Guest pelmetman Posted November 11, 2019 Share Posted November 11, 2019 John52 - 2019-11-10 4:31 PM Birdbrain - 2019-11-10 3:52 PM To be fair to FlatPants I don't think he needs a fella who puts his poo in public bins to stick up for him Dog Waste bins actually. Have you considered the therapy bill for those poor souls who have had to deal with your Poo? :-| ........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fast Pat Posted November 16, 2019 Share Posted November 16, 2019 The Tories can always find money when it suits their own interests. • They plucked £1 billion from the magic money tree to bribe the DUP into propping up their shambles of a government. • They found £12 million to hire ferries that didn't even exist. • They've used hundreds of thousands of pounds in public cash on court cases trying to defend Boris Johnson's unlawful decision to shut parliament down, and their decision to unlawfully sell weapons to the tyrannical Saudi war criminals. • They blasted £100 million on "Get Ready For Brexit" adverts. But when it comes to preventing ordinary people from burning to death in their homes, they've only funded the removal of flammable cladding from one single building since the Grenfell fire over two years ago. Nor have they changed the legislation that makes the fitting of sprinklers in all high rise new builds compulsory. This is The Cube student accommodation in Bolton, engulfed in a cladding fire last night. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/nov/15/fire-crews-battle-blaze-at-bolton-student-housing-building After Grenfell, the Tories promised to ensure fires like that would never happen again but 2yrs later, 327 residential buildings still use the same cladding as that on Grenfell Tower Yet the Press say nothing &let them get away with it. What a state our country is in Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted November 16, 2019 Share Posted November 16, 2019 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. …………………. 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 The regulations were not withdrawn or watered down, it was just that the formal role of the fire brigades in approving applications under building regulations was withdrawn.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........................ At 1 above, I said I thought deregulation was too strong. Having read this http://tinyurl.com/whdwgtb (also from Inside Building), I'm less certain. Due to the layout, it is a bit difficult to follow, but it appears very thorough, and rather revealing. It sets out to chart the various individual changes (and their consequences) to the "Approved Documents" that describe how the requirements of the Building Regulations may be met. It is a story of individual changes, made over about 20 years, that have cumulated in what appears to be acceptance of completely illogical interpretations of what is, and is not, compliant. Before you guys all go off on another irrelevant party Political pissing contest, just read it - noting that the changes have taken place under administrations of both political stripes, without adequate understanding, on the part of ministers, of the safety implications of what they were permitting. It also illustrates how warnings that liberties were being taken were not acted upon. The intention of the changes was apparently to streamline and simplify the approval procedures in the interests of greater efficiency and lower costs. Instead, what these cumulative changes in fact created was confusion ('though I still struggle to understand what it is about the requirements of the actual regulation that people couldn't grasp) resulting in the industry searching for means not to comply, and finding spurious ways of so doing. What is so complicated about "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"? Just ask yourselves two questions. What does it mean, and what is it seeking to prevent? One might question that word "adequately", and why it was there. But if one then asks, "adequate to achieve what", the answer must surely be adequate to prevent a fire spreading. One might equally ask what is a wall, and should insulation and cladding be considered as part of a wall? But this regulation is not about the construction of the wall, it is about whether a fire can spread externally across it. The regulation would be rendered meaningless if cladding and or insulation were excluded, since if the wall minus the cladding can meet the requirement of preventing fire spread, but the cladding allows fire to spread freely, the intention of preventing external fire spread is defeated. And yet, the confusion created within the regulations (so well exposed in the article) has allowed some 450 buildings to be built with external walls that do just that, culminating in the Grenfell Tower fire. Clients, in general, want their buildings as cheaply as possible. They therefore press their consultants to save money wherever possible. Contractors constructing the buildings do likewise, because the more they can save, the higher their profit. That is how markets work. It is for those who regulate, and enforce the regulations, to ensure compliance in the interests of public safety. When the market is extended to include the enforcers, by putting them in price competition with each other, as happened during this period of regulatory confusion, they quickly realise that the market favours he who not only charges the lowest fees, but also takes the most "cost sensitive" approach to the regulations. Then, as we have seen, public safety suffers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted November 16, 2019 Share Posted November 16, 2019 Brian Kirby - 2019-11-16 6:22 PM 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. …………………. 