LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!

rick_chasey

No.

briantrumpet

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

kingstongraham said:

I can't work out how he claims to have been laser focused on the country's priorities 24 hours a day 7 days a week while also deciding to go through a year long extensive refurbishment of his temporary accommodation that he couldn't afford. Even if you aren't involved in choosing the terrible wallpaper, it's a faff to live through.

it shows remarkable lack of awareness o her part that she thinks she will be there long enough to benefit from the 12 months of hassle

She's had his kid despite all his prior behaviour and she's engaged to him - that ship has long sailed.

Weirdly she's my age almost exactly. He's old enough to be her father.

"What was it that attracted you to the power-hungry wannabe-prime-minister and habitual liar, Carrie?"

shirley_basso

You forgot the serial cheat

rjsterry

Five times the Lords have tried to amend this legislation, and five times the government has voted to ensure leaseholders are stuck with unsafe buildings. The government really are desperate to let landlords off the hook for sorting out the cladding on blocks of flats. And in so doing effectively ensure that the work is never carried out as leaseholders find themselves without the funds to pay for the work and unable to sell up.

surrey_commuter

rjsterry said:

Five times the Lords have tried to amend this legislation, and five times the government has voted to ensure leaseholders are stuck with unsafe buildings. The government really are desperate to let landlords off the hook for sorting out the cladding on blocks of flats. And in so doing effectively ensure that the work is never carried out as leaseholders find themselves without the funds to pay for the work and unable to sell up.

All valid points but it should be remembered that Jeremy Clarkson is one of the leaseholders.

surrey_commuter

rick_chasey said:

No.

What if a work colleague complained that in work time using company property that he was writing and distributing homophobic material?

elbowloh

I can't understand why the builders who put the cladding in aren't being made to pay I they've installed unsafe material?

rjsterry

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

Five times the Lords have tried to amend this legislation, and five times the government has voted to ensure leaseholders are stuck with unsafe buildings. The government really are desperate to let landlords off the hook for sorting out the cladding on blocks of flats. And in so doing effectively ensure that the work is never carried out as leaseholders find themselves without the funds to pay for the work and unable to sell up.

All valid points but it should be remembered that Jeremy Clarkson is one of the leaseholders.

And he shouldn't have to fork out an extra £50k to put right the developer's error either. Lucky him that he at least has the option to pay, or are you suggesting he should sub his fellow leaseholders? These are buildings in many cases still within 12 years of completion.

Jezyboy

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

No.

What if a work colleague complained that in work time using company property that he was writing and distributing homophobic material?

If a randomer was to write something similar the article in a tweet, and that tweet went viral, I could see the tweeter getting into hot water.

What I find strange is that such things follow 10 years of Tory government, who seem opposed to limits on free speach. (so long as the free speach isn't being used to say that slavery wasn't that great)

Pross

rjsterry said:

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

Five times the Lords have tried to amend this legislation, and five times the government has voted to ensure leaseholders are stuck with unsafe buildings. The government really are desperate to let landlords off the hook for sorting out the cladding on blocks of flats. And in so doing effectively ensure that the work is never carried out as leaseholders find themselves without the funds to pay for the work and unable to sell up.

All valid points but it should be remembered that Jeremy Clarkson is one of the leaseholders.

And he shouldn't have to fork out an extra £50k to put right the developer's error either. Lucky him that he at least has the option to pay, or are you suggesting he should sub his fellow leaseholders? These are buildings in many cases still within 12 years of completion.

Do NHBC cover that sort of build? It's a total disgrace that people who can't be expected to know whether technical specifications used are fit for purpose are the ones footing the bill whilst those who should have known are walking away with the profits.

rick_chasey

Jezyboy said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

No.

What if a work colleague complained that in work time using company property that he was writing and distributing homophobic material?

If a randomer was to write something similar the article in a tweet, and that tweet went viral, I could see the tweeter getting into hot water.

What I find strange is that such things follow 10 years of Tory government, who seem opposed to limits on free speach. (so long as the free speach isn't being used to say that slavery wasn't that great)

It's not even that. It's saying "some of this stuff was bought with the proceeds of trading slaves"

rjsterry

Pross said:

rjsterry said:

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

Five times the Lords have tried to amend this legislation, and five times the government has voted to ensure leaseholders are stuck with unsafe buildings. The government really are desperate to let landlords off the hook for sorting out the cladding on blocks of flats. And in so doing effectively ensure that the work is never carried out as leaseholders find themselves without the funds to pay for the work and unable to sell up.

