Tower Block Fire

bobmcstuff

Pross wrote:

After the initial terrible response it looks like Councils and Government have finally got their acts together on testing similar properties. Did I hear right and there looks a possibility the cladding used wasn't actually legal? If so it will be interesting to see who knew. I think with all the pressure there could be a few people going to jail here and, if they knew it was the wrong product or did not following regulations or best practice in the design and construction, rightly so. The client (not sure if that's the Council or Housing Association) are also far from immune under the CDM Regs.

My understanding is it will come down to not following established good practice.

The cladding appears to have been tested in accordance with a British Standard for small scale fire testing which does not reflect the actual use case. Test involves subjecting the outer skin to fire for 1.5 and 10 minutes, and obviously if you put a fire on an aluminium surface for 10 minutes nothing happens. But that doesn't reflect this type of much larger fire where the fire spreads through the cladding.

meanredspider

Aluminium does burn if it gets hot enough IIRC. Isn't that what happened on HMS Sheffield? I'm sure there's all sorts of chimney effects going on too.

rjsterry

meanredspider wrote:

As I said before, nobody is coming out of this looking very good: fridge manufacturer, gas fitters, various inspectors, cladding contractors, even possibly the fire brigade that put out the original fridge fire (though that's one I'm really not sure about) and a load of other people.

Part of my current job is involved in meeting regulations and thanks to things like the PIP breast implant scandal and the VW scandal, regs are getting heaped on regs. This will only add to that. I am intrigued to know if these regs are UK or EU regs.

Harmonisation of the whole Building Regs is something that was more an idea for the future, although there will have been elements of EU legislation incorporated. The British Standards that the Building Regs refer to are generally harmonised with the relevant EN.

The inspection on this seems to be a particular issue. 16 inspections over the best part of 2 years, and apparently nobody picked up that this wasn't a suitable product for a building of this nature. While the privatisation of Building Control has I think led to a more constructive approach than the old DSs, there is inevitably competition to offer the lowest fee and then fit the inspection to that fee.

bobmcstuff

meanredspider wrote:

Aluminium does burn if it gets hot enough IIRC. Isn't that what happened on HMS Sheffield? I'm sure there's all sorts of chimney effects going on too.

Yes, but not if subject it to a small fire for ten minutes... Needs to be a couple of thousand degrees.

But that was exactly my point, the test doesn't take into account chimney effects etc etc.

meanredspider

bobmcstuff wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

Aluminium does burn if it gets hot enough IIRC. Isn't that what happened on HMS Sheffield? I'm sure there's all sorts of chimney effects going on too.

Yes, but not if subject it to a small fire for ten minutes... Needs to be a couple of thousand degrees.

But that was exactly my point, the test doesn't take into account chimney effects etc etc.

Absolutely. It's like the various flame tests on plastics for domestic products - they need to be realistic.

Pross

Camden residents demonstrating how Authorities are damned if they do and damned if they don't. Inspections rule the fire brigade cannot guarantee the building is safe so the residents get evacuated = residents complaining about knee jerk reactions, can you imagine the uproar if after that inspection the residents had been left in there and there had been another fire? I guess they could have possibly arranged accommodation for he residents first though.

pblakeney

Could have been handled better.
Inform all residents immediately.
Offer alternative similar accommodation to those who absolutely need it. *
Let them move out to suit. Longer time is as their risk.

*which is likely to be the biggest issue.

rick_chasey

Coopster the 1st wrote:

For those benefits like unemployment or child benefit, this is not money earned so those who are giving out this money should have the right to decide what it can be spent on..

Do you tell the owner of the shop you buy your food from what he should do with the money you've just given him?

Money doesn't have owners, only spenders.

tailwindhome

Rick Chasey wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

For those benefits like unemployment or child benefit, this is not money earned so those who are giving out this money should have the right to decide what it can be spent on..

Do you tell the owner of the shop you buy your food from what he should do with the money you've just given him?

Money doesn't have owners, only spenders.

