed out the dog waste bit to call them just 'bins' Dog bins are for dogs by the way , a bin is a bin and you seem some how proud your wrapping your crap up and sometimes stuffing it in a dog waste bin ... Not everywhere has dog waste bins of course so I presume you stack your crap up on your passenger seat till you find one ??? ... Keep ya company anyway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted November 7, 2019 Share Posted November 7, 2019 Birdbrain - 2019-11-06 9:31 PM John52 - 2019-11-06 7:12 PM Birdbrain - 2019-11-06 4:29 PM According to you a town in Devon is racist for naming itself after its white houses Can you quote where I said that *-) "I didn't think it was difficult to see the connotations between white town and racism" .... Next So I did not say the town was racist as you claim. Next PS: In case thats not clear enough I'll try and explain it another way. Saying 'White Town' might make it APPEAR to be racist to some people, is not the same as saying the town is racist. Why can't you stop changing people's words before you quote them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted November 7, 2019 Share Posted November 7, 2019 Birdbrain - 2019-11-06 9:35 PM so I presume you stack your crap up on your passenger seat till you find one ??? . So you are still making wrong assumptions Birdbrain - 2019-11-06 9:35 PM .. Keep ya company anyway Whats that supposed to mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birdbrain Posted November 7, 2019 Author Share Posted November 7, 2019 John52 - 2019-11-07 6:45 AM Birdbrain - 2019-11-06 9:31 PM John52 - 2019-11-06 7:12 PM Birdbrain - 2019-11-06 4:29 PM According to you a town in Devon is racist for naming itself after its white houses Can you quote where I said that *-) "I didn't think it was difficult to see the connotations between white town and racism" .... Next So I did not say the town was racist as you claim. Next PS: In case thats not clear enough I'll try and explain it another way. Saying 'White Town' might make it APPEAR to be racist to some people, is not the same as saying the town is racist. Why can't you stop changing people's words before you quote them? Yes obviously you did as I have shown , you don't seem to like the proof I have shown though which is your problem not mine sweetheart ... Ive shown you what you asked for so any chance of any evidence of that Grenfell whitewash you keep going on about ??? Think Ive only asked 3 times now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted November 7, 2019 Share Posted November 7, 2019 Birdbrain - 2019-11-07 7:13 AM John52 - 2019-11-07 6:45 AM Birdbrain - 2019-11-06 9:31 PM John52 - 2019-11-06 7:12 PM Birdbrain - 2019-11-06 4:29 PM According to you a town in Devon is racist for naming itself after its white houses Can you quote where I said that *-) "I didn't think it was difficult to see the connotations between white town and racism" .... Next So I did not say the town was racist as you claim. Next PS: In case thats not clear enough I'll try and explain it another way. Saying 'White Town' might make it APPEAR to be racist to some people, is not the same as saying the town is racist. Why can't you stop changing people's words before you quote them? Yes obviously you did as I have shown , you don't seem to like the proof I have shown though which is your problem not mine sweetheart ... Ive shown you what you asked for so any chance of any evidence of that Grenfell whitewash you keep going on about ??? Think Ive only asked 3 times now This is supposed to be a discussion forum where we learn from other people's experiences. There is nothing to be gained from 'winning' an argument here so why do you keep changing what people say in an attempt to 'win'? What I said was I was expecting a whitewash from the Grenfell 'inquiry'. Of course I can't show evidence of that until we hear some results. Which I expect to be a long time from now as so far the 'inquiry' has only cost 100 times what they have saved on the cladding, and I expect the lawyers etc will want to drag it out to make more money out of it. As will those 'responsible' who will want it to hold out until they are retired on generous pensions, and some of the anger has died down as grenfell is overshadowed by more revent scandals and catastrophies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birdbrain Posted November 7, 2019 Author Share Posted November 7, 2019 John52 - 2019-11-07 8:24 AM Birdbrain - 2019-11-07 7:13 AM John52 - 2019-11-07 6:45 AM Birdbrain - 2019-11-06 9:31 PM John52 - 2019-11-06 7:12 PM Birdbrain - 2019-11-06 4:29 PM According to you a town in Devon is racist for naming itself after its white houses Can you quote where I said that *-) "I didn't think it was difficult to see the connotations between white town and racism" .... Next So I did not say the town was racist as you claim. Next PS: In case thats not clear enough I'll try