remember when this was everywhere, the new wonder product and then 30 years later it isn't! i had to dispose of my garage roof as if it was asbestos even if it wasnt! just in case! and it was expensive, the government didnt offer to do it or compensate me for signing asbestos off as safe decades earlier.
weve now got the same issue with cladding on buildings, why is the tax payer going to get the bill?  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
the government privatised the profit from the cladding of social housing and nationalised the cost of liability. ministers seemignly have shares in the privatised companies involved in the scandal so why shoul they let their dividend be diverted to pay for sorting it out when it's easier to use your money? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
" the government privatised the profit from the cladding of social housing and nationalised the cost of liability. ministers seemignly have shares in the privatised companies involved in the scandal so why shoul they let their dividend be diverted to pay for sorting it out when it's easier to use your money?"
good answer! can it be traced back? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"remember when this was everywhere, the new wonder product and then 30 years later it isn't! i had to dispose of my garage roof as if it was asbestos even if it wasnt! just in case! and it was expensive, the government didnt offer to do it or compensate me for signing asbestos off as safe decades earlier.
weve now got the same issue with cladding on buildings, why is the tax payer going to get the bill? "
Much like the feeding of hungry kids in poverty, the arguments about the details can wait. The kids are hungry now and the buildings are death traps now. Fix the problem now before anyone else dies and sort out who is footing the final bill later.
Anything else is the typical tory attitude of "it doesn't affect me, why are my taxes being used for this?". |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"remember when this was everywhere, the new wonder product and then 30 years later it isn't! i had to dispose of my garage roof as if it was asbestos even if it wasnt! just in case! and it was expensive, the government didnt offer to do it or compensate me for signing asbestos off as safe decades earlier.
weve now got the same issue with cladding on buildings, why is the tax payer going to get the bill?
Much like the feeding of hungry kids in poverty, the arguments about the details can wait. The kids are hungry now and the buildings are death traps now. Fix the problem now before anyone else dies and sort out who is footing the final bill later.
Anything else is the typical tory attitude of "it doesn't affect me, why are my taxes being used for this?". "
People that always want someone else to pay always say stuff like that!
You don't know I'm not affected, and it seems everyone in Britain is now
And you don't know how I vote lol yet more assumptions!
So you haven't got an answer to my actual question? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The answer to your question is the building companies responsible should foot the bill. Unfortunately that takes time and meanwhile thousands of people are in danger through no fault of their own. Fix the problem now and argue the details later.
As for assumptions - I said if anyone thinks the destination of the final bill is more important than making sure people are safe then that's a tory attitude. If you're offended by that then maybe that says more about you than me. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The answer to your question is the building companies responsible should foot the bill. Unfortunately that takes time and meanwhile thousands of people are in danger through no fault of their own. Fix the problem now and argue the details later.
As for assumptions - I said if anyone thinks the destination of the final bill is more important than making sure people are safe then that's a tory attitude. If you're offended by that then maybe that says more about you than me. "
Like asbestos the buildings were correct at the time of being built, so is it the builders fault? Not really. They would have been signed off as meeting recommendations at that time.
As to people being in danger, where are we drawing the line on that, nurses on covid wards are in danger....
I can't see any difference to the asbestos situation and everything takes time. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The answer to your question is the building companies responsible should foot the bill. Unfortunately that takes time and meanwhile thousands of people are in danger through no fault of their own. Fix the problem now and argue the details later.
As for assumptions - I said if anyone thinks the destination of the final bill is more important than making sure people are safe then that's a tory attitude. If you're offended by that then maybe that says more about you than me.
Like asbestos the buildings were correct at the time of being built, so is it the builders fault? Not really. They would have been signed off as meeting recommendations at that time.
As to people being in danger, where are we drawing the line on that, nurses on covid wards are in danger....
I can't see any difference to the asbestos situation and everything takes time. "
Situations a bit different as if you encapsulate asbestos and leave it alone its not a problem..
Also they knew the dangers of asbestos after the second world war but carried on using it anyway.
First recorded death from Asbestosis was 1898. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
You're comfortable with thousands of people living in buildings at risk of going up like Grenfell while we have a meeting about who pays for it?
If it walks like a tory and quacks like a tory...
You should follow the work of Rachel Venables at LBC who's coverage of this has been the main push that has got us to today. Some of the testimony from the enquiry has been horrific. People who knew the risks but ignored them, emails covered up, warnings ignored. Right now there is a massive arse-covering exercise taking place but meanwhile people are living in flats that were rented or sold as safe but they're not. People who can't sleep at night because they're too scared. People having to help pay for fire wardens. People who can't sell their flats or get insurance.