It can't dance and sing
And it can't walk

coopster_the_1st

Rick Chasey wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

For those benefits like unemployment or child benefit, this is not money earned so those who are giving out this money should have the right to decide what it can be spent on..

Do you tell the owner of the shop you buy your food from what he should do with the money you've just given him?

Money doesn't have owners, only spenders.

Your logic meter is broken on this topic. I'm surprised you are still going with it.

You have exchanged money for goods with the shop keeper. In basic terms the money is for his work and forward risk of stocking the items you want to buy.

When the govt gives you money in the form of unemployment benefit, you have done nothing to earn it. It is a safety net payment so should only be allowed to be spent on safety net items i.e. food staple. That does not include alcohol, tabacco, Sky TV or a coffee from Pret.

rick_chasey

Surely the gov't is paying them to in exchange for them having a more comfortable life, and one where they don't end up in abject poverty? By that logic.

What's the difference between giving money and paying?

Can pay money for anything. Even if it's sitting on your ass.

meanredspider

Coopster the 1st wrote:

When the govt gives you money in the form of unemployment benefit, you have done nothing to earn it.

Speak for yourself. If the government gave me unemployment benefit, I'd have earned every penny of it and given it to the government in the many many forms of tax I pay.

rick_chasey

I guess the difference between 'giving' someone money and 'paying' them can be important in certain, compromising situations

Curious how that's the turn this thread has taken mind.

bobmcstuff

TailWindHome wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

For those benefits like unemployment or child benefit, this is not money earned so those who are giving out this money should have the right to decide what it can be spent on..

Do you tell the owner of the shop you buy your food from what he should do with the money you've just given him?

Money doesn't have owners, only spenders.

It can't dance and sing
And it can't walk

And long as I can have you here with me
I'd much rather be
Forever in blue jeans........ coopster.

Ben6899

True colours were really showing, this weekend...

What will forumites be arguing the case for next? Eugenics, perhaps.

john80

This fire becoming a disaster is due to the individual flat unit not being able to contain a standard house fire for a period long enough for the fire brigade to respond and put it out. This is the basic design philosophy of any high rise building. Once the fire/smoke had got to the landing and central staircase then the people could not get out which again would not have been a huge problem up until the next point. When the fire started to spread to additional floors using the cladding as a route then the fire brigade were on a hiding to nothing and the fate of the residents above was sealed unless they carried base jumping equipment and happened to be proficient at this extreme sport. It seems that no one really considered that this could happen which in hindsight seems pretty dim and a damning indictment on design/contracting companies doing renovations. In this case you could set fire to the bottom flat and then the top flat would only become aware when the smoke was at their level. Early warning is everything in this scenario.

The fact that you are allowed to upgrade a building with no central fire alarm system warning all residents of any fire or sprinkler system specifically designed to control fires to a single space is beyond me. Even a low budget 4 storey hotel with multiple exits would have a central fire alarm system for example. This building is so far behind the times it is embarrassing.

For those that think the fire brigade cuts are a problem are missing the point. If there were two Glenfell fires at the same time then I could follow your logic however in London the fire services turned up within norms and set about their business with probably more resources at their disposal than any other UK city. Leave probably did get cancelled as did non essential works such as fitting smoke alarms and inspections but this is normal for serious events such as this. In the rural communities where I live fire reductions are actually more prevalent and noticeable in terms of response times. Improved material, electrical systems and appliances for example have reduced fires to their lowest levels historically and therefore a reduction in fire fighter numbers and equipment is the logical conclusion to this.

I find it particularly distasteful the politicisation of this incident as what is clear is that it is the creation of decades of governments in the making. I therefore cannot take seriously those who are shouting at May yet fawning over Corbyn in the streets. The building regulations probably do need looking at as we are not as protective as other cities such as New York but then again we don't have a entire cities where Glenfell would be the smallest building.

capt_slog

Pross wrote:

Camden residents demonstrating how Authorities are damned if they do and damned if they don't. Inspections rule the fire brigade cannot guarantee the building is safe so the residents get evacuated = residents complaining about knee jerk reactions, can you imagine the uproar if after that inspection the residents had been left in there and there had been another fire? I guess they could have possibly arranged accommodation for he residents first though.