and explain it another way. Saying 'White Town' might make it APPEAR to be racist to some people, is not the same as saying the town is racist. Why can't you stop changing people's words before you quote them? Yes obviously you did as I have shown , you don't seem to like the proof I have shown though which is your problem not mine sweetheart ... Ive shown you what you asked for so any chance of any evidence of that Grenfell whitewash you keep going on about ??? Think Ive only asked 3 times now This is supposed to be a discussion forum where we learn from other people's experiences. There is nothing to be gained from 'winning' an argument here so why do you keep changing what people say in an attempt to 'win'? What I said was I was expecting a whitewash from the Grenfell 'inquiry'. Of course I can't show evidence of that until we hear some results. Which I expect to be a long time from now as so far the 'inquiry' has only cost 100 times what they have saved on the cladding, and I expect the lawyers etc will want to drag it out to make more money out of it. As will those 'responsible' who will want it to hold out until they are retired on generous pensions, and some of the anger has died down as grenfell is overshadowed by more revent scandals and catastrophies. You didn't say you was "expecting" a whitewash at all ... You said matter of fact its a whitewash ... Obviously as per normal with ya you cant show anything to back up that claim can ya ??? ... By the way picking people up on wild claims isnt an attempt to "win" anything its a way of trying to keep the discussion real and stop it going all Disney ... You like others on here seem to prefer fiction rather than fact and don't like being challenged on producing the info to back up the Hollywood guff , stick to fact it makes life so much easier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted November 7, 2019 Share Posted November 7, 2019 John52 - 2019-11-05 6:41 AM Geeco - 2019-11-02 9:32 PM the owners will be interested in the results of your inquiry. Really? Theresa May gave her verdict when she sent £250 million from poorer boroughs to Britain's richest borough so it didn't have to pay for its own mistakes. >:-) So I'm expecting another hideously expensive whitewash. This is what I said Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birdbrain Posted November 7, 2019 Author Share Posted November 7, 2019 John52 - 2019-11-07 9:02 AM John52 - 2019-11-05 6:41 AM Geeco - 2019-11-02 9:32 PM the owners will be interested in the results of your inquiry. Really? Theresa May gave her verdict when she sent £250 million from poorer boroughs to Britain's richest borough so it didn't have to pay for its own mistakes. >:-) So I'm expecting another hideously expensive whitewash. This is what I said Then went on to say "the obvious flaw in your argument is that it is not me producing the 'whitewash' " ... Looks very matter of fact to me princess , no "excepting" anything anymore now more a "producing" the whitewash ... Try again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted November 7, 2019 Share Posted November 7, 2019 Birdbrain - 2019-11-07 9:13 AM John52 - 2019-11-07 9:02 AM John52 - 2019-11-05 6:41 AM Geeco - 2019-11-02 9:32 PM the owners will be interested in the results of your inquiry. Really? Theresa May gave her verdict when she sent £250 million from poorer boroughs to Britain's richest borough so it didn't have to pay for its own mistakes. >:-) So I'm expecting another hideously expensive whitewash. This is what I said Then went on to say "the obvious flaw in your argument is that it is not me producing the 'whitewash' " ... Looks very matter of fact to me princess , no "excepting" anything anymore now more a "producing" the whitewash ... Try again 'Producing' - not 'Produced' - so how can I be expected to show evidence and proof before its done *-) Try again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted November 7, 2019 Share Posted November 7, 2019 Dodgy connection ;-) ........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted November 7, 2019 Share Posted November 7, 2019 John52 - 2019-11-07 1:44 PM Birdbrain - 2019-11-07 9:13 AM John52 - 2019-11-07 9:02 AM John52 - 2019-11-05 6:41 AM Geeco - 2019-11-02 9:32 PM the owners will be interested in the results of your inquiry. Really? Theresa May gave her verdict when she sent £250 million from poorer boroughs to Britain's richest borough so it didn't have to pay for its own mistakes. >:-) So I'm expecting another hideously expensive whitewash. This is what I said Then went on to say "the obvious flaw in your argument is that it is not me producing the 'whitewash' " ... Looks very matter of fact to me princess , no "excepting" anything anymore now more a "producing" the whitewash ... Try again 'Producing' - not 'Produced' - so how can I be expected to show evidence and proof before its done *-) Try again Evidence would be wasted on your Lefty Republican mind *-) .......... Unless it said her madge lit the fire with a box of Swan Vestas your simple Lefty brainwashed Labour brain cell would not compute (lol) (lol) (lol) ....