Tower Block Fire

bobmcstuff

Pross wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

this isnt about rich v poor, its about the value placed on certain peoples lives by gov and society ie us lot, i feel shamed by this incident, for want of a better word.

Maybe you ought to point that out to Lookyhere as they're the one who keep saying it wouldn't happen to rich people. You also keep mentioning fires in private schools - I suspect the reaction if that did happen would be the same as it would be for a state school, let's hope we never find out. As for the value of a human life, I can only speak for myself and I certainly don't rate human worth by how rich a person is.

My point is that rich and poor live in buildings being built to the exact same regulations and that it is highly unlikely a private housing developer would be spending more money on fire safety than they are obliged to, to hear some people talking there's a two tier system that puts those in social housing at greater risk which simply isn't the case. If there is a greater instance of fires in social housing than private (which I agree there seems to be) I suspect it mainly comes down in part to things like furnishings being older and not complying with the far superior modern standards and many buildings being older and built under less stringent regulations.

I'm waiting to find out more on if / why improved standards were delayed and whether it is just the timescales of the process or if Goverment have dragged their feet in which case I agree they are culpable.

Fire safety order 2005. One of a very small subset of safety regs which hasn't been updated in over a decade.

Various updates have been tabled and various mps have pushed back on it on the basis it would harm business. Whether the specific updates proposed would have stopped this fire I don't know, however.

UK safety regs operate on the principle of reasonable practicality (ALARP) so I assume (although FSO isn't really my area, I work on DSEAR and COMAH mainly) that if there was a cheap reasonably practical alternative that was well known and safer, the HSE will be able to hold that up as good practice and the developer/council would be found to be negligent. That's the good thing about the UK approach to safety regs, you can be found wanting even in circumstances where the regs are less than specific.

Pross

Lookyhere wrote:

Re building materials, do you think a private tower block would be retrofitted with the more expensive insulation panels or the cheaper less fire retardant ones used on the social housing at Grenfell? both conform to current regs.

No, I'm pretty certain the Contractor would fit the cheapest available product that met the specification and Building Regs. They'll generally have some form of performance spec relating to insulating properties and the like and meeting the relevant BS EN then they'll be left to source the cheapest alternative that complies, that's how they win the work. Of course, the specification could be more prescriptive but most developers want the most cost effective solution. The real issue as you and others have pointed out is whether the BS and regulations are suitable based on known problems from elsewhere.

mamba80

bobmcstuff wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

By the way, asbestos that is fully enclosed within a building's structure does not generally present a risk. Leaving it undisturbed is quite a sensible approach.

And it's completely noncombustible so it's actually a fantastic building material.

It's only a problem when you start cutting it up and releasing dust.

mmmmm when wet can crumble, when used in fire doors that are in heavy use, can release fibres, its used in such a wide ranging spectrum of materials, its not just lagging or cement asbestos, even older loo seats! fibre board/mill board (a licenced material) kids kick it, punch holes through it, its is bl00dy dangerous, which is why its never used now.

cement "white"asbestos, which you might be referring too, is only 6 to 10% asbestos, the rest is cement, its actually quite safe, as the fibres are encapsulated in the cement.

Asbestos used in buildings that then burn down will deposit large amounts of fibre into the air.

the report into schools is serious, its a big problem and isnt going away.

Pross, if your correct, why do manufactures make the higher grade option and in huge quantities ? if almost everyone will buy the cheaper stuff just to win the work (council contracts aside) it doesnt make sense.

pblakeney

Nice to know that the next "national disaster" will result in everyone being housed within 3 months. That must be progress as it hasn't happened before.

rjsterry

Mamba, I'm not suggesting that asbestos is not a problem in some cases, just that tearing apart a few hundred schools to remove something that will only become a risk when you try to remove it, is maybe not the best use of money.

mamba80

rjsterry wrote:

Mamba, I'm not suggesting that asbestos is not a problem in some cases, just that tearing apart a few hundred schools to remove something that will only become a risk when you try to remove it, is maybe not the best use of money.

why dont you read the report? they looked at the evidence, listened to the experts and came to completely different conclusions, then again we dont listen to experts anymore and that works well :roll:

https://www.ucu.org.uk/media/4999/Asbes ... lo_res.pdf

rick_chasey

This chap makes a fair point.

rjsterry

mamba80 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Mamba, I'm not suggesting that asbestos is not a problem in some cases, just that tearing apart a few hundred schools to remove something that will only become a risk when you try to remove it, is maybe not the best use of money.

why dont you read the report? they looked at the evidence, listened to the experts and came to completely different conclusions, then again we dont listen to experts anymore and that works well :roll:

https://www.ucu.org.uk/media/4999/Asbes ... lo_res.pdf

The report recomends a programme of phased removal, focusing on the highest risk instances first. That's not the same as "remove all asbestos from all schools now". I'm certainly not claiming to be an expert, but asbestos inspection and occasionally removal is something I am fairly familiar with. The way in which it is incorporated into the building fabric sometimes means that removal is impossible without significant demolition. In these situations, encapsulation may be a more practical alternative.