I've noticed this attitude following the fallout from the fire.

There seems to have been a lot of shouting about being rehoused. Where exactly? I think it fairly likely that if the council (or the neighbouring ones) could house all these people that quickly, there would be shouts of "Why is there waiting list if you have all this empty housing to hand?".

Along the same lines is the 'official support' which failed to materialise out of somewhere to look after everybody in the emergency. There was supposed to be a full-time dedicated department waiting in the wings to look after all these people?
just in case?

bobmcstuff

Pross wrote:

the fire brigade cannot guarantee the building is safe

No risk assessor worth their salt would ever explicitly guarantee that something is 100% safe anyway.

So on that basis all buildings should be evacuated and we should sleep in tents (although then you have the risk someone will give themselves carbon monoxide poisoning with a barbecue or whatever so it's a lose lose).

It's a sure way to get sued or prosecuted for a start, we've assessed many hundreds of sites for explosion risks and at least one has had an explosion since (fortunately, we did identify it as a possible event).

Frank Wilson

Ben6899 wrote:

True colours were really showing, this weekend...

What will forumites be arguing the case for next? Eugenics, perhaps.

Might rid us of the next generation of scutters!

Ben6899

Frank Wilson wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

True colours were really showing, this weekend...

What will forumites be arguing the case for next? Eugenics, perhaps.

Might rid us of the next generation of scutters!

Or the next generation of self righteous tossers. Who knows?

webboo

Frank Wilson wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

True colours were really showing, this weekend...

What will forumites be arguing the case for next? Eugenics, perhaps.

Might rid us of the next generation of scutters!

You must miss your friends from the Hitler Youth.

crispybug2

As I may have mentioned before but I work in the fire safety industry (extinguishers, risers etc) and there has been a reaction to this

I put in a quote for extinguishers in an office to residential block conversion some seven years ago, and it was rejected at the time but today I received an email accepting the quote!

bobmcstuff

crispybug2 wrote:

As I may have mentioned before but I work in the fire safety industry (extinguishers, risers etc) and there has been a reaction to this

I put in a quote for extinguishers in an office to residential block conversion some seven years ago, and it was rejected at the time but today I received an email accepting the quote!

I hope you have a clause allowing you to adjust for inflation!

bobmcstuff

Ouch:

https://www.reuters.com/article/britain ... SL8N1JK2TZ

Reuters apparently got six emails sent between Arconic’s UK sales manager and executives at the contractors working on Grenfell Tower raising questions about why the flammable cladding was supplied.

crispybug2

bobmcstuff wrote:

crispybug2 wrote:

As I may have mentioned before but I work in the fire safety industry (extinguishers, risers etc) and there has been a reaction to this

I put in a quote for extinguishers in an office to residential block conversion some seven years ago, and it was rejected at the time but today I received an email accepting the quote!

I hope you have a clause allowing you to adjust for inflation!

No, we kept to the original quote.

It's within an acceptable range and we figured that it would look better not seeming to want to profit from tragedy

Frank Wilson

Ben6899 wrote:

Frank Wilson wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

True colours were really showing, this weekend...

What will forumites be arguing the case for next? Eugenics, perhaps.

Might rid us of the next generation of scutters!

Or the next generation of self righteous tossers. Who knows?

No, we'll be sorting the selection process.

slowbike

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

socrates wrote:

I think we are missing the point of Frank's post. Of course there are poor people but not all people on benefits are poor. Just a case of working the system and of course it depends what one wants to spend their benefit money on. Instead of cash why not give vouchers for food. No alcohol or ciggies.

Why on earth do you think you have a right to say how people live their lives because they don't earn enough to keep a roof over their heads and need some support from the state?