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........................ At 1 above, I said I thought deregulation was too strong. Having read this http://tinyurl.com/whdwgtb (also from Inside Building), I'm less certain. Due to the layout, it is a bit difficult to follow, but it appears very thorough, and rather revealing. It sets out to chart the various individual changes (and their consequences) to the "Approved Documents" that describe how the requirements of the Building Regulations may be met. It is a story of individual changes, made over about 20 years, that have cumulated in what appears to be acceptance of completely illogical interpretations of what is, and is not, compliant. Interesting link though extremely lengthy read! As i said previously i simply followed from what the fire officer had written and also mentions the "obsession with deregulation" in the first couple of paras of the report you linked. And yet, the confusion created within the regulations (so well exposed in the article) has allowed some 450 buildings to be built with external walls that do just that, culminating in the Grenfell Tower fire. Clients, in general, want their buildings as cheaply as possible. They therefore press their consultants to save money wherever possible. Contractors constructing the buildings do likewise, because the more they can save, the higher their profit. That is how markets work. It is for those who regulate, and enforce the regulations, to ensure compliance in the interests of public safety. By clients i assume you mean building owners (landlords)? They aren't going to live in them so my question to those people is would they allow their own private property to be wrapped in this flammable rubbish? Not a single one of them because they'd be living in a death trap. Building on the cheap is a no brainer to me. Utter madness as it begs the question over whats being cut to save money. Have we really got to the point where making big money trumps human life? These people should have been among the first in line answering questions at the inquiry.....not the fire fighters. They were there risking their own lives to save others....not thinking about how much money they could coin in by corner cutting. As if Grenfell wasn't a harsh enough warning, a block of students flats in Bolton went up in flame last night. Apparently fitted with the same rubbish as Grenfell though thankfully no lives lost. But the message is very clear and simple (at least to me). Get that rubbish ripped off all blocks whether accommodation, offices or whatever and dump it. It has no place being used. Germany banned this rubbish from blocks over 22 metre high over 30 years ago but we're still using it because it's cheap crap and means bigger bucks for the greedy developers. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/16/manufacturer-of-cladding-on-grenfell-tower-identified-as-omnis-exteriors https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/bolton-fire-huge-emergency-response-17267121 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted November 16, 2019 Share Posted November 16, 2019 pelmetman - 2019-11-11 7:43 PM John52 - 2019-11-10 4:31 PM Birdbrain - 2019-11-10 3:52 PM To be fair to FlatPants I don't think he needs a fella who puts his poo in public bins to stick up for him Dog Waste bins actually. Have you considered the therapy bill for those poor souls who have had to deal with your Poo? :-| ........ What do you think they expect to find in dog waste bins *-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fast Pat Posted November 16, 2019 Share Posted November 16, 2019 Brian Kirby - 2019-11-16 6:22 PM 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. …………………. 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........................ At 1 above, I said I thought deregulation was too strong. Having read this http://tinyurl.com/whdwgtb (also from Inside Building), I'm less certain. Due to the layout, it is a bit difficult to follow, but it appears very thorough, and rather revealing. It sets out to chart the various individual changes (and their consequences) to the "Approved Documents" that describe how the requirements of the Building Regulations may be met. It is a story of individual changes, made over about 20 years, that have cumulated in what appears to be acceptance of completely illogical interpretations of what is, and is not, compliant. Before you guys all go off on another irrelevant party Political pissing contest, just read it - noting that the changes have taken place under administrations of both political stripes, without adequate understanding, on the part of ministers, of the safety implications of what they were permitting. It also illustrates how warnings that liberties were being taken were not acted upon. The intention of the changes was apparently to streamline and simplify the approval procedures in the interests of greater efficiency and lower costs. Instead, what these