FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Cladding: MPs fail in bid to change fire safety payment rules
Cladding: MPs fail in bid to change fire safety payment rules
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Wasmt there a bill proposed by labour a while ago which the tories blocked because they wanted to make sure proper protection was in place?" I think there's three. One of which is from Tory backbenchers. Like it's been highlighted: I think there's a conflict of interests here. | |||
"Be interesting if any of those 340 declared a conflict of interest . Landlords having to be responsible for any repairs does set a nasty precedent if your a landlord! " Red my mind why would you be given a vote if you have a stake in any of these blocks of flats | |||
"Be interesting if any of those 340 declared a conflict of interest . Landlords having to be responsible for any repairs does set a nasty precedent if your a landlord! Red my mind why would you be given a vote if you have a stake in any of these blocks of flats " What is interesting here is that the Lords voted to do the right things (many more Landlords there) and the Commons - Tories in this instance, said fuck you lot! Very sad  | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"It has been quashed in the house of lords as well." No justice... | |||
| |||
"Tenants/Owners/Occupiers can/are made responsible for total cost/s to interior repair and upkeep and are usually, more often than not, contracted to exterior repair in full. When you take a mortgage on a House you will be contracted to provide Buildings Protection Insurance - failure to do this doesn't mean that you don't have to pay for such repairs if they are needed. Whether that house is an Apartment block or not, makes no difference at all. Many Tenants/Owners/Occupiers have taken Legal Advice so far and where those contacts are in place have been advised that they are legally responsible. " Given the building fire standards were not adhered to then the contracts should be null and void and the builder liable in full. In my opinion. | |||
"Tenants/Owners/Occupiers can/are made responsible for total cost/s to interior repair and upkeep and are usually, more often than not, contracted to exterior repair in full. When you take a mortgage on a House you will be contracted to provide Buildings Protection Insurance - failure to do this doesn't mean that you don't have to pay for such repairs if they are needed. Whether that house is an Apartment block or not, makes no difference at all. Many Tenants/Owners/Occupiers have taken Legal Advice so far and where those contacts are in place have been advised that they are legally responsible. Given the building fire standards were not adhered to then the contracts should be null and void and the builder liable in full. In my opinion. " The company will go bankrupt, then start up a new company and get off scot free. | |||
"Tenants/Owners/Occupiers can/are made responsible for total cost/s to interior repair and upkeep and are usually, more often than not, contracted to exterior repair in full. When you take a mortgage on a House you will be contracted to provide Buildings Protection Insurance - failure to do this doesn't mean that you don't have to pay for such repairs if they are needed. Whether that house is an Apartment block or not, makes no difference at all. Many Tenants/Owners/Occupiers have taken Legal Advice so far and where those contacts are in place have been advised that they are legally responsible. Given the building fire standards were not adhered to then the contracts should be null and void and the builder liable in full. In my opinion. The company will go bankrupt, then start up a new company and get off scot free." The companies in question are enormous and it wil be their insurers who pay . | |||
| |||
"In other news amidst Covid-19 and Brexit chat: A cross-party effort to protect leaseholders living in flats from the cost of safety improvements has failed. An amendment that called on a ban on freeholders passing fire safety improvement costs on to leaseholders was beaten by 340 to 225. More on this in the link below: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-56174558 Is it fair to ask residents to foot the bill on buildings that should be safe?" Yes, you buy a house/flat with a dodgy boiler or asbestos is found, your cost to remove, replace, I wouldn't expect non home owners taxes to cover my costs, but if they want to buy me a heat exchanger to save environment/planet they can, as that will be coming soon.... | |||
| |||
"In other news amidst Covid-19 and Brexit chat: A cross-party effort to protect leaseholders living in flats from the cost of safety improvements has failed. An amendment that called on a ban on freeholders passing fire safety improvement costs on to leaseholders was beaten by 340 to 225. More on this in the link below: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-56174558 Is it fair to ask residents to foot the bill on buildings that should be safe? Yes, you buy a house/flat with a dodgy boiler or asbestos is found, your cost to remove, replace, I wouldn't expect non home owners taxes to cover my costs, but if they want to buy me a heat exchanger to save environment/planet they can, as that will be coming soon.... " Isn't the difference buying and renting? | |||
"In other news amidst Covid-19 and Brexit chat: A cross-party effort to protect leaseholders living in flats from the cost of safety improvements has failed. An amendment that called on a ban on freeholders passing fire safety improvement costs on to leaseholders was beaten by 340 to 225. More on this in the link below: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-56174558 Is it fair to ask residents to foot the bill on buildings that should be safe? Yes, you buy a house/flat with a dodgy boiler or asbestos is found, your cost to remove, replace, I wouldn't expect non home owners taxes to cover my costs, but if they want to buy me a heat exchanger to save environment/planet they can, as that will be coming soon.... Isn't the difference buying and renting? " no, google leasehold | |||