Asbestos is a bad example because it won't kill 100 people instantly when it goes wrong. Fix the cladding now and work out who pays for it later. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"remember when this was everywhere, the new wonder product and then 30 years later it isn't! i had to dispose of my garage roof as if it was asbestos even if it wasnt! just in case! and it was expensive, the government didnt offer to do it or compensate me for signing asbestos off as safe decades earlier.
weve now got the same issue with cladding on buildings, why is the tax payer going to get the bill?
Much like the feeding of hungry kids in poverty, the arguments about the details can wait. The kids are hungry now and the buildings are death traps now. Fix the problem now before anyone else dies and sort out who is footing the final bill later.
Anything else is the typical tory attitude of "it doesn't affect me, why are my taxes being used for this?". "
Dont be silly.
Our taxes are being well spent on.photos of dogs and cats |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"remember when this was everywhere, the new wonder product and then 30 years later it isn't! i had to dispose of my garage roof as if it was asbestos even if it wasnt! just in case! and it was expensive, the government didnt offer to do it or compensate me for signing asbestos off as safe decades earlier.
weve now got the same issue with cladding on buildings, why is the tax payer going to get the bill? "
All you needed to do, was take a small sample (wet it, and wear a mask etc) and send off to one of the asbestos specialists, and they would tell you if it was asbestos or not. Then you would have known for sure. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The answer to your question is the building companies responsible should foot the bill. Unfortunately that takes time and meanwhile thousands of people are in danger through no fault of their own. Fix the problem now and argue the details later.
As for assumptions - I said if anyone thinks the destination of the final bill is more important than making sure people are safe then that's a tory attitude. If you're offended by that then maybe that says more about you than me.
Like asbestos the buildings were correct at the time of being built, so is it the builders fault? Not really. They would have been signed off as meeting recommendations at that time.
As to people being in danger, where are we drawing the line on that, nurses on covid wards are in danger....
I can't see any difference to the asbestos situation and everything takes time.
Situations a bit different as if you encapsulate asbestos and leave it alone its not a problem..
Also they knew the dangers of asbestos after the second world war but carried on using it anyway.
First recorded death from Asbestosis was 1898."
Agree ref being able to leave it .... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"You're comfortable with thousands of people living in buildings at risk of going up like Grenfell while we have a meeting about who pays for it?
If it walks like a tory and quacks like a tory...
You should follow the work of Rachel Venables at LBC who's coverage of this has been the main push that has got us to today. Some of the testimony from the enquiry has been horrific. People who knew the risks but ignored them, emails covered up, warnings ignored. Right now there is a massive arse-covering exercise taking place but meanwhile people are living in flats that were rented or sold as safe but they're not. People who can't sleep at night because they're too scared. People having to help pay for fire wardens. People who can't sell their flats or get insurance.
Asbestos is a bad example because it won't kill 100 people instantly when it goes wrong. Fix the cladding now and work out who pays for it later. "
So aggressive, the owners and leaseholders can remortgage or pay themselves, that is possible no?
There are lots of solutions, my question originally was why has the bill has been put on others, not about me wanting people to die! Calm down dear!
Ps since I posted the government have made an announcement anyway. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"remember when this was everywhere, the new wonder product and then 30 years later it isn't! i had to dispose of my garage roof as if it was asbestos even if it wasnt! just in case! and it was expensive, the government didnt offer to do it or compensate me for signing asbestos off as safe decades earlier.
weve now got the same issue with cladding on buildings, why is the tax payer going to get the bill?
All you needed to do, was take a small sample (wet it, and wear a mask etc) and send off to one of the asbestos specialists, and they would tell you if it was asbestos or not. Then you would have known for sure. "
It was the actual disposal sites that wanted belt and braces! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"You're comfortable with thousands of people living in buildings at risk of going up like Grenfell while we have a meeting about who pays for it?
If it walks like a tory and quacks like a tory...
You should follow the work of Rachel Venables at LBC who's coverage of this has been the main push that has got us to today. Some of the testimony from the enquiry has been horrific. People who knew the risks but ignored them, emails covered up, warnings ignored. Right now there is a massive arse-covering exercise taking place but meanwhile people are living in flats that were rented or sold as safe but they're not. People who can't sleep at night because they're too scared. People having to help pay for fire wardens. People who can't sell their flats or get insurance.
Asbestos is a bad example because it won't kill 100 people instantly when it goes wrong. Fix the cladding now and work out who pays for it later.