cumulative changes in fact created was confusion ('though I still struggle to understand what it is about the requirements of the actual regulation that people couldn't grasp) resulting in the industry searching for means not to comply, and finding spurious ways of so doing. What is so complicated about "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"? Just ask yourselves two questions. What does it mean, and what is it seeking to prevent? One might question that word "adequately", and why it was there. But if one then asks, "adequate to achieve what", the answer must surely be adequate to prevent a fire spreading. One might equally ask what is a wall, and should insulation and cladding be considered as part of a wall? But this regulation is not about the construction of the wall, it is about whether a fire can spread externally across it. The regulation would be rendered meaningless if cladding and or insulation were excluded, since if the wall minus the cladding can meet the requirement of preventing fire spread, but the cladding allows fire to spread freely, the intention of preventing external fire spread is defeated. And yet, the confusion created within the regulations (so well exposed in the article) has allowed some 450 buildings to be built with external walls that do just that, culminating in the Grenfell Tower fire. Clients, in general, want their buildings as cheaply as possible. They therefore press their consultants to save money wherever possible. Contractors constructing the buildings do likewise, because the more they can save, the higher their profit. That is how markets work. It is for those who regulate, and enforce the regulations, to ensure compliance in the interests of public safety. When the market is extended to include the enforcers, by putting them in price competition with each other, as happened during this period of regulatory confusion, they quickly realise that the market favours he who not only charges the lowest fees, but also takes the most "cost sensitive" approach to the regulations. Then, as we have seen, public safety suffers. "Cost sensitive" - they never use that phrase, especiallyin coronerscourt, "valve engineering" causes less embarrassment. Oh and whatever happens don't use the phrase "bonfire of red tape.". The truly frightening thing in this latest fire in Bolton is that building regulations for student residences are less than for "residential" premises, here luck played a part - next time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birdbrain Posted November 17, 2019 Author Share Posted November 17, 2019 John52 - 2019-11-16 9:24 PM pelmetman - 2019-11-11 7:43 PM John52 - 2019-11-10 4:31 PM Birdbrain - 2019-11-10 3:52 PM To be fair to FlatPants I don't think he needs a fella who puts his poo in public bins to stick up for him Dog Waste bins actually. Have you considered the therapy bill for those poor souls who have had to deal with your Poo? :-| ........ What do you think they expect to find in dog waste bins *-) Dog waste ??? The other bins you chuck ya stuff in those homeless types scrape around in ... Nice ... Very caring of ya to share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birdbrain Posted November 17, 2019 Author Share Posted November 17, 2019 Bulletguy - 2019-11-16 7:35 PM Brian Kirby - 2019-11-16 6:22 PM 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. …………………. 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........................ At 1 above, I said I thought deregulation was too strong. Having read this http://tinyurl.com/whdwgtb (also from Inside Building), I'm less certain. Due to the layout, it is a bit difficult to follow, but it appears very thorough, and rather revealing. It sets out to chart the various individual changes (and their consequences) to the "Approved Documents" that describe how the requirements of the Building Regulations may be met. It is a story of individual changes, made over about 20 years, that have cumulated in what appears to be acceptance of completely illogical interpretations of what is, and is not, compliant. Interesting link though extremely lengthy read! As i said previously i simply followed from what the fire officer had written and also mentions the "obsession with deregulation" in the first couple of paras of the report you linked. And yet, the confusion created within the regulations (so well exposed in the article) has allowed some 450 buildings to be built with external walls that do just that, culminating in the Grenfell Tower fire. Clients, in general, want their buildings as cheaply as possible. They therefore press their consultants to save money wherever possible. Contractors constructing the buildings do likewise, because the more they can save, the higher their profit. That is how markets work. It is for those who regulate, and enforce the regulations, to ensure compliance in the interests of public safety. By clients i assume you mean building owners (landlords)? They aren't going to live in them so my question to those people is would they allow their own private property to be wrapped in this flammable rubbish? Not a single one of them because they'd be living in a death trap. Building on the cheap is a no brainer to me. Utter madness as it begs the question over whats being cut to save money. Have we really got to the point where making big money trumps human life? These people should have been among the first in line answering questions at the inquiry.....not the fire fighters. They were there risking their own lives to save others....not thinking about how much money they could coin in by corner cutting. As if Grenfell wasn't a harsh enough warning, a block of students flats in Bolton went up in flame last night. Apparently fitted with the same rubbish as Grenfell though thankfully no lives lost. But the message is very clear and simple (at least to me). Get that rubbish ripped off all blocks whether accommodation, offices or whatever and dump it. It has no place being used. Germany banned this rubbish from blocks over 22 metre high over 30 years ago but we're still using it because it's cheap crap and means bigger bucks for the greedy developers. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/16/manufacturer-of-cladding-on-grenfell-tower-identified-as-omnis-exteriors https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/bolton-fire-huge-emergency-response-17267121 ... https://www.dw.com/en/germany-fire-risk-prompts-high-rise-evacuations-in-duisburg/a-47527447 ... https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3311608 ... https://www.thelocal.de/20170628/germany-evacuates-tower-block-fearing-repeat-of-grenfell-blaze ... Germany you say ... Just a few of many ... Stop political point scoring over death ... Its not pretty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted November 17, 2019 Share Posted November 17, 2019 Bulletguy - 2019-11-16 7:35 PM.....................… 1 Building on the cheap is a no brainer to me. Utter madness as it begs the question over whats being cut to save money. Have we really got to the point where making big money trumps human life? These people should have been among the first in line answering questions at the inquiry.....not the fire fighters. They were there risking their own lives to save others....not thinking about how much money they could coin in by corner cutting. 2 As if Grenfell wasn't a harsh enough warning, a block of students flats in Bolton went up in flame last night. Apparently fitted with the same rubbish as Grenfell though thankfully no lives lost. But the message is very clear and simple (at least to me). Get that rubbish ripped off all blocks whether accommodation, offices or whatever and dump it. It has no place being used. Germany banned this rubbish from blocks over 22 metre high over 30 years ago but we're still using it because it's cheap crap and means bigger bucks for the greedy developers...…………... 1 So how much should be spent on a building? What is the "right" price to pay? These were all large projects, not garden sheds, and the normal way to procure such work is a) design and specify it in detail (i.e. by architects, engineers, etc) b) get professionally prepared estimates based on those designs (i.e. by quantity surveyors), c) obtain client approval to design and costings, d) prepare detailed bills of quantity based the approved designs and specs, e) vet suitable contractors, inviting a number (depending on the size of the project) of building contractors to submit tenders, f) arithmetically check the lowest tender for mistakes - inviting the tenderer to accept his error or revise his price to correct the error, g) check that corrections haven't raised his price above the next lowest, and then either appoint that tenderer, or switch to the new lowest tender and repeat f) and g) with them, and so on until the lowest, error free tender is identified, and then appoint them. Given that they all price the same documents, and all submit their tenders at the same time on the same day, what would be the point of arbitrarily deciding to appoint any contractor other than the one with the lowest, fully checked, price? It can happen, but usually only if something emerges during the process to suggest that the lowest priced bid may not be reliable - for example if there are suggestions that the firm might be financially unsound, or is being taken over by an unsuitable competitor. 2 As with Grenfell, wait for the facts!! :-) The building was 6 storeys high, so at a guess did not have a floor above 18 metres from ground level, so the stricter rule that should have applied to Grenfell would not be relevant. It was faced with an apparently similar cladding, but that apparent similarity does not necessarily mean that it was similar in composition. No-one has yet commented on the insulation, or where it was located relative to the cladding. Also, no-one has yet commented on the fact that the whole top floor seems to have been gutted with relatively little damage to the lower floors. That implies to me that the fire spread quite fast across the upper floor, which suggests it spread internally (because what cladding I have been able to see so far on the lower floors looks reasonably sound and is not fire blackened), which is odd. Certainly the top floor cladding has gone, but the fifth floor cladding looks to be in place and, as above, looks remarkably undamaged. Doubtless the facts will out over the next few days. Then we'll begin to know. ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted November 17, 2019 Share Posted November 17, 2019 Fast Pat - 2019-11-16 11:25 PM...………………. 1 "Cost sensitive" - they never use that phrase, especially in coroners court, "valve engineering" causes less embarrassment. Oh and whatever happens don't use the phrase "bonfire of red tape.". 