"In other news amidst Covid-19 and Brexit chat: A cross-party effort to protect leaseholders living in flats from the cost of safety improvements has failed. An amendment that called on a ban on freeholders passing fire safety improvement costs on to leaseholders was beaten by 340 to 225. More on this in the link below: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-56174558 Is it fair to ask residents to foot the bill on buildings that should be safe? Yes, you buy a house/flat with a dodgy boiler or asbestos is found, your cost to remove, replace, I wouldn't expect non home owners taxes to cover my costs, but if they want to buy me a heat exchanger to save environment/planet they can, as that will be coming soon.... Isn't the difference buying and renting? no, google leasehold" So does this mean we could have another Grenfell if people can't afford the cost to make a building safe? Not making a statement here but genuinely asking as we all have the right to live safely. | |||
"In other news amidst Covid-19 and Brexit chat: A cross-party effort to protect leaseholders living in flats from the cost of safety improvements has failed. An amendment that called on a ban on freeholders passing fire safety improvement costs on to leaseholders was beaten by 340 to 225. More on this in the link below: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-56174558 Is it fair to ask residents to foot the bill on buildings that should be safe? Yes, you buy a house/flat with a dodgy boiler or asbestos is found, your cost to remove, replace, I wouldn't expect non home owners taxes to cover my costs, but if they want to buy me a heat exchanger to save environment/planet they can, as that will be coming soon.... Isn't the difference buying and renting? no, google leasehold So does this mean we could have another Grenfell if people can't afford the cost to make a building safe? Not making a statement here but genuinely asking as we all have the right to live safely. " No we have a right to live safely but to pay for it. Personally I believe it's the manufacturers and or their insurance companies that need to pay out. When you take out commercial insurance it covers you for any problems in the future that an action or product causes that you supplied or did during the time that insurance covered, this is a well established principle and is why I always keep proof of which company I am insured with each year. Most flats are leasehold, some leaseholders also own a part of the freehold, it is the freeholders that are responsible for the structure, albeit that they can claim the money back via the leaseholders, I expect there willbe lots of legal battles as leaseholders will say the freeholders chose the cladding and therefore its them that has to pay for it to be removed, they in turn will look to the manufacturers, of course they will say it was approved by building regs so it wasnt us guv | |||
| |||
"In other news amidst Covid-19 and Brexit chat: A cross-party effort to protect leaseholders living in flats from the cost of safety improvements has failed. An amendment that called on a ban on freeholders passing fire safety improvement costs on to leaseholders was beaten by 340 to 225. More on this in the link below: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-56174558 Is it fair to ask residents to foot the bill on buildings that should be safe? Yes, you buy a house/flat with a dodgy boiler or asbestos is found, your cost to remove, replace, I wouldn't expect non home owners taxes to cover my costs, but if they want to buy me a heat exchanger to save environment/planet they can, as that will be coming soon.... Isn't the difference buying and renting? no, google leasehold So does this mean we could have another Grenfell if people can't afford the cost to make a building safe? Not making a statement here but genuinely asking as we all have the right to live safely. No we have a right to live safely but to pay for it. Personally I believe it's the manufacturers and or their insurance companies that need to pay out. When you take out commercial insurance it covers you for any problems in the future that an action or product causes that you supplied or did during the time that insurance covered, this is a well established principle and is why I always keep proof of which company I am insured with each year. Most flats are leasehold, some leaseholders also own a part of the freehold, it is the freeholders that are responsible for the structure, albeit that they can claim the money back via the leaseholders, I expect there willbe lots of legal battles as leaseholders will say the freeholders chose the cladding and therefore its them that has to pay for it to be removed, they in turn will look to the manufacturers, of course they will say it was approved by building regs so it wasnt us guv" There was so much communication from residents prior to the tragedy of Grenfell that I think it's more to avoid liability than anything else. | |||
"when i cross the road there is no one i mean no one to hold my hand, its outrageous, i have a right to feel safe in my own country FFS! when i was younger there were no cars, you might see a horse, have you seen how big buses have become! The population has grown and no one asked me permission! the leasehold agreement will cover it, they will have to pay for the update," Umm ok... 
I just hope it doesn't mean below par homes knowing they don't have to cover additional costs.
| |||
| |||
"when i cross the road there is no one i mean no one to hold my hand, its outrageous, i have a right to feel safe in my own country FFS! when i was younger there were no cars, you might see a horse, have you seen how big buses have become! The population has grown and no one asked me permission! the leasehold agreement will cover it, they will have to pay for the update, Umm ok...
I just hope it doesn't mean below par homes knowing they don't have to cover additional costs.