So aggressive, the owners and leaseholders can remortgage or pay themselves, that is possible no?
There are lots of solutions, my question originally was why has the bill has been put on others, not about me wanting people to die! Calm down dear!
Ps since I posted the government have made an announcement anyway."
You seem happy to leave people at risk while we have a meeting. That's a lot more aggressive than me calling you a tory. I want the right people to pay for this but making it safe first is a bigger priority.
At least you've now noticed there's a difference between fire retardant and accelerant. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"You're comfortable with thousands of people living in buildings at risk of going up like Grenfell while we have a meeting about who pays for it?
If it walks like a tory and quacks like a tory...
You should follow the work of Rachel Venables at LBC who's coverage of this has been the main push that has got us to today. Some of the testimony from the enquiry has been horrific. People who knew the risks but ignored them, emails covered up, warnings ignored. Right now there is a massive arse-covering exercise taking place but meanwhile people are living in flats that were rented or sold as safe but they're not. People who can't sleep at night because they're too scared. People having to help pay for fire wardens. People who can't sell their flats or get insurance.
Asbestos is a bad example because it won't kill 100 people instantly when it goes wrong. Fix the cladding now and work out who pays for it later.
So aggressive, the owners and leaseholders can remortgage or pay themselves, that is possible no?
There are lots of solutions, my question originally was why has the bill has been put on others, not about me wanting people to die! Calm down dear!
Ps since I posted the government have made an announcement anyway.
You seem happy to leave people at risk while we have a meeting. That's a lot more aggressive than me calling you a tory. I want the right people to pay for this but making it safe first is a bigger priority.
At least you've now noticed there's a difference between fire retardant and accelerant. "
Both materials cause death! And No one wants to leave people at risk but you've still avoided the question, who's paying and what's fair?
Non home owners paying extra tax for people that own a flat!
Aconda certainly seem liable in some form having just seen news. Your idea of the government having unlimited resources isn't really feasible |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
" the government privatised the profit from the cladding of social housing and nationalised the cost of liability. ministers seemignly have shares in the privatised companies involved in the scandal so why shoul they let their dividend be diverted to pay for sorting it out when it's easier to use your money?"
The government are pulling the same stunt with hs2...
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Asbestos is still there.
There are about 1.5 million buildings with the stuff in them, the cladding is an additional hazard."
Some health and safety guy was saying there are much more important things to be tackling inside buildings...
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I read a levy is being imposed on the building industry to claim the money back for the government. Is this true or is it just at a discussion point? "
think they are looking at lots of options and thats one but if they go down the route of paying for repairs/corrections/etc... floods fire virus! could be a big list of well you did it for them its our turn!
trouble is as we know companies just go bust and pay out sod all, its going to be a bit like bolting door after the horse.... but not sure what else they can do? you build flats you pay into a fund, ultimately the flats will just be more to buy |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
"I read a levy is being imposed on the building industry to claim the money back for the government. Is this true or is it just at a discussion point?
think they are looking at lots of options and thats one but if they go down the route of paying for repairs/corrections/etc... floods fire virus! could be a big list of well you did it for them its our turn!
trouble is as we know companies just go bust and pay out sod all, its going to be a bit like bolting door after the horse.... but not sure what else they can do? you build flats you pay into a fund, ultimately the flats will just be more to buy "
Companies insurance records are valid for many years after so there’s always someone to go after .
I personally think the manufacturers and complicit traders should be rinsed dry for this because of their horrific behaviour. Then what’s left paid by HM government as inspectors failed. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I read a levy is being imposed on the building industry to claim the money back for the government. Is this true or is it just at a discussion point?
think they are looking at lots of options and thats one but if they go down the route of paying for repairs/corrections/etc... floods fire virus! could be a big list of well you did it for them its our turn!
trouble is as we know companies just go bust and pay out sod all, its going to be a bit like bolting door after the horse.... but not sure what else they can do? you build flats you pay into a fund, ultimately the flats will just be more to buy
Companies insurance records are valid for many years after so there’s always someone to go after .
I personally think the manufacturers and complicit traders should be rinsed dry for this because of their horrific behaviour. Then what’s left paid by HM government as inspectors failed. "
the main offender, manufacturing wise, knew the material was flammable but kept fitting it! dont know if it was still legal to fit it... thats the problem, best barrister wins, im sure these cases are going on endlessly over all sorts of things |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ostafunMan
over a year ago
near ipswich |
It seems that the French company that produced the cladding told the British board of standards a "half truth" whatever that is. 