All valid points but it should be remembered that Jeremy Clarkson is one of the leaseholders.

And he shouldn't have to fork out an extra £50k to put right the developer's error either. Lucky him that he at least has the option to pay, or are you suggesting he should sub his fellow leaseholders? These are buildings in many cases still within 12 years of completion.

Do NHBC cover that sort of build? It's a total disgrace that people who can't be expected to know whether technical specifications used are fit for purpose are the ones footing the bill whilst those who should have known are walking away with the profits.

IIRC, NHBC have a limitation of liability of £100,000 on any one project, so not even going to touch the sides. The whole Building Control system is just not robust enough to stop this kind of activity.

rjsterry

elbowloh said:

I can't understand why the builders who put the cladding in aren't being made to pay I they've installed unsafe material?

Depends on the way the project is procured. In a traditional contract, the builder is just executing someone else's design, so the responsibility lies partly with the design team; partly with Building Control for too relaxed an approach to checking, partly with the manufacturers who passed off their products as compliant, and partly with regulators for creating a system so open to obfuscation.

rick_chasey

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/dark-money-investigations/boris-johnsons-new-ethics-adviser-works-for-arms-company/

The government’s new ministerial ethics adviser, Lord Geidt, is paid by the global arms company BAE Systems, openDemocracy can reveal.

BAE has been repeatedly criticised for selling weapons to Saudi Arabia, and was recently accused of being party to war crimes in Yemen.

It is also a major government contractor, having won billions of pounds worth of deals from ministerial departments since Boris Johnson became prime minister. They include a series of Test and Trace contracts from the Department of Health, valued at more than £7.9m.

Records produced by Transparency International also show that BAE Systems has enjoyed more access to government ministers than any other company in the past ten years, with at least 209 meetings since 2012. This year, it has also employed two private lobbying firms, including Finsbury Group – an agency founded by the brother of former Conservative home secretary, Amber Rudd.

john80

Pross said:

rjsterry said:

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

Five times the Lords have tried to amend this legislation, and five times the government has voted to ensure leaseholders are stuck with unsafe buildings. The government really are desperate to let landlords off the hook for sorting out the cladding on blocks of flats. And in so doing effectively ensure that the work is never carried out as leaseholders find themselves without the funds to pay for the work and unable to sell up.

All valid points but it should be remembered that Jeremy Clarkson is one of the leaseholders.

And he shouldn't have to fork out an extra £50k to put right the developer's error either. Lucky him that he at least has the option to pay, or are you suggesting he should sub his fellow leaseholders? These are buildings in many cases still within 12 years of completion.

Do NHBC cover that sort of build? It's a total disgrace that people who can't be expected to know whether technical specifications used are fit for purpose are the ones footing the bill whilst those who should have known are walking away with the profits.

It is literally insane. Having read the building regs I am gob smacked the UK justice system is not going after companies. They failed to meet the general principles of containing a fire to a single unit. I don't see how a building firm can claim that it's not their fault as they took some seriously dubious certs from suppliers at face value.

elbowloh

It's not just the claddin though
Many units have missing or inadequate fire doors, alarms that don't work, balconies made with wooden supports etc

rjsterry

john80 said:

Pross said:

rjsterry said:

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

Five times the Lords have tried to amend this legislation, and five times the government has voted to ensure leaseholders are stuck with unsafe buildings. The government really are desperate to let landlords off the hook for sorting out the cladding on blocks of flats. And in so doing effectively ensure that the work is never carried out as leaseholders find themselves without the funds to pay for the work and unable to sell up.

All valid points but it should be remembered that Jeremy Clarkson is one of the leaseholders.

And he shouldn't have to fork out an extra £50k to put right the developer's error either. Lucky him that he at least has the option to pay, or are you suggesting he should sub his fellow leaseholders? These are buildings in many cases still within 12 years of completion.

Do NHBC cover that sort of build? It's a total disgrace that people who can't be expected to know whether technical specifications used are fit for purpose are the ones footing the bill whilst those who should have known are walking away with the profits.

It is literally insane. Having read the building regs I am gob smacked the UK justice system is not going after companies. They failed to meet the general principles of containing a fire to a single unit. I don't see how a building firm can claim that it's not their fault as they took some seriously dubious certs from suppliers at face value.

At the risk of repeating myself, it's not just the fire test cert from the manufacturer. The design team has also had their proposals and the physical installation checked and signed off by a Building Inspector. Add into that the very light regulation of Building Inspectors and multiple layers of sub-contracting which obscure the train of responsibility. This is not to say any of this is excusable, just an explanation of how everyone in the chain can think they've done what they need to, and still have a building that's unsafe.