"anyone on here ever run their tyres a bit low or at the wrong tire pressure? i know its not the same but as humans we do stuff we shouldnt and then argue about it! | |||
"In other news amidst Covid-19 and Brexit chat: A cross-party effort to protect leaseholders living in flats from the cost of safety improvements has failed. An amendment that called on a ban on freeholders passing fire safety improvement costs on to leaseholders was beaten by 340 to 225. More on this in the link below: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-56174558 Is it fair to ask residents to foot the bill on buildings that should be safe?" No. It's not fair. Remember what country you live in, and under which Government, though. Protecting the wealth of the minority is far more important than the safety and livelihoods of the majority; especially when most of them don't vote for you. If that were not the case - particularly in Kensington and Chelsea - it's possible that 72 people wouldn't be dead and many thousands, now, wouldn't be facing massive bills. | |||
| |||
"In other news amidst Covid-19 and Brexit chat: A cross-party effort to protect leaseholders living in flats from the cost of safety improvements has failed. An amendment that called on a ban on freeholders passing fire safety improvement costs on to leaseholders was beaten by 340 to 225. More on this in the link below: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-56174558 Is it fair to ask residents to foot the bill on buildings that should be safe? No. It's not fair. Remember what country you live in, and under which Government, though. Protecting the wealth of the minority is far more important than the safety and livelihoods of the majority; especially when most of them don't vote for you. If that were not the case - particularly in Kensington and Chelsea - it's possible that 72 people wouldn't be dead and many thousands, now, wouldn't be facing massive bills." Why is it's the government's fault that the cladding was faulty, it would appear that the manufacturer ignored the test results that showed there could be a problem under certain circumstances, do you blame the German government for VW et al for falsifying the emissions equipment on vehicles or the US government for Boeing's problems with the 737 max ? | |||
| |||
"Typical tory attitude of "it doesn't affect me so why should my taxes be used for this?". Meanwhile 10s of thousands of families are living in immediate danger through no fault of their own. Every single day there is a risk of another Grenfell and people go to bed at night terrified. A government's first duty is the safety of it's citizens and this isn't a problem that can afford the time to be dragged through courts before resolving it. If we have £200m to spunk on a new HMS Racist then we can afford to fix this immediately. And then, just like Johnson's wallpaper, we can argue about who pays the final bill later. Make the properties safe first. " What a load of rubbish, I'm not aware of how many blocks are affected by this but there has been ONE fire that was caused by an exploding fridge, the chances of such a combination are minimal and if a fire happened again people would evacuate not stay in their flats, it seems to have overlooked that many fewer would have died had they not stayed in their flats, the advice given by the fire brigades is bonkers. None of that diminishes the impact of those who died and in no way am I dismissing that. | |||
| |||
"In other news amidst Covid-19 and Brexit chat: A cross-party effort to protect leaseholders living in flats from the cost of safety improvements has failed. An amendment that called on a ban on freeholders passing fire safety improvement costs on to leaseholders was beaten by 340 to 225. More on this in the link below: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-56174558 Is it fair to ask residents to foot the bill on buildings that should be safe? No. It's not fair. Remember what country you live in, and under which Government, though. Protecting the wealth of the minority is far more important than the safety and livelihoods of the majority; especially when most of them don't vote for you. If that were not the case - particularly in Kensington and Chelsea - it's possible that 72 people wouldn't be dead and many thousands, now, wouldn't be facing massive bills. Why is it's the government's fault that the cladding was faulty, it would appear that the manufacturer ignored the test results that showed there could be a problem under certain circumstances, do you blame the German government for VW et al for falsifying the emissions equipment on vehicles or the US government for Boeing's problems with the 737 max ? " It has come to light that the manufacturers had not been disclosing the fact that the materials when used in one of the two construction methods failed the building regulation standards. They knew and didn't release those figures. Celotex were found to have removed the foam and plastic content and just tested the aluminum components alone. It passed the tests, they then added the foam and plastic back in and sold it as compliant with building regulations knowing it had not been tested as a complete product. Some of the companies doing this are multinationals most of us have never heard of. Architects failed to see the risks at the design stage, as they were presented with test results showing it was safe to use. A lot of the installation work has been shoddy with sections designed to slow the progress of fires missing or incorrectly positioned, compounding the problem. It's not the governments fault, nor is it the owners of the property. The architects and the builders didn't know exactly what they were installing as they were not told. | |||
"In other news amidst Covid-19 and Brexit chat: A cross-party effort to protect leaseholders living in flats from the cost of safety improvements has failed. An amendment that called on a ban on freeholders passing fire safety improvement costs on to leaseholders was beaten by 340 to 225. More on this in the link below: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-56174558 Is it fair to ask residents to foot the bill on buildings that should be safe? No. It's not fair. Remember what country you live in, and under which Government, though. Protecting the wealth of the minority is far more important than the safety and livelihoods of the majority; especially when most of them don't vote for you. If that were not the case - particularly in Kensington and Chelsea - it's possible that 72 people wouldn't be dead and many thousands, now, wouldn't be facing massive bills. Why is it's the government's fault that the cladding was faulty, it would appear that the manufacturer ignored the test results that showed there could be a problem under certain circumstances, do you blame the German government for VW et al for falsifying the emissions equipment on vehicles or the US government for Boeing's problems with the 737 max ? " they arent interested in logic lol | |||