Arconic only shared one successful fire test result with the British Board of Agrément (BBA), and not a failed result, an inquiry into the fire heard.
But Claude Schmidt, Arconic's president, denied the failed test was "deliberately concealed" by his firm.
He said the BBA should have found the poor test result as part of an audit.
so the board needed to find it rather than them submitting it unbelievable. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Surly the flats are mainly leasehold not free hold, so the freehold owner should pay, then claim it back over the long term with a reasonable increase in service charge, it’s what the social housing providers will do. & there are existing government funds available I’m not sure of the figures & possibly give some tax relief if replacement products are UK made. Problem solved with not much extra cost to the UK tax payer, no mater which way they may, or may not vote x |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ostafunMan
over a year ago
near ipswich |
"Surly the flats are mainly leasehold not free hold, so the freehold owner should pay, then claim it back over the long term with a reasonable increase in service charge, it’s what the social housing providers will do. & there are existing government funds available I’m not sure of the figures & possibly give some tax relief if replacement products are UK made. Problem solved with not much extra cost to the UK tax payer, no mater which way they may, or may not vote x"
I would think if the company supplying the cladding lied about the fire test results and did not submit all the test results only the ones that said it was safe so they could get contracts should be prosecuted and fined. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Surly the flats are mainly leasehold not free hold, so the freehold owner should pay, then claim it back over the long term with a reasonable increase in service charge, it’s what the social housing providers will do. & there are existing government funds available I’m not sure of the figures & possibly give some tax relief if replacement products are UK made. Problem solved with not much extra cost to the UK tax payer, no mater which way they may, or may not vote x
I would think if the company supplying the cladding lied about the fire test results and did not submit all the test results only the ones that said it was safe so they could get contracts should be prosecuted and fined."
i think the problem is, at the time the rules were more concerned with inside the buildings, they didnt really expect cladding outside to catch fire, so the rules ref its use were not very strict. So like asbestos and other materials, they used it everywhere and ten/twenty years later oops! so although the companies didnt tell the whole truth im not sure the law actually required their products to be fireproof, so they didnt say it wasnt. Amazing now i know! bit like the titanic wont sink.. honest..... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ostafunMan
over a year ago
near ipswich |
"Surly the flats are mainly leasehold not free hold, so the freehold owner should pay, then claim it back over the long term with a reasonable increase in service charge, it’s what the social housing providers will do. & there are existing government funds available I’m not sure of the figures & possibly give some tax relief if replacement products are UK made. Problem solved with not much extra cost to the UK tax payer, no mater which way they may, or may not vote x
I would think if the company supplying the cladding lied about the fire test results and did not submit all the test results only the ones that said it was safe so they could get contracts should be prosecuted and fined.
i think the problem is, at the time the rules were more concerned with inside the buildings, they didnt really expect cladding outside to catch fire, so the rules ref its use were not very strict. So like asbestos and other materials, they used it everywhere and ten/twenty years later oops! so although the companies didnt tell the whole truth im not sure the law actually required their products to be fireproof, so they didnt say it wasnt. Amazing now i know! bit like the titanic wont sink.. honest..... "
Yes they were Certifiers say the data from the "5B test" was "absolutely crucial safety information".
According to Arconic's tests, the cassette panels burned much faster than the rivet-style one.
They also released seven times as much heat and three times the rate of smoke.
Data about the cassette panelling was not shared with certification bodies or customers - and both types of cladding were sold under the same fire safety certificate issued by the British Board of Agreement (BBA) in 2008. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Surly the flats are mainly leasehold not free hold, so the freehold owner should pay, then claim it back over the long term with a reasonable increase in service charge, it’s what the social housing providers will do. & there are existing government funds available I’m not sure of the figures & possibly give some tax relief if replacement products are UK made. Problem solved with not much extra cost to the UK tax payer, no mater which way they may, or may not vote x
I would think if the company supplying the cladding lied about the fire test results and did not submit all the test results only the ones that said it was safe so they could get contracts should be prosecuted and fined.
i think the problem is, at the time the rules were more concerned with inside the buildings, they didnt really expect cladding outside to catch fire, so the rules ref its use were not very strict. So like asbestos and other materials, they used it everywhere and ten/twenty years later oops! so although the companies didnt tell the whole truth im not sure the law actually required their products to be fireproof, so they didnt say it wasnt. Amazing now i know! bit like the titanic wont sink.. honest..... Yes they were Certifiers say the data from the "5B test" was "absolutely crucial safety information".