My more general point was that asbestos is not the only or even the most pressing health and safety issue affecting schools or social housing. My particular bug bear is the government breaking its own laws for the past 7 years on air pollution and having to be repeatedly taken to court to attempt to enforce compliance. Reasons for this also boil down to "it costs too much".

mamba80

rjsterry wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Mamba, I'm not suggesting that asbestos is not a problem in some cases, just that tearing apart a few hundred schools to remove something that will only become a risk when you try to remove it, is maybe not the best use of money.

why dont you read the report? they looked at the evidence, listened to the experts and came to completely different conclusions, then again we dont listen to experts anymore and that works well :roll:

https://www.ucu.org.uk/media/4999/Asbes ... lo_res.pdf

The report recomends a programme of phased removal, focusing on the highest risk instances first. That's not the same as "remove all asbestos from all schools now". I'm certainly not claiming to be an expert, but asbestos inspection and occasionally removal is something I am fairly familiar with. The way in which it is incorporated into the building fabric sometimes means that removal is impossible without significant demolition. In these situations, encapsulation may be a more practical alternative.

My more general point was that asbestos is not the only or even the most pressing health and safety issue affecting schools or social housing. My particular bug bear is the government breaking its own laws for the past 7 years on air pollution and having to be repeatedly taken to court to attempt to enforce compliance. Reasons for this also boil down to "it costs too much".

yep i do agree the air quality issue is crazy, there is money to be made and jobs to be created in green policies generally and its easy to impose taxes/tariffs to change behaviour and encourage greener transport but this Gov is doing the opposite, madness.
as you say, down to money or rather lack of investment, the results of which we see in London now.

i remember a guy in sweden telling me years ago "the problem with england is you invented/built everything first, so your infrastructure is old and you ve failed to upgrade sufficiently over many years"

mamba80

Rick Chasey wrote:

This chap makes a fair point.

another....

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 95586.html

Lookyhere

huh and i get accused of saying its a rich v poor issue.

No official help on the ground, rebates for the wealthy and poor people threatened with legal action, knowing full well they would not have the means to challenge this, thanks to the Legal Aid "reforms"

People need to go to jail for this.

FishFish

I'm sorry it happened, I hope it does not happen again, I've not made any donations and I've moved on whilst accepting that others may never move on.

I'm going to look at some biking stuff.

surrey_commuter

FishFish wrote:

I'm sorry it happened, I hope it does not happen again, I've not made any donations and I've moved on whilst accepting that others may never move on.

I'm going to look at some biking stuff.

Congratulations you are not a Trotskyite/Marxist wishing to ferment perpetual revolution. For which of course you need an enemy. Corbyn and co have the old staple of the Tories (spat through gritted teeth) but TM is just incompetent so difficult to use her to rile the mob. Intergenerational unfairness is good but again lacks a bogeyman to rally against. It seems that they have created the febrile atmosphere which allows them to turn this terrible disaster into a rich versus poor issue.

IMHO Corbyn is an irresponsible cvnt (on a par with Farage) as opposed to a complete cvnt (like Boris) as at least he believes in the cause rather than just shamelessly exploiting people for his own ends.

mamba80

Surrey Commuter wrote:

FishFish wrote:

I'm sorry it happened, I hope it does not happen again, I've not made any donations and I've moved on whilst accepting that others may never move on.

I'm going to look at some biking stuff.

Congratulations you are not a Trotskyite/Marxist wishing to ferment perpetual revolution. For which of course you need an enemy. Corbyn and co have the old staple of the Tories (spat through gritted teeth) but TM is just incompetent so difficult to use her to rile the mob. Intergenerational unfairness is good but again lacks a bogeyman to rally against. It seems that they have created the febrile atmosphere which allows them to turn this terrible disaster into a rich versus poor issue.

IMHO Corbyn is an irresponsible cvnt (on a par with Farage) as opposed to a complete cvnt (like Boris) as at least he believes in the cause rather than just shamelessly exploiting people for his own ends.

i ve heard nothing that suggests JC has exploited anything, he is hardly on the news, i have heard that there is no contingency plan in place, that TM didnt visit the survivors and that the council gave rebates to the wealthiest CT payers.... that residents were threatened with legal action... he has suggested that empty homes be temporarily used to rehouse, what exactly is wrong with that?
Its political decisions that have attributed to this fire after all and JC has equally blamed previous gov's too, not just this tory one.

at the end of the day, these were mainly poor black immigrants, no one really gives a shitte about them do they? this sort of fire happened before and no one did jack to make sure it would nt happen again.