"In other news amidst Covid-19 and Brexit chat: A cross-party effort to protect leaseholders living in flats from the cost of safety improvements has failed. An amendment that called on a ban on freeholders passing fire safety improvement costs on to leaseholders was beaten by 340 to 225. More on this in the link below: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-56174558 Is it fair to ask residents to foot the bill on buildings that should be safe? No. It's not fair. Remember what country you live in, and under which Government, though. Protecting the wealth of the minority is far more important than the safety and livelihoods of the majority; especially when most of them don't vote for you. If that were not the case - particularly in Kensington and Chelsea - it's possible that 72 people wouldn't be dead and many thousands, now, wouldn't be facing massive bills. Why is it's the government's fault that the cladding was faulty, it would appear that the manufacturer ignored the test results that showed there could be a problem under certain circumstances, do you blame the German government for VW et al for falsifying the emissions equipment on vehicles or the US government for Boeing's problems with the 737 max ? It has come to light that the manufacturers had not been disclosing the fact that the materials when used in one of the two construction methods failed the building regulation standards. They knew and didn't release those figures. Celotex were found to have removed the foam and plastic content and just tested the aluminum components alone. It passed the tests, they then added the foam and plastic back in and sold it as compliant with building regulations knowing it had not been tested as a complete product. Some of the companies doing this are multinationals most of us have never heard of. Architects failed to see the risks at the design stage, as they were presented with test results showing it was safe to use. A lot of the installation work has been shoddy with sections designed to slow the progress of fires missing or incorrectly positioned, compounding the problem. It's not the governments fault, nor is it the owners of the property. The architects and the builders didn't know exactly what they were installing as they were not told. " bravo sir, but far to reasonable for most on here, just add, fucking tories! for no reason lol | |||
"In other news amidst Covid-19 and Brexit chat: A cross-party effort to protect leaseholders living in flats from the cost of safety improvements has failed. An amendment that called on a ban on freeholders passing fire safety improvement costs on to leaseholders was beaten by 340 to 225. More on this in the link below: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-56174558 Is it fair to ask residents to foot the bill on buildings that should be safe? No. It's not fair. Remember what country you live in, and under which Government, though. Protecting the wealth of the minority is far more important than the safety and livelihoods of the majority; especially when most of them don't vote for you. If that were not the case - particularly in Kensington and Chelsea - it's possible that 72 people wouldn't be dead and many thousands, now, wouldn't be facing massive bills. Why is it's the government's fault that the cladding was faulty, it would appear that the manufacturer ignored the test results that showed there could be a problem under certain circumstances, do you blame the German government for VW et al for falsifying the emissions equipment on vehicles or the US government for Boeing's problems with the 737 max ? It has come to light that the manufacturers had not been disclosing the fact that the materials when used in one of the two construction methods failed the building regulation standards. They knew and didn't release those figures. Celotex were found to have removed the foam and plastic content and just tested the aluminum components alone. It passed the tests, they then added the foam and plastic back in and sold it as compliant with building regulations knowing it had not been tested as a complete product. Some of the companies doing this are multinationals most of us have never heard of. Architects failed to see the risks at the design stage, as they were presented with test results showing it was safe to use. A lot of the installation work has been shoddy with sections designed to slow the progress of fires missing or incorrectly positioned, compounding the problem. It's not the governments fault, nor is it the owners of the property. The architects and the builders didn't know exactly what they were installing as they were not told. " Exactly go after those who defrauded the system, what a lot are forgetting is that these products are used in most new builds in the cavity etc | |||
"Typical tory attitude of "it doesn't affect me so why should my taxes be used for this?". Meanwhile 10s of thousands of families are living in immediate danger through no fault of their own. Every single day there is a risk of another Grenfell and people go to bed at night terrified. A government's first duty is the safety of it's citizens and this isn't a problem that can afford the time to be dragged through courts before resolving it. If we have £200m to spunk on a new HMS Racist then we can afford to fix this immediately. And then, just like Johnson's wallpaper, we can argue about who pays the final bill later. Make the properties safe first. " Apparently when the gmnt sells of public housing ,they no longer have any responsibility. Has anyone been bought to justice for grenfell? | |||
"In other news amidst Covid-19 and Brexit chat: A cross-party effort to protect leaseholders living in flats from the cost of safety improvements has failed. An amendment that called on a ban on freeholders passing fire safety improvement costs on to leaseholders was beaten by 340 to 225. More on this in the link below: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-56174558 Is it fair to ask residents to foot the bill on buildings that should be safe? No. It's not fair. Remember what country you live in, and under which Government, though. Protecting the wealth of the minority is far more important than the safety and livelihoods of the majority; especially when most of them don't vote for you. If that were not the case - particularly in Kensington and Chelsea - it's possible that 72 people wouldn't be dead and many thousands, now, wouldn't be facing massive bills. Why is it's the government's fault that the cladding was faulty, it would appear that the manufacturer ignored the test results that showed there could be a problem under certain circumstances, do you blame the German government for VW et al for falsifying the emissions equipment on vehicles or the US government for Boeing's problems with the 737 max ? It has come to light that the manufacturers had not been disclosing the fact that the materials when used in one of the two construction methods failed the building regulation standards. They knew and didn't release those figures. Celotex were found to have removed the foam and plastic content and just tested the aluminum components alone. It passed the tests, they then added the foam and plastic back in and sold it as compliant with building regulations knowing it had not been tested as a complete product. Some of the companies doing this are multinationals most of us have never heard of. Architects failed to see the risks at the design stage, as they were presented with test results showing it was safe to use. A lot of the installation work has been shoddy with sections designed to slow the progress of fires missing or incorrectly positioned, compounding the problem. It's not the governments fault, nor is it the owners of the property. The architects and the builders didn't know exactly what they were installing as they were not told. Exactly go after those who defrauded the system, what a lot are forgetting is that these products are used in most new builds in the cavity etc " Yes, go after them but fix the problem now. Holding building contractors and materials manufacturers takes time that people don't have. | |||