Jezyboy

rick_chasey said:

Jezyboy said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

No.

What if a work colleague complained that in work time using company property that he was writing and distributing homophobic material?

If a randomer was to write something similar the article in a tweet, and that tweet went viral, I could see the tweeter getting into hot water.

What I find strange is that such things follow 10 years of Tory government, who seem opposed to limits on free speach. (so long as the free speach isn't being used to say that slavery wasn't that great)

It's not even that. It's saying "some of this stuff was bought with the proceeds of trading slaves"

When you try and exaggerate for slight comic impact and realise the reality is more extreme than your exaggeration.

elbowloh

rjsterry said:

john80 said:

Pross said:

rjsterry said:

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

Five times the Lords have tried to amend this legislation, and five times the government has voted to ensure leaseholders are stuck with unsafe buildings. The government really are desperate to let landlords off the hook for sorting out the cladding on blocks of flats. And in so doing effectively ensure that the work is never carried out as leaseholders find themselves without the funds to pay for the work and unable to sell up.

All valid points but it should be remembered that Jeremy Clarkson is one of the leaseholders.

And he shouldn't have to fork out an extra £50k to put right the developer's error either. Lucky him that he at least has the option to pay, or are you suggesting he should sub his fellow leaseholders? These are buildings in many cases still within 12 years of completion.

Do NHBC cover that sort of build? It's a total disgrace that people who can't be expected to know whether technical specifications used are fit for purpose are the ones footing the bill whilst those who should have known are walking away with the profits.

It is literally insane. Having read the building regs I am gob smacked the UK justice system is not going after companies. They failed to meet the general principles of containing a fire to a single unit. I don't see how a building firm can claim that it's not their fault as they took some seriously dubious certs from suppliers at face value.

At the risk of repeating myself, it's not just the fire test cert from the manufacturer. The design team has also had their proposals and the physical installation checked and signed off by a Building Inspector. Add into that the very light regulation of Building Inspectors and multiple layers of sub-contracting which obscure the train of responsibility. This is not to say any of this is excusable, just an explanation of how everyone in the chain can think they've done what they need to, and still have a building that's unsafe.

The whole building inspector side of things was really toned down though wasn't it, with the developer doing a lot more self-certifying and you often use an inspector who is a contractor rather than from the council (i.e. you pay them).
I think the role of the Fire Service was also diminished when it came to high-rises.

john80

rjsterry said:

john80 said:

Pross said:

rjsterry said:

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

Five times the Lords have tried to amend this legislation, and five times the government has voted to ensure leaseholders are stuck with unsafe buildings. The government really are desperate to let landlords off the hook for sorting out the cladding on blocks of flats. And in so doing effectively ensure that the work is never carried out as leaseholders find themselves without the funds to pay for the work and unable to sell up.

All valid points but it should be remembered that Jeremy Clarkson is one of the leaseholders.

And he shouldn't have to fork out an extra £50k to put right the developer's error either. Lucky him that he at least has the option to pay, or are you suggesting he should sub his fellow leaseholders? These are buildings in many cases still within 12 years of completion.

Do NHBC cover that sort of build? It's a total disgrace that people who can't be expected to know whether technical specifications used are fit for purpose are the ones footing the bill whilst those who should have known are walking away with the profits.

It is literally insane. Having read the building regs I am gob smacked the UK justice system is not going after companies. They failed to meet the general principles of containing a fire to a single unit. I don't see how a building firm can claim that it's not their fault as they took some seriously dubious certs from suppliers at face value.

At the risk of repeating myself, it's not just the fire test cert from the manufacturer. The design team has also had their proposals and the physical installation checked and signed off by a Building Inspector. Add into that the very light regulation of Building Inspectors and multiple layers of sub-contracting which obscure the train of responsibility. This is not to say any of this is excusable, just an explanation of how everyone in the chain can think they've done what they need to, and still have a building that's unsafe.

On what planet does the buck stop with the building inspector. A building inspector looked at my extension build where I did it myself. In this instance I would pin more on the building inspector as it is basic stuff. On a multi million pound development with engineers and specialists that should know better than the building inspector this does not wash. What is with the protection of professionals who collectively messed up big time.

rjsterry

john80 said:

rjsterry said:

john80 said:

Pross said:

rjsterry said:

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

Five times the Lords have tried to amend this legislation, and five times the government has voted to ensure leaseholders are stuck with unsafe buildings. The government really are desperate to let landlords off the hook for sorting out the cladding on blocks of flats. And in so doing effectively ensure that the work is never carried out as leaseholders find themselves without the funds to pay for the work and unable to sell up.