For those benefits like unemployment or child benefit, this is not money earned so those who are giving out this money should have the right to decide what it can be spent on. If those receiving these benefits do not like this approach, they can decline to receive the benefit or earn their own money and not have to be in receipt of it. A forward thinking, progressive approach.

I sort of agree in principle - but can't see how it will work for everything - practically.
1) Housing benefit - I really fail to see why this is paid to the tennant then paid back to the landlord - but not having looked at the finer points of it I can only assume that it's easier to pay the recipient of the benefit.
2) Unemployment benefit - What's the basic - £50/60 a week? - It's not a lot and it is there to help the recipient. If it was given in terms of vouchers to be spent on "just" food - what if the recipient grew their own veg to save money - they now have a voucher that they can't diretly spend on "extras" - so would need to either buy the full value in food and sell on or sell on the voucher to someone else - eitherway, they won't get full value of the voucher as nobody is going to want to buy a food voucher for the same cost in cash.
3) Child benefit - £20/week for the first child, £15/week for additionals - we receive this for Little Slowbike - It's paid directly into our current account - we could receive it as food vouchers - but who's to say if the food we buy is for him or us? We could easily stock up one week and the next go and buy just "adult treats" - if it was vouchered then we'd have to save up the vouchers to stock up in one go.

Administration of the vouchers - this is where the practicality fails - the vouchers would need to be administered - whole new raft of government employees - would end up costing the tax payer more than the restrictions would "save".

surrey_commuter

Slowbike wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

socrates wrote:

I think we are missing the point of Frank's post. Of course there are poor people but not all people on benefits are poor. Just a case of working the system and of course it depends what one wants to spend their benefit money on. Instead of cash why not give vouchers for food. No alcohol or ciggies.

Why on earth do you think you have a right to say how people live their lives because they don't earn enough to keep a roof over their heads and need some support from the state?

For those benefits like unemployment or child benefit, this is not money earned so those who are giving out this money should have the right to decide what it can be spent on. If those receiving these benefits do not like this approach, they can decline to receive the benefit or earn their own money and not have to be in receipt of it. A forward thinking, progressive approach.

I sort of agree in principle - but can't see how it will work for everything - practically.
1) Housing benefit - I really fail to see why this is paid to the tennant then paid back to the landlord - but not having looked at the finer points of it I can only assume that it's easier to pay the recipient of the benefit.
2) Unemployment benefit - What's the basic - £50/60 a week? - It's not a lot and it is there to help the recipient. If it was given in terms of vouchers to be spent on "just" food - what if the recipient grew their own veg to save money - they now have a voucher that they can't diretly spend on "extras" - so would need to either buy the full value in food and sell on or sell on the voucher to someone else - eitherway, they won't get full value of the voucher as nobody is going to want to buy a food voucher for the same cost in cash.
3) Child benefit - £20/week for the first child, £15/week for additionals - we receive this for Little Slowbike - It's paid directly into our current account - we could receive it as food vouchers - but who's to say if the food we buy is for him or us? We could easily stock up one week and the next go and buy just "adult treats" - if it was vouchered then we'd have to save up the vouchers to stock up in one go.

Administration of the vouchers - this is where the practicality fails - the vouchers would need to be administered - whole new raft of government employees - would end up costing the tax payer more than the restrictions would "save".

1) I always assumed it was. It makes nos sense.
2) agree not worth the effort
3) the solution is to stop paying people because they have children. It should be targeted on people who have a financial need

type:epyt

Re. point 1. above ... I believe it is paid direct to the claimant/tennant so that they are not discriminated against (you used to see a lot of 'No DSS' at the end of rental ads) and although it is likely to still be an issue during any agency vetting check, at least if you lose your job (the reason the benefit exists in the first place) you can just pay your rent as normal without your landlord/agent needing to know (and tney don't ,despite what any small print says, otherwise it is discrimination) …

kingstongraham

Re: point 1 - it can be paid to the landlord if the tenant is 8 weeks in arrears, or if the tenant is known to have problems that mean they are unlikely to pay the landlord.