According to Arconic's tests, the cassette panels burned much faster than the rivet-style one.
They also released seven times as much heat and three times the rate of smoke.
Data about the cassette panelling was not shared with certification bodies or customers - and both types of cladding were sold under the same fire safety certificate issued by the British Board of Agreement (BBA) in 2008."
Clear fraud then wouldn't you think? I knew arconic knew and kept using but not that they were certificating the product!
Owners jail time? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Now it seems an email was sent from a technical manager to colleges telling them the poor fire tests need to be kept confidential, the manager refused to come to the uk to give evidence.  "
im sure theyll make it as complicated as possible in the who said what when where game ref any legal proceedings |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ostafunMan
over a year ago
near ipswich |
"Now it seems an email was sent from a technical manager to colleges telling them the poor fire tests need to be kept confidential, the manager refused to come to the uk to give evidence.
im sure theyll make it as complicated as possible in the who said what when where game ref any legal proceedings "
Yep thats what they do. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"remember when this was everywhere, the new wonder product and then 30 years later it isn't! i had to dispose of my garage roof as if it was asbestos even if it wasnt! just in case! and it was expensive, the government didnt offer to do it or compensate me for signing asbestos off as safe decades earlier.
weve now got the same issue with cladding on buildings, why is the tax payer going to get the bill? "
I think it's more the point land lords or lease owners would just shut the flats sell sat a loss and let governments 're house all made homeless. Don't know where they would put them all.
Also was it not government regulations that angered it was safe.
And you did not have to remove you asbestos it is safe so long as it's not touched.
Had at least it dose not burn it is every where. Schools are full of it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ovebjsMan
over a year ago
Bristol |
"Now it seems an email was sent from a technical manager to colleges telling them the poor fire tests need to be kept confidential, the manager refused to come to the uk to give evidence. "
Probably scared of getting arrested on the spot  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"remember when this was everywhere, the new wonder product and then 30 years later it isn't! i had to dispose of my garage roof as if it was asbestos even if it wasnt! just in case! and it was expensive, the government didnt offer to do it or compensate me for signing asbestos off as safe decades earlier.
weve now got the same issue with cladding on buildings, why is the tax payer going to get the bill?
I think it's more the point land lords or lease owners would just shut the flats sell sat a loss and let governments 're house all made homeless. Don't know where they would put them all.
Also was it not government regulations that angered it was safe.
And you did not have to remove you asbestos it is safe so long as it's not touched.
Had at least it dose not burn it is every where. Schools are full of it."
Ssshh we have foreign firms here we can blame. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It seems that the French company that produced the cladding told the British board of standards a "half truth" whatever that is.
Arconic only shared one successful fire test result with the British Board of Agrément (BBA), and not a failed result, an inquiry into the fire heard.
But Claude Schmidt, Arconic's president, denied the failed test was "deliberately concealed" by his firm.
He said the BBA should have found the poor test result as part of an audit.
so the board needed to find it rather than them submitting it unbelievable."
The English company made a test piece that would pass the fire test, then carried on selling the original stuff not mentioning that it hadn't passed the fire test.
Also they brought in a PR company to sell it to MP's, saying how good it was. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"There’s Asbestos water mains still out there. Don’t worry though, it’s safe wet. "
Go on line and do an asbestos awareness course and you will learn how much is out there and where it is.
Schools still have lots in them but untouched it's safe and fine.
Remember the ceilings in buildings like pin boards with a paper covering. Yes the covering is generally chrysotile. The most widely used asbestos. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"There’s Asbestos water mains still out there. Don’t worry though, it’s safe wet.
Go on line and do an asbestos awareness course and you will learn how much is out there and where it is.
Schools still have lots in them but untouched it's safe and fine.
Remember the ceilings in buildings like pin boards with a paper covering. Yes the covering is generally chrysotile. The most widely used asbestos. "
Already qualified.
My garage roof is a lovely corrugated asbestos. Doesn’t worry me. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"There’s Asbestos water mains still out there. Don’t worry though, it’s safe wet.
Go on line and do an asbestos awareness course and you will learn how much is out there and where it is.
Schools still have lots in them but untouched it's safe and fine.
Remember the ceilings in buildings like pin boards with a paper covering. Yes the covering is generally chrysotile. The most widely used asbestos.
Already qualified.
My garage roof is a lovely corrugated asbestos. Doesn’t worry me. "
Yep and it will be fine I sprayed my mum's with clear varnish seals it in but others can see it.
Never paint it anyone.
Oh and the floor tiles in oure bungerlw have it in but left alone. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