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birdbrain Posted November 7, 2019 Author Share Posted November 7, 2019 John52 - 2019-11-07 1:44 PM Birdbrain - 2019-11-07 9:13 AM John52 - 2019-11-07 9:02 AM John52 - 2019-11-05 6:41 AM Geeco - 2019-11-02 9:32 PM the owners will be interested in the results of your inquiry. Really? Theresa May gave her verdict when she sent £250 million from poorer boroughs to Britain's richest borough so it didn't have to pay for its own mistakes. >:-) So I'm expecting another hideously expensive whitewash. This is what I said Then went on to say "the obvious flaw in your argument is that it is not me producing the 'whitewash' " ... Looks very matter of fact to me princess , no "excepting" anything anymore now more a "producing" the whitewash ... Try again 'Producing' - not 'Produced' - so how can I be expected to show evidence and proof before its done *-) Try again You need to look up then meaning of "producing" ... Yielding the thing specified , which in this case is your whitewash claim ... I'll ask again and "try again" can you show any proof of what you claim for the 4th time of asking ??? The answer of course is no as youve freely admitted in your last post ... A little advice ... Dont take part in grown up conversation if you know your going to struggle ... You keep to what you know which is , errr , mmmm , crapping in bins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted November 7, 2019 Share Posted November 7, 2019 Far too much political tribalism, and insufficient willingness to acknowledge that cock-up appears more likely than conspiracy! :-D Grenfell tower was "built" in 1973. 24 storeys with six plats per floor and a central lobby at each floor containing two lifts, a common lobby, and two lifts. One lift was supposedly a fire lift, meaning the fire brigade could take it over under key control in the event of a fire in order to be able to get rapidly to upper floors, in preference to scaling 23 floors of stairs wearing full protective kit plus, possibly, breathing apparatus. It was designed under Section 20 of the London Building Acts, and its construction would have been supervised by a District Surveyor. The national Building Regulations supplanted the London Building Acts when they were introduced in 1984, with the actual regulations being issued as a Statutory Instrument under powers granted to the Secretary of State under the Building Act 1984. The relevant part of the regulations is Section B Fire, which states: External Fire Spread B4 (1) The external walls of the building shall adequately resist the spread of fire over the walls and from one building to another, having regard to the height, use and position of the building. (2) The roof of the building shall adequately resist the spread of fire over the roof of the building and from one building to another, having regard to the use and position of the building Each flat was designed to provide a fire resistant compartment, to contain any fire within its walls, floor, and ceiling. All had self-closing, fire resisting, entrance doors. The internal lobby that gave access to lifts and stairs on each floor was designated a "protected lobby", which meant it had to be ventilated to external air to prevent a build up of any smoke that might escape from a flat fire and make access to the common fire escape stairs hazardous. The fire escape stairs are a designated protected shaft, ventilated direct to open air to prevent smoke logging, separated from the lobbies by fire resisting construction and protected by self-closing fire doors, and leading directly to the outside of the building at their foot. They are not designed to facilitate a full evacuation, but to allow evacuation of the occupants of the flats as directed by the fire brigade, as they judge necessary, in the event of a flat fire. Neither lobbies nor stairs must contain combustible material. Providing the requirements for fire resistance set out in the Building Regulations are maintained - and reinstated if breached, the fire doors are maintained in working order - and are replaced like for like when necessary, and the ventilation systems are maintained in working order and unobstructed, the design concept is safe. There have been numerous fires in high-rise residential buildings build to this standard over the past 40+ years, and very few indeed have resulted in loss of life to occupants of other flats, either adjacent to, above, or below, a single flat fire. There are reported defects at Grenfell in fire doors and fire ventilation systems, but although these would make fighting a fire more demanding, and may well have resulted in a larger than normal degree of evacuation, they