All valid points but it should be remembered that Jeremy Clarkson is one of the leaseholders.

And he shouldn't have to fork out an extra £50k to put right the developer's error either. Lucky him that he at least has the option to pay, or are you suggesting he should sub his fellow leaseholders? These are buildings in many cases still within 12 years of completion.

Do NHBC cover that sort of build? It's a total disgrace that people who can't be expected to know whether technical specifications used are fit for purpose are the ones footing the bill whilst those who should have known are walking away with the profits.

It is literally insane. Having read the building regs I am gob smacked the UK justice system is not going after companies. They failed to meet the general principles of containing a fire to a single unit. I don't see how a building firm can claim that it's not their fault as they took some seriously dubious certs from suppliers at face value.

At the risk of repeating myself, it's not just the fire test cert from the manufacturer. The design team has also had their proposals and the physical installation checked and signed off by a Building Inspector. Add into that the very light regulation of Building Inspectors and multiple layers of sub-contracting which obscure the train of responsibility. This is not to say any of this is excusable, just an explanation of how everyone in the chain can think they've done what they need to, and still have a building that's unsafe.

On what planet does the buck stop with the building inspector. A building inspector looked at my extension build where I did it myself. In this instance I would pin more on the building inspector as it is basic stuff. On a multi million pound development with engineers and specialists that should know better than the building inspector this does not wash. What is with the protection of professionals who collectively messed up big time.

I didn't say the buck stops with the Building Inspector. They don't take any liability for what they inspect despite their completion certificate being the one people look for when wanting evidence that any work was done properly. My point was that responsibility is spread out over many different professionals, each relying to some extent on their immediate neighbours to act in good faith. The legislative framework and procurement methods have atomised the design process so even if everyone is trying to do the right thing, it's difficult for one person to have a meaningful overview of the whole project. If some parties within that chain are trying to cut corners, it's difficult for anyone to see it, let alone do anything about it.

elbowloh

Keir Starmer trolled Boris today by visiting John Lewis and looking through rolls of wallpaper. Tory spokesperson accused him of playing politics.

WTF?

Is that all they've got? Boris is playing at being PM. Tell us who you borrowed the money from, when and when you paid it back. Going to guess you only paid it recently when this story began to break.

surrey_commuter

elbowloh said:

Keir Starmer trolled Boris today by visiting John Lewis and looking through rolls of wallpaper. Tory spokesperson accused him of playing politics.

WTF?

Is that all they've got? Boris is playing at being PM. Tell us who you borrowed the money from, when and when you paid it back. Going to guess you only paid it recently when this story began to break.

isn't "playing politics" pretty much his job description

ignoring Labour I think Boris is being skewered by professionals and seems to have lost Murcdoch and Rothermere.

Mrs Gove's intervention was genius

morstar

3 enquiries to obfuscate a simple answer.

The flag nonces really don’t care about spending taxes.

Jezyboy

Meh, playing politics whilst bold BoJo bravely battles big bad coronavirus.

It plays to his crowd, and that's all he is about.

I was hoping there would be another shot fired before the weekend, although I guess there is still time!

rjsterry

Jezyboy said:

Meh, playing politics whilst bold BoJo bravely battles big bad coronavirus.

It plays to his crowd, and that's all he is about.

I was hoping there would be another shot fired before the weekend, although I guess there is still time!

Is Dominic saving something for the Sunday papers?

🍿

surrey_commuter

rjsterry said:

Jezyboy said:

Meh, playing politics whilst bold BoJo bravely battles big bad coronavirus.

It plays to his crowd, and that's all he is about.

I was hoping there would be another shot fired before the weekend, although I guess there is still time!

Is Dominic saving something for the Sunday papers?

🍿

The problem is that Dom saves everything

orraloon

"Cash for Curtains". Bang on for Spaffer's predelictions.

elbowloh

The nasty party indeed:

Minister’s aide tells family facing £40,000 fire safety bill to call Samaritans

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/apr/30/family-facing-40000-fire-safety-bill-told-they-can-contact-samaritans

Pross

I find it a bit dispiriting watching Newswatch on BBC Breakfast and seeing people complaining that the BBC keep talking about the number 10 refurbishment, the alleged 'let bodies pile up' and Dyson. When people don't think it's worth bothering chasing these stories it's a bit concerning. That said, the criticism of Keunssberg using the Coronavirus briefing to ask questions about the refurbishment feel justified