"Typical tory attitude of "it doesn't affect me so why should my taxes be used for this?". Meanwhile 10s of thousands of families are living in immediate danger through no fault of their own. Every single day there is a risk of another Grenfell and people go to bed at night terrified. A government's first duty is the safety of it's citizens and this isn't a problem that can afford the time to be dragged through courts before resolving it. If we have £200m to spunk on a new HMS Racist then we can afford to fix this immediately. And then, just like Johnson's wallpaper, we can argue about who pays the final bill later. Make the properties safe first. Apparently when the gmnt sells of public housing ,they no longer have any responsibility. Has anyone been bought to justice for grenfell?" Not sure if the report has been released yet, however it's obvious the fire brigade advice to stay put was flawed and will have to take some of the blame, this could be difficult politically. I sell straw bales to people to use as insulation in houses as its "cool, trendy and green" however its complete madness, a house could burn down extremely quickly, let alone the other issues such as insects etc. Too many degrees and not enough common sense in many sections of life these days. | |||
"Typical tory attitude of "it doesn't affect me so why should my taxes be used for this?". Meanwhile 10s of thousands of families are living in immediate danger through no fault of their own. Every single day there is a risk of another Grenfell and people go to bed at night terrified. A government's first duty is the safety of it's citizens and this isn't a problem that can afford the time to be dragged through courts before resolving it. If we have £200m to spunk on a new HMS Racist then we can afford to fix this immediately. And then, just like Johnson's wallpaper, we can argue about who pays the final bill later. Make the properties safe first. Apparently when the gmnt sells of public housing ,they no longer have any responsibility. Has anyone been bought to justice for grenfell? Not sure if the report has been released yet, however it's obvious the fire brigade advice to stay put was flawed and will have to take some of the blame, this could be difficult politically. I sell straw bales to people to use as insulation in houses as its "cool, trendy and green" however its complete madness, a house could burn down extremely quickly, let alone the other issues such as insects etc. Too many degrees and not enough common sense in many sections of life these days."  | |||
"Typical tory attitude of "it doesn't affect me so why should my taxes be used for this?". Meanwhile 10s of thousands of families are living in immediate danger through no fault of their own. Every single day there is a risk of another Grenfell and people go to bed at night terrified. A government's first duty is the safety of it's citizens and this isn't a problem that can afford the time to be dragged through courts before resolving it. If we have £200m to spunk on a new HMS Racist then we can afford to fix this immediately. And then, just like Johnson's wallpaper, we can argue about who pays the final bill later. Make the properties safe first. Apparently when the gmnt sells of public housing ,they no longer have any responsibility. Has anyone been bought to justice for grenfell? Not sure if the report has been released yet, however it's obvious the fire brigade advice to stay put was flawed and will have to take some of the blame, this could be difficult politically. I sell straw bales to people to use as insulation in houses as its "cool, trendy and green" however its complete madness, a house could burn down extremely quickly, let alone the other issues such as insects etc. Too many degrees and not enough common sense in many sections of life these days. "yes ban thatched roofs right now! i have plenty of friends with properties 200 years old, full of wooden beams and straw and they are still standing... stop the hysteria! | |||
"Typical tory attitude of "it doesn't affect me so why should my taxes be used for this?". Meanwhile 10s of thousands of families are living in immediate danger through no fault of their own. Every single day there is a risk of another Grenfell and people go to bed at night terrified. A government's first duty is the safety of it's citizens and this isn't a problem that can afford the time to be dragged through courts before resolving it. If we have £200m to spunk on a new HMS Racist then we can afford to fix this immediately. And then, just like Johnson's wallpaper, we can argue about who pays the final bill later. Make the properties safe first. Apparently when the gmnt sells of public housing ,they no longer have any responsibility. Has anyone been bought to justice for grenfell? Not sure if the report has been released yet, however it's obvious the fire brigade advice to stay put was flawed and will have to take some of the blame, this could be difficult politically. I sell straw bales to people to use as insulation in houses as its "cool, trendy and green" however its complete madness, a house could burn down extremely quickly, let alone the other issues such as insects etc. Too many degrees and not enough common sense in many sections of life these days.
yes ban thatched roofs right now! i have plenty of friends with properties 200 years old, full of wooden beams and straw and they are still standing...
stop the hysteria!"Wood beams generally burn very slowly in a fire, it's a strange fact that steel beams cause more worry due to them sagging in a hot fire . thatch is obviously a fire risk but obviously it's only on the roof, straw insulation in every external wall is far more dangerous as it would burn extremely rapidly and possibly trap people. | |||
"Typical tory attitude of "it doesn't affect me so why should my taxes be used for this?". Meanwhile 10s of thousands of families are living in immediate danger through no fault of their own. Every single day there is a risk of another Grenfell and people go to bed at night terrified. A government's first duty is the safety of it's citizens and this isn't a problem that can afford the time to be dragged through courts before resolving it. If we have £200m to spunk on a new HMS Racist then we can afford to fix this immediately. And then, just like Johnson's wallpaper, we can argue about who pays the final bill later. Make the properties safe first. Apparently when the gmnt sells of public housing ,they no longer have any responsibility. Has anyone been bought to justice for grenfell? Not sure if the report has been released yet, however it's obvious the fire brigade advice to stay put was flawed and will have to take some of the blame, this could be difficult politically. I sell straw bales to people to use as insulation in houses as its "cool, trendy and green" however its complete madness, a house could burn down extremely quickly, let alone the other issues such as insects etc. Too many degrees and not enough common sense in many sections of life these days." The stay policy has saved thousands of lives and is still the right advice for people in a high rise, what was found to be the difference was that Grenfell was essentially wrapped in flammable materials.. Yes I agree there should have been someone at command level who should have binned the policy given that situation and criticism has and will come for changes at that level, also changes to incident management.. It's always been the case that if policy is bypassed and it goes ok then that's fine but if the other way then the shit hits the fan, major changes are being looked at in regards to training Oic's .. A full evacuation would not have been risk free in that building.. The current changes to the legislation are favouring Tory donors and penalising people who have in all good faith taken out mortgages on what they honestly believed were safe properties, it's morally wrong to expect them to pay.. | |||