2 The truly frightening thing in this latest fire in Bolton is that building regulations for student residences are less than for "residential" premises, here luck played a part - next time? 1 Yes but...…..you can call your dog Spot, or Algernon, but it's still a dog! :-D 2 But see my post above to Paul. The building is not the same height (over 18M) as Grenfell, so the specific regulations that should have been applied to Grenfell would not apply here. As with Grenfell, there is more yet to emerge, but with the present level of interest you can be sure there will be a lot of people trying to find out - no doubt including the excellent Peter Apps from Inside Housing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted November 17, 2019 Share Posted November 17, 2019 Brian Kirby - 2019-11-17 11:45 AM Bulletguy - 2019-11-16 7:35 PM.....................… 1 Building on the cheap is a no brainer to me. Utter madness as it begs the question over whats being cut to save money. Have we really got to the point where making big money trumps human life? These people should have been among the first in line answering questions at the inquiry.....not the fire fighters. They were there risking their own lives to save others....not thinking about how much money they could coin in by corner cutting. 2 As if Grenfell wasn't a harsh enough warning, a block of students flats in Bolton went up in flame last night. Apparently fitted with the same rubbish as Grenfell though thankfully no lives lost. But the message is very clear and simple (at least to me). Get that rubbish ripped off all blocks whether accommodation, offices or whatever and dump it. It has no place being used. Germany banned this rubbish from blocks over 22 metre high over 30 years ago but we're still using it because it's cheap crap and means bigger bucks for the greedy developers...…………... 1 So how much should be spent on a building? What is the "right" price to pay? 2 As with Grenfell, wait for the facts!! :-) The building was 6 storeys high, so at a guess did not have a floor above 18 metres from ground level, so the stricter rule that should have applied to Grenfell would not be relevant. It was faced with an apparently similar cladding.... 1) The way i see it Brian is all buildings built for human habitation, so including office blocks as well as residential, should be built to a higher standard. I'm looking at it from a lay mans pov. Example; a small development of new builds on the outskirts of my village about 15 years ago. The land was a tiny parking area which the borough council used to store a few trucks so i was surprised when 20 "houses" were planned. These things are typical "rabbit hutch" builds rammed cheek by jowl and those with "garages" can't even get a small car in. They were thrown up in a matter of weeks with folk moving in. Why on earth do we persist in building like this when we have vast amounts of open land? On the very rare chance you get to fly over UK on a cloud free day, you will see exactly what i mean. We build corrales (estates) clumped together like encampments....then absolutely nothing but open land for mile after mile. Either our build costs are extraordinarily high....or the property developers profit margins unreasonably bigger. 2) Latest news reports are now saying that it wasn't the same used on Grenfell. Also it's a privately owned development and doesn't belong to the university. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted November 17, 2019 Share Posted November 17, 2019 Bulletguy - 2019-11-17 1:08 PM Why on earth do we persist in building like this when we have vast amounts of open land? . because the powerful have a vested interest in keeping housing costs high. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted November 17, 2019 Share Posted November 17, 2019 Birdbrain - 2019-11-17 7:59 AM Dog waste ??? The other bins you chuck ya stuff in those homeless types scrape around in ... Nice ... Very caring of ya to share I know you are making things up because I don't do that. So how can anyone believe a word you say? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted November 18, 2019 Share Posted November 18, 2019 Bulletguy - 2019-11-17 1:08 PM...........................… 1) The way i see it Brian is all buildings built for human habitation, so including office blocks as well as residential, should be built to a higher standard. I'm looking at it from a lay mans pov. Example; a small development of new builds on the outskirts of my village about 15 years ago. The land was a tiny parking area which the borough council used to store a few trucks so i was surprised when 20 "houses" were planned. These things are typical "rabbit hutch" builds rammed cheek by jowl and those with "garages" can't even get a small car in. They were thrown up in a matter of weeks with folk moving in. Why on earth do we persist in building like this when we have vast amounts of open land? 2 On the very rare chance you get to fly over UK on a cloud free day, you will see exactly what i mean. We build corrales (estates) clumped together like encampments....then absolutely nothing but open land for mile after mile. 3 Either our build costs are extraordinarily high....or the property developers profit margins unreasonably bigger. ……………………………….. 