Hopefully now, things will change but i doubt it.

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

i ve heard nothing that suggests JC has exploited anything, he is hardly on the news,

Maybe not directly...

rick_chasey

I find it odd that people think preventable deaths shouldn't be politicised.


Surely this is where the rubber meets the road in politics.

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

i ve heard nothing that suggests JC has exploited anything, he is hardly on the news,

Maybe not directly...

end of the day, he was welcomed by the survivors and May didnt come to meet them, that i think says it all.

rumours about "Corbyn supporters did xy or z" are meaningless, he is nt responsible, anymore than May is, for peoples comments or actions.

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

i ve heard nothing that suggests JC has exploited anything, he is hardly on the news,

Maybe not directly...

end of the day, he was welcomed by the survivors and May didnt come to meet them, that i think says it all.

rumours about "Corbyn supporters did xy or z" are meaningless, he is nt responsible, anymore than May is, for peoples comments or actions.

Sure, he's not the one doing the dirty work but how do you know he is not influencing what they likes of Momentum do?

In any event, trying to stir up trouble on the back of a genuine human tragedy in this way is pretty low.

mamba80

Well how do you know he is? its as i said, tory press looking to cast blame away from May etc because they know its coming their way.

no one on the ground is saying any militants are there at Grenfell, like there is also no gov responders there either!

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

Well how do you know he is? its as i said, tory press looking to cast blame away from May etc because they know its coming their way.

no one on the ground is saying any militants are there at Grenfell, like there is also no gov responders there either!

No smoke without fire.

As for your 'no militants' claim, the pics suggest otherwise. Funny how the same pre-printed SWP placards turn up at different protests...

narbs

Fair play Steve, there's no bar so low that you won't crawl on your belly under it.

cornerblock

Stevo 666 wrote:

No smoke without fire.

A bit tactless.

pblakeney

I have absolutely no problems with these protests.
Things are clearly wrong, nothing being done, people protest. Inevitable.

Stevo_666

narbs wrote:

Fair play Steve, there's no bar so low that you won't crawl on your belly under it.

Try playing the ball and not the man then maybe we can say the same about you?

I have no issue with legit protest. I do have an issue with others hijacking it.

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

narbs wrote:

Fair play Steve, there's no bar so low that you won't crawl on your belly under it.

Try playing the ball and not the man then maybe we can say the same about you?

I have no issue with legit protest. I do have an issue with others hijacking it.

Never Again and Justice for Grenfell..... the stuff of revolution :roll:

Who gives a 4X who is supporting the residents? their calls for greater safety got them absolutely no-where, apart from threatened with legal action, something you dont seem so keen to condemn?

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

narbs wrote:

Fair play Steve, there's no bar so low that you won't crawl on your belly under it.

Try playing the ball and not the man then maybe we can say the same about you?

I have no issue with legit protest. I do have an issue with others hijacking it.

Clearly the SWP rentamob saw an opportunity, but as always, they are hangers-on, even in current labour party.

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

narbs wrote:

Fair play Steve, there's no bar so low that you won't crawl on your belly under it.

Try playing the ball and not the man then maybe we can say the same about you?

I have no issue with legit protest. I do have an issue with others hijacking it.

Never Again and Justice for Grenfell..... the stuff of revolution :roll:

Who gives a 4X who is supporting the residents? their calls for greater safety got them absolutely no-where, apart from threatened with legal action, something you dont seem so keen to condemn?

As I've said above, no issue with legit protest. Not hijacking by militants trying to make political capital - that's a sh1tty thing to do. You have to wonder why narbs was so offended that I pointed this out?

As for the need to revise building regs going forwards and sort out the immediate existing risks - very likely things will now be done. Tragically too late for many. There is an investigation on-going and if people are criminally liable then let the law take its course.

mamba80

the SWP is nt a proscribed organisation, on par with UKIP perhaps or the Young Conservatives lol.

Divert your anger at this toward the disgraceful way the residents have been treated over many years, that has resulted in avoidable deaths.

mamba80

Lets see if this results in resignations let alone a prosecution....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40330789

i wont be holding my breath.....

FocusZing

Andy Murray on Monday pledged his winnings at this year’s Aegon Championships at Queen’s Club – which will be more than £346,000 if he wins his sixth title on Sunday – to the families of the victims of the Grenfell Tower fire tragedy.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/ ... ell-appeal

A big gesture, from the multiple Grand Slam winner.