| |||
"It's morally wrong to use tax payers money from people who don't own a property! " The NHS does the same, we all pay but we might not use it apart to any extent.. Fact is, the legislation was altered to the detriment of nigh on everyone who lives in such buildings.. It might not have been done under this government but they continued to allow a complete mish mash of lax standards, loopholes that were exploited enabling companies to essentially clad buildings in flammable materials.. Companies have procured massively under such 'rules', it's not the occupants of said buildings who are at fault.. | |||
"It's morally wrong to use tax payers money from people who don't own a property! " You might not use a library but the doctor who treats your cancer in 20 years does. | |||
"It's morally wrong to use tax payers money from people who don't own a property! The NHS does the same, we all pay but we might not use it apart to any extent.. Fact is, the legislation was altered to the detriment of nigh on everyone who lives in such buildings.. It might not have been done under this government but they continued to allow a complete mish mash of lax standards, loopholes that were exploited enabling companies to essentially clad buildings in flammable materials.. Companies have procured massively under such 'rules', it's not the occupants of said buildings who are at fault.. " The standards for the cladding wasnt the problem, it was the falsifying of test data that showed the product met the specs that was the issue, once again is it the governments paying out to car owners or the manufacturers, I carry public and product liability to protect myself from either my actions or products causing harm the companies who provided a dangerous cladding are the ones who should pay. | |||
| |||
"It's morally wrong to use tax payers money from people who don't own a property! The NHS does the same, we all pay but we might not use it apart to any extent.. Fact is, the legislation was altered to the detriment of nigh on everyone who lives in such buildings.. It might not have been done under this government but they continued to allow a complete mish mash of lax standards, loopholes that were exploited enabling companies to essentially clad buildings in flammable materials.. Companies have procured massively under such 'rules', it's not the occupants of said buildings who are at fault.. The standards for the cladding wasnt the problem, it was the falsifying of test data that showed the product met the specs that was the issue, once again is it the governments paying out to car owners or the manufacturers, I carry public and product liability to protect myself from either my actions or products causing harm the companies who provided a dangerous cladding are the ones who should pay." The individual lease holders simply have no chance in taking legal action against whom is responsible, nor i doubt would a class action be successful.. These companies have too many resources, too many friends in government .. This should be sorted out by the government to address fully any liability this borne by innocent people but as we've seen in the bill it's business being protected, that's poor but to be expected given the links to government with them.. | |||
| |||
"It's morally wrong to use tax payers money from people who don't own a property! The NHS does the same, we all pay but we might not use it apart to any extent.. Fact is, the legislation was altered to the detriment of nigh on everyone who lives in such buildings.. It might not have been done under this government but they continued to allow a complete mish mash of lax standards, loopholes that were exploited enabling companies to essentially clad buildings in flammable materials.. Companies have procured massively under such 'rules', it's not the occupants of said buildings who are at fault.. " its not the same at all ! the nhs is a public resource for us all to use... if you spend money on someones private home you are in effect just giving them money... boris can have his wall paper for free then lol if they get free cladding he can have free curtains. | |||
"In other news amidst Covid-19 and Brexit chat: A cross-party effort to protect leaseholders living in flats from the cost of safety improvements has failed. An amendment that called on a ban on freeholders passing fire safety improvement costs on to leaseholders was beaten by 340 to 225. More on this in the link below: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-56174558 Is it fair to ask residents to foot the bill on buildings that should be safe? No. It's not fair. Remember what country you live in, and under which Government, though. Protecting the wealth of the minority is far more important than the safety and livelihoods of the majority; especially when most of them don't vote for you. If that were not the case - particularly in Kensington and Chelsea - it's possible that 72 people wouldn't be dead and many thousands, now, wouldn't be facing massive bills. Why is it's the government's fault that the cladding was faulty, it would appear that the manufacturer ignored the test results that showed there could be a problem under certain circumstances, do you blame the German government for VW et al for falsifying the emissions equipment on vehicles or the US government for Boeing's problems with the 737 max ? they arent interested in logic lol" | |||
"It's morally wrong to use tax payers money from people who don't own a property! The NHS does the same, we all pay but we might not use it apart to any extent.. Fact is, the legislation was altered to the detriment of nigh on everyone who lives in such buildings.. It might not have been done under this government but they continued to allow a complete mish mash of lax standards, loopholes that were exploited enabling companies to essentially clad buildings in flammable materials.. Companies have procured massively under such 'rules', it's not the occupants of said buildings who are at fault.. The standards for the cladding wasnt the problem, it was the falsifying of test data that showed the product met the specs that was the issue, once again is it the governments paying out to car owners or the manufacturers, I carry public and product liability to protect myself from either my actions or products causing harm the companies who provided a dangerous cladding are the ones who should pay. The individual lease holders simply have no chance in taking legal action against whom is responsible, nor i doubt would a class action be successful.. These companies have too many resources, too many friends in government .. This should be sorted out by the government to address fully any liability this borne by innocent people but as we've seen in the bill it's business being protected, that's poor but to be expected given the links to government with them.. " Sorry but you dont understand how flats work, the freeholders are the "owners" of the flats they are the ones who organise and pay for repairs and improvements, they get the money back from the leaseholders via the service charge so it would be the freeholders who would be taking action against the manufactures( more likely actually against the installer) if the leaseholders take action it would be against the freeholder and their managing agents who organised the work, mainly this would be for loss of value on the remainder of the lease. The one party who arent responsible are the government, however they may do something to help out one legal liability has been decided by the courts. Yet again, and you keep ignoring the point, its car companies taking the hit for the emissions issue which is exactly the same as the cladding one, ie the falsifying of data. | |||