1 Difficult, because I don't see how one can define a "higher standard", so how one could legislate for it. Personally, I think a number of changes will have to be introduced to respond to climate change, which, logically, will require enhanced insulation standards, discouragement of using energy intensive building materials (i.e timber in lieu of brick), greater emphasis on (ideally ground source) heat pumps, greater emphasis on developing in, and around, existing towns and cities (to reduce commuter traffic), greater emphasis on development alongside rail routes, to reduce road traffic, and much stricter control of rural development, so as to maximise the use of agricultural land for agriculture (to reduce food imports). Where large scale development is required, it should only be permitted if constructed along the lines of the post war "new towns", where all facilities (shops, commercial, educational, welfare, and administrative buildings) are included, so that broadly self-sufficient communities are created. Building size, to me, is not the main problem - small buildings have lower resource requirements than large. :-) Speed of construction has little to do with the longevity or quality of the building, and in our uncertain climate is a great advantage. If you've ever come across, for example, Huf houses, no-one would describe them as lacking quality, yet they are pre-fabricated in panels in a factory, arrive on the back of a lorry, and are erected fully finished in a matter of days. 2 I would also say that we do not have vast amounts of open land available for building, as most of that open land is required for agriculture, flood control, amenity use, or is simply unsuitable for other reasons (location, etc.) for building. The last thing we need under present, and foreseeable future, circumstances, IMO, is a spread of buildings dotted all over the landscape, with people consequently endlessly driving thither and yon. Homes need to be grouped around centres of employment that also provide educational, health, and welfare facilities, to reduce the amount of travel we all have to do. 3 Underlying the cost of building is the cost of land, which is relatively high in the UK. Since all fixed installations require land, that high cost inflates the price of everything, from roads and rail lines to shops, offices, industrial buildings, through farms and agricultural land, to homes. Everyone in the UK, if they want a thriving economy, has to produce more, in less time, to compensate for that higher land cost, when the cost of what they produce is set against the cost of similar goods made in countries where land costs are lower. "Work smarter" doesn't work in anyone's favour any longer, as anyone, anywhere else, can (and do) adopt similar technologies to benefit from the same productivity advantages. Property developers do make large profits: like it or lump it, that is why they exist. They are driven to do so by the way in which their shareholders reward their directors and senior managers, and expect to be rewarded in return. But, changing that would require reform of our adopted business model, which is a long way from the Grenfell (or the Cube) fire!! :-D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birdbrain Posted November 18, 2019 Author Share Posted November 18, 2019 John52 - 2019-11-17 1:25 PM Birdbrain - 2019-11-17 7:59 AM Dog waste ??? The other bins you chuck ya stuff in those homeless types scrape around in ... Nice ... Very caring of ya to share I know you are making things up because I don't do that. So how can anyone believe a word you say? Of course you do ... Not everywhere has dog waste bins ... You chuck it in the public bins and prolly in other places ... Yuk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted November 18, 2019 Share Posted November 18, 2019 Birdbrain - 2019-11-18 5:34 PM . You chuck it in the public bins and prolly in other places ... Yuk You can't prove that because it isn't true. So you must have made it up. Since you are making things up how can we believe anything else you say? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birdbrain Posted November 18, 2019 Author Share Posted November 18, 2019 John52 - 2019-11-18 5:50 PM Birdbrain - 2019-11-18 5:34 PM . You chuck it in the public bins and prolly in other places ... Yuk You can't prove that because it isn't true. So you must have made it up. Since you are making things up how can we believe anything else you say? Its reality ... Where do you chuck it when no dog waste bin is anywhere near ... I cant prove it your right though you know its true , I know it and anyone with an ounce of intelligence knows it ... Vile Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted November 19, 2019 Share Posted November 19, 2019 Birdbrain - 2019-11-18 5:53 PM John52 - 2019-11-18 5:50 PM Birdbrain - 2019-11-18 5:34 PM . You chuck it in the public bins and prolly in other places ... Yuk You can't prove that because it isn't true. So you must have made it up. Since you are making things up how can we believe anything else you say? Its reality ... Where do you chuck it when no dog waste bin is anywhere near ... I cant prove it your right though you know its true , I know it and anyone with an ounce of intelligence knows it ... Vile I keep it in sealed bags in a sealed container until I see a dog waste bin. You are making