would have been extremely unlikely to have developed into the inferno that enveloped Grenfell. That inferno was due to the use of a system of cladding and thermal insulation that did not "adequately resist the spread of fire over the walls". It fed the fire vertically and horizontally over the exterior of the building in a manner the fire brigade were not equipped, or trained, to deal with. It completely changed the fire profile of the building, making its means of escape wholly inadequate, and the "normal" means of fire fighting hopelessly inadequate. It is now estimated that there are some 400 similar buildings around the UK, with "similar" cladding systems, so this cannot possibly be a RBKC one-off error or misjudgement. That is why the enquiry is important, because it is clear that cladding materials that breach Building Regulations have been widely, and inappropriately, used. The inquiry must identify how this came about. Local authorities and private developers have all adopted these systems, in both rental and freehold flats, so it is not conceivable that political persuasion on one or other side lies at the root of the error. Some aspect of the specification of fire performance of cladding systems, or the materials they are made from, has changed over the past 20 or so years, to allow so widespread a use of non-compliant materials. It seems probable that more than one change has been introduced in the way of measuring fire performance, that together create an greater hazard than intended at each change point. However much some may wish to milk this disaster for political advantage, I think they will find that both main parties have had a hand , unwittingly, in introducing individual changes that had the cumulative effect of driving a coach and horses through a well tried and tested fire safety regulatory environment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted November 7, 2019 Share Posted November 7, 2019 Brian Kirby - 2019-11-07 7:03 PM Far too much political tribalism, and insufficient willingness to acknowledge that cock-up appears more likely than conspiracy! :-D Grenfell tower was "built" in 1973. 24 storeys with six plats per floor and a central lobby at each floor containing two lifts, a common lobby, and two lifts. One lift was supposedly a fire lift, meaning the fire brigade could take it over under key control in the event of a fire in order to be able to get rapidly to upper floors, in preference to scaling 23 floors of stairs wearing full protective kit plus, possibly, breathing apparatus. It was designed under Section 20 of the London Building Acts, and its construction would have been supervised by a District Surveyor. The national Building Regulations supplanted the London Building Acts when they were introduced in 1984, with the actual regulations being issued as a Statutory Instrument under powers granted to the Secretary of State under the Building Act 1984. The relevant part of the regulations is Section B Fire, which states: External Fire Spread B4 (1) The external walls of the building shall adequately resist the spread of fire over the walls and from one building to another, having regard to the height, use and position of the building. (2) The roof of the building shall adequately resist the spread of fire over the roof of the building and from one building to another, having regard to the use and position of the building Each flat was designed to provide a fire resistant compartment, to contain any fire within its walls, floor, and ceiling. All had self-closing, fire resisting, entrance doors. The internal lobby that gave access to lifts and stairs on each floor was designated a "protected lobby", which meant it had to be ventilated to external air to prevent a build up of any smoke that might escape from a flat fire and make access to the common fire escape stairs hazardous. The fire escape stairs are a designated protected shaft, ventilated direct to open air to prevent smoke logging, separated from the lobbies by fire resisting construction and protected by self-closing fire doors, and leading directly to the outside of the building at their foot. They are not designed to facilitate a full evacuation, but to allow evacuation of the occupants of the flats as directed by the fire brigade, as they judge necessary, in the event of a flat fire. Neither lobbies nor stairs must contain combustible material. Providing the requirements for fire resistance set out in the Building Regulations are maintained - and reinstated if breached, the fire doors are maintained in working order - and are replaced like for like when necessary, and the ventilation systems are maintained in working order and unobstructed, the design concept is safe. There have been numerous fires in high-rise residential buildings build to this standard over the past 40+ years, and very few indeed have resulted in loss of life to occupants of other