"the company who manufactured and supplied the cladding has a director who was paid at the time as a tory government advisor on building safety standards ironically enough. also the companies main shareholder has made donations to boris johnson of in excess of £25,000. the current standard tory corruption forces tax-payers to nationalise liability, while the tory government and chums privatise and off-shore the profit." You really need to open your hate filled eyes and understand the way building standards are decided upon. Do you really think any minister has the faintest idea on the regs, any more than you do ? They are very complicated and are changed by industry experts, in this case there was absolutely nothing wrong with the regs for cladding, to be approved for use it has to pass a certification process, the manufacturer's falsified the data from that process so unless you are suggesting that the tories knew that then what has it to with A the tories B the government at the time and C Boris as he at no point has been in charge of building regs. | |||
"No surprise, Tories looking after their friends and fucking over the average person.." | |||
| |||
"the company who manufactured and supplied the cladding has a director who was paid at the time as a tory government advisor on building safety standards ironically enough. also the companies main shareholder has made donations to boris johnson of in excess of £25,000. the current standard tory corruption forces tax-payers to nationalise liability, while the tory government and chums privatise and off-shore the profit. You really need to open your hate filled eyes and understand the way building standards are decided upon. Do you really think any minister has the faintest idea on the regs, any more than you do ? They are very complicated and are changed by industry experts, in this case there was absolutely nothing wrong with the regs for cladding, to be approved for use it has to pass a certification process, the manufacturer's falsified the data from that process so unless you are suggesting that the tories knew that then what has it to with A the tories B the government at the time and C Boris as he at no point has been in charge of building regs." keep on with your hate if it makes you happy. | |||
"if you own a leasehold flat, you own the flat but not the land it stands on, so if you have a 999 year lease the landowner can not have his land back for 999yrs, i.e your flat can not be touched by the landowner for many life times... hence the cladding is your issue If you are renting a flat, then you own nothing, but most likely still have to do minor repairs.... i cant imagine the owner could force you to replace HIS cladding. Youd just walk for starters! hope that helps some people see the difference. But if you cant.... fucking tories, labour twats... lib dems, who the fuck are they! they aint worth a cup of cold piss! lol" Sorry but that is completely wrong. 999 year leases were all converted to freehold a fair few years ago, not many flats had 999 year leases it tended to be houses, I bought one in 96 to do up and rent, it was considered then as freehold as it was 300years old and no one could claim to own the freehold. Most flats have leases of 125 years when new these days, we bought one from a newly converted block four years ago as a holiday flat, that had a 125 year lease. We bought another we use as a second home that has about 103 years left but we also own a part of the freehold of the block, so while in theory we own the freehold of our flat legally we own 1/72 of it and the same of everyone else. In normal lease hold flat the freeholder owns the land AND the whole building, they are responsible for insuring it and for all structural repairs and improvements, the cost of which are met by the service charge paid by the leaseholders. Therefore the cladding in most cases is 100% the freeholders responsibility. It is up to them to deal with it, they could on theory leave it but the leaseholders could take legal action to force them to remove it and of course if in the minuscule change of a fire involving the cladding the freeholder could be found liable | |||
"the company who manufactured and supplied the cladding has a director who was paid at the time as a tory government advisor on building safety standards ironically enough. also the companies main shareholder has made donations to boris johnson of in excess of £25,000. the current standard tory corruption forces tax-payers to nationalise liability, while the tory government and chums privatise and off-shore the profit. You really need to open your hate filled eyes and understand the way building standards are decided upon. Do you really think any minister has the faintest idea on the regs, any more than you do ? They are very complicated and are changed by industry experts, in this case there was absolutely nothing wrong with the regs for cladding, to be approved for use it has to pass a certification process, the manufacturer's falsified the data from that process so unless you are suggesting that the tories knew that then what has it to with A the tories B the government at the time and C Boris as he at no point has been in charge of building regs. keep on with your hate if it makes you happy. "Please can you point out what I hate in this thread ? | |||
"Lakanal House? Realistically, with the number of problems found nationwide in the immediate aftermath of Grenfell - cladding, poor fire breaks, inadequate evacuation plans, flammable balconies - it won't be a surprise if there is another fatal fire in the next couple of years. Probably not on the scale of Grenfell but one death is too many. And even without deaths, those who live there can't get insurance, can't sell to move when life changes (babies, job offers, divorce, marriage). Top that with the fear that an overloaded socket downstairs could kill you in your sleep and you have a mental health crisis in the making. HS2, Trident, paying off the DUP to get them onside (how's that going BTW?). All fine to blow billions on. Spend a few million short term to save lives? (Most of which will be recovered by fining the builders responsible). No, that's a waste of money. " How could an over loaded socket possibly kill you if the electric circuits are correctly installed and tested. ? All that happens is that a circuit breaker would trip. | |||
"Ps but it would be nice to catch the manufacturers but impossible I should think" The inquiry is quite funny really. All three companies admit that they lied about the safety of the material, one company sold the stuff over here as it was banned in some european countries. One company actually said in a fire in a large building with the cladding on, they expected there to be between 60 to 70 deaths. All the issues could have been found, if there was a proper audit done. | |||