the mistake of thinking everyone 'with an ounce of intelligence ' is as selfish as you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birdbrain Posted November 19, 2019 Author Share Posted November 19, 2019 John52 - 2019-11-19 7:22 AM Birdbrain - 2019-11-18 5:53 PM John52 - 2019-11-18 5:50 PM Birdbrain - 2019-11-18 5:34 PM . You chuck it in the public bins and prolly in other places ... Yuk You can't prove that because it isn't true. So you must have made it up. Since you are making things up how can we believe anything else you say? Its reality ... Where do you chuck it when no dog waste bin is anywhere near ... I cant prove it your right though you know its true , I know it and anyone with an ounce of intelligence knows it ... Vile I keep it in sealed bags in a sealed container until I see a dog waste bin. You are making the mistake of thinking everyone 'with an ounce of intelligence ' is as selfish as you. Of course you do and you do what with your pee you do at the same time ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birdbrain Posted November 19, 2019 Author Share Posted November 19, 2019 Birdbrain - 2019-11-19 2:08 PM John52 - 2019-11-19 7:22 AM Birdbrain - 2019-11-18 5:53 PM John52 - 2019-11-18 5:50 PM Birdbrain - 2019-11-18 5:34 PM . You chuck it in the public bins and prolly in other places ... Yuk You can't prove that because it isn't true. So you must have made it up. Since you are making things up how can we believe anything else you say? Its reality ... Where do you chuck it when no dog waste bin is anywhere near ... I cant prove it your right though you know its true , I know it and anyone with an ounce of intelligence knows it ... Vile I keep it in sealed bags in a sealed container until I see a dog waste bin. You are making the mistake of thinking everyone 'with an ounce of intelligence ' is as selfish as you. Of course you do and you do what with your pee you do at the same time ??? Hello ... Hello sweet cheeks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted November 19, 2019 Share Posted November 19, 2019 John52 - 2019-11-18 5:50 PM Birdbrain - 2019-11-18 5:34 PM . You chuck it in the public bins and prolly in other places ... Yuk You can't prove that because it isn't true. So you must have made it up. Since you are making things up how can we believe anything else you say? Eh? 8-) ......You forget I've been on here for more than a dog watch ;-) ....... So I know the crap you have dumped in bin bags ;-) ........and on here >:-) ....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 Birdbrain - 2019-11-19 7:47 PM Birdbrain - 2019-11-19 2:08 PM John52 - 2019-11-19 7:22 AM Birdbrain - 2019-11-18 5:53 PM John52 - 2019-11-18 5:50 PM Birdbrain - 2019-11-18 5:34 PM . You chuck it in the public bins and prolly in other places ... Yuk You can't prove that because it isn't true. So you must have made it up. Since you are making things up how can we believe anything else you say? Its reality ... Where do you chuck it when no dog waste bin is anywhere near ... I cant prove it your right though you know its true , I know it and anyone with an ounce of intelligence knows it ... Vile I keep it in sealed bags in a sealed container until I see a dog waste bin. You are making the mistake of thinking everyone 'with an ounce of intelligence ' is as selfish as you. you do what with your pee you do at the same time ??? Hello ... Hello sweet cheeks All I have to do is keep quiet and watch you make a bigger fool of yourself :D So you admit you don't know what I do with it. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birdbrain Posted November 20, 2019 Author Share Posted November 20, 2019 John52 - 2019-11-20 1:36 PM Birdbrain - 2019-11-19 7:47 PM Birdbrain - 2019-11-19 2:08 PM John52 - 2019-11-19 7:22 AM Birdbrain - 2019-11-18 5:53 PM John52 - 2019-11-18 5:50 PM Birdbrain - 2019-11-18 5:34 PM . You chuck it in the public bins and prolly in other places ... Yuk You can't prove that because it isn't true. So you must have made it up. Since you are making things up how can we believe anything else you say? Its reality ... Where do you chuck it when no dog waste bin is anywhere near ... I cant prove it your right though you know its true , I know it and anyone with an ounce of intelligence knows it ... Vile I keep it in sealed bags in a sealed container until I see a dog waste bin. You are making the mistake of thinking everyone 'with an ounce of intelligence ' is as selfish as you. you do what with your pee you do at the same time ??? Hello ... Hello sweet cheeks All I have to do is keep quiet and watch you make a bigger fool of yourself :D So you admit you don't know what I do with it. :D I dont really want to even guess what you do with it but it certainly doesnt all go in dog bins ... You didn't answer my question ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 Good grief, are you two still trying to score a knockout over your knowledge of faeces? Your talents are truly wasted on here! :-D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birdbrain Posted November 20, 2019 Author Share Posted November 20, 2019 Brian Kirby - 2019-11-20 4:11 PM Good grief, are you two still trying to score a knockout over your knowledge of faeces? Your talents are truly wasted on here! :-D Everyone else talks cr@p so if you can't beat em Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.