flats, either adjacent to, above, or below, a single flat fire. There are reported defects at Grenfell in fire doors and fire ventilation systems, but although these would make fighting a fire more demanding, and may well have resulted in a larger than normal degree of evacuation, they would have been extremely unlikely to have developed into the inferno that enveloped Grenfell. That inferno was due to the use of a system of cladding and thermal insulation that did not "adequately resist the spread of fire over the walls". It fed the fire vertically and horizontally over the exterior of the building in a manner the fire brigade were not equipped, or trained, to deal with. It completely changed the fire profile of the building, making its means of escape wholly inadequate, and the "normal" means of fire fighting hopelessly inadequate. It is now estimated that there are some 400 similar buildings around the UK, with "similar" cladding systems, so this cannot possibly be a RBKC one-off error or misjudgement. That is why the enquiry is important, because it is clear that cladding materials that breach Building Regulations have been widely, and inappropriately, used. The inquiry must identify how this came about. Local authorities and private developers have all adopted these systems, in both rental and freehold flats, so it is not conceivable that political persuasion on one or other side lies at the root of the error. Some aspect of the specification of fire performance of cladding systems, or the materials they are made from, has changed over the past 20 or so years, to allow so widespread a use of non-compliant materials. It seems probable that more than one change has been introduced in the way of measuring fire performance, that together create an greater hazard than intended at each change point. However much some may wish to milk this disaster for political advantage, I think they will find that both main parties have had a hand , unwittingly, in introducing individual changes that had the cumulative effect of driving a coach and horses through a well tried and tested fire safety regulatory environment. C'mon Brian *-) ....... You've just p*ssed on Bullets & Johnwhateverhisname parade :D ......... Have you know lefty shame? 8-) .......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted November 7, 2019 Share Posted November 7, 2019 "Cock up" is a tad of an understatement Brian. What's your opinion on Dr Lanes comments in that link Pat posted yesterday? Worth remembering the residents had continually logged complaints with RKCBC about the cladding refurbishment and corner cutting, but were never listened to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted November 7, 2019 Share Posted November 7, 2019 Bulletguy - 2019-11-07 8:14 PM "Cock up" is a tad of an understatement Brian. What's your opinion on Dr Lanes comments in that link Pat posted yesterday? Worth remembering the residents had continually logged complaints with RKCBC about the cladding refurbishment and corner cutting, but were never listened to. Still trying to weaponize Grenfell Bullet? *-) .......... Damn you lefties are thick 8-) ....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted November 7, 2019 Share Posted November 7, 2019 pelmetman - 2019-11-07 8:21 PM Bulletguy - 2019-11-07 8:14 PM "Cock up" is a tad of an understatement Brian. What's your opinion on Dr Lanes comments in that link Pat posted yesterday? Worth remembering the residents had continually logged complaints with RKCBC about the cladding refurbishment and corner cutting, but were never listened to. Still trying to weaponize Grenfell Bullet? *-) .......... Damn you lefties are thick 8-) Oh FFS Pelmethead put the damn bottle away and sober up, then you might be able to make more sensible and adult posts. *-) Dr Lane is a fire engineer appointed by the inquiry but you wouldn't know that because you don't read. *-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted November 7, 2019 Share Posted November 7, 2019 Bulletguy - 2019-11-07 8:33 PM pelmetman - 2019-11-07 8:21 PM Bulletguy - 2019-11-07 8:14 PM "Cock up" is a tad of an understatement Brian. What's your opinion on Dr Lanes comments in that link Pat posted yesterday? Worth remembering the residents had continually logged complaints with RKCBC about the cladding refurbishment and corner cutting, but were never listened to. Still trying to weaponize Grenfell Bullet? *-) .......... Damn you lefties are thick 8-) Oh FFS Pelmethead put the damn bottle away and sober up, then you might be able to make more sensible and adult posts. *-) Dr Lane is a fire engineer appointed by the inquiry but you wouldn't know that because you don't read. *-) 72 died at Grenfell :-| ............39 died last week in the back of a lorry ........I find your faux outrage quite gut turning *-) ........ Goodnight......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.