"if you own a leasehold flat, you own the flat but not the land it stands on, so if you have a 999 year lease the landowner can not have his land back for 999yrs, i.e your flat can not be touched by the landowner for many life times... hence the cladding is your issue If you are renting a flat, then you own nothing, but most likely still have to do minor repairs.... i cant imagine the owner could force you to replace HIS cladding. Youd just walk for starters! hope that helps some people see the difference. But if you cant.... fucking tories, labour twats... lib dems, who the fuck are they! they aint worth a cup of cold piss! lol Sorry but that is completely wrong. 999 year leases were all converted to freehold a fair few years ago, not many flats had 999 year leases it tended to be houses, I bought one in 96 to do up and rent, it was considered then as freehold as it was 300years old and no one could claim to own the freehold. Most flats have leases of 125 years when new these days, we bought one from a newly converted block four years ago as a holiday flat, that had a 125 year lease. We bought another we use as a second home that has about 103 years left but we also own a part of the freehold of the block, so while in theory we own the freehold of our flat legally we own 1/72 of it and the same of everyone else. In normal lease hold flat the freeholder owns the land AND the whole building, they are responsible for insuring it and for all structural repairs and improvements, the cost of which are met by the service charge paid by the leaseholders. Therefore the cladding in most cases is 100% the freeholders responsibility. It is up to them to deal with it, they could on theory leave it but the leaseholders could take legal action to force them to remove it and of course if in the minuscule change of a fire involving the cladding the freeholder could be found liable" i used 999yrs just as example so some twat didnt say but what about 299 or 99 or ..... lol | |||
"if you own a leasehold flat, you own the flat but not the land it stands on, so if you have a 999 year lease the landowner can not have his land back for 999yrs, i.e your flat can not be touched by the landowner for many life times... hence the cladding is your issue If you are renting a flat, then you own nothing, but most likely still have to do minor repairs.... i cant imagine the owner could force you to replace HIS cladding. Youd just walk for starters! hope that helps some people see the difference. But if you cant.... fucking tories, labour twats... lib dems, who the fuck are they! they aint worth a cup of cold piss! lol Sorry but that is completely wrong. 999 year leases were all converted to freehold a fair few years ago, not many flats had 999 year leases it tended to be houses, I bought one in 96 to do up and rent, it was considered then as freehold as it was 300years old and no one could claim to own the freehold. Most flats have leases of 125 years when new these days, we bought one from a newly converted block four years ago as a holiday flat, that had a 125 year lease. We bought another we use as a second home that has about 103 years left but we also own a part of the freehold of the block, so while in theory we own the freehold of our flat legally we own 1/72 of it and the same of everyone else. In normal lease hold flat the freeholder owns the land AND the whole building, they are responsible for insuring it and for all structural repairs and improvements, the cost of which are met by the service charge paid by the leaseholders. Therefore the cladding in most cases is 100% the freeholders responsibility. It is up to them to deal with it, they could on theory leave it but the leaseholders could take legal action to force them to remove it and of course if in the minuscule change of a fire involving the cladding the freeholder could be found liable" im not arguing with you, take it to court and see how much money you can spend losing! if youre right why do the government need to step in, case is already water tight and closed! | |||
"Lakanal House? Realistically, with the number of problems found nationwide in the immediate aftermath of Grenfell - cladding, poor fire breaks, inadequate evacuation plans, flammable balconies - it won't be a surprise if there is another fatal fire in the next couple of years. Probably not on the scale of Grenfell but one death is too many. And even without deaths, those who live there can't get insurance, can't sell to move when life changes (babies, job offers, divorce, marriage). Top that with the fear that an overloaded socket downstairs could kill you in your sleep and you have a mental health crisis in the making. HS2, Trident, paying off the DUP to get them onside (how's that going BTW?). All fine to blow billions on. Spend a few million short term to save lives? (Most of which will be recovered by fining the builders responsible). No, that's a waste of money. How could an over loaded socket possibly kill you if the electric circuits are correctly installed and tested. ? All that happens is that a circuit breaker would trip." Heat, melted plastic and fire, often a fire starts by a lose connection which causes arching and thus heat and fire but doesnt overload the trip, there are now trips available that can replace rmcbs these can detect the arching and trip out before a fire starts, they are very expensive but easy to fit as they just replace the existing ones. | |||
"if you own a leasehold flat, you own the flat but not the land it stands on, so if you have a 999 year lease the landowner can not have his land back for 999yrs, i.e your flat can not be touched by the landowner for many life times... hence the cladding is your issue If you are renting a flat, then you own nothing, but most likely still have to do minor repairs.... i cant imagine the owner could force you to replace HIS cladding. Youd just walk for starters! hope that helps some people see the difference. But if you cant.... fucking tories, labour twats... lib dems, who the fuck are they! they aint worth a cup of cold piss! lol Sorry but that is completely wrong. 999 year leases were all converted to freehold a fair few years ago, not many flats had 999 year leases it tended to be houses, I bought one in 96 to do up and rent, it was considered then as freehold as it was 300years old and no one could claim to own the freehold. Most flats have leases of 125 years when new these days, we bought one from a newly converted block four years ago as a holiday flat, that had a 125 year lease. We bought another we use as a second home that has about 103 years left but we also own a part of the freehold of the block, so while in theory we own the freehold of our flat legally we own 1/72 of it and the same of everyone else. In normal lease hold flat the freeholder owns the land AND the whole building, they are responsible for insuring it and for all structural repairs and improvements, the cost of which are met by the service charge paid by the leaseholders. Therefore the cladding in most cases is 100% the freeholders responsibility. It is up to them to deal with it, they could on theory leave it but the leaseholders could take legal action to force them to remove it and of course if in the minuscule change of a fire involving the cladding the freeholder could be found liable im not arguing with you, take it to court and see how much money you can spend losing! if youre right why do the government need to step in, case is already water tight and closed!" The point I'm making is it's the freeholders job to take the manufacturers to court, probably as a group of different freeholders of different flats, to be honest if the inquiry finds the cladding responsible for the spread then I expect it would settle out of court, maybe the government will step in because if the manufacturer's insurance doesnt cover this due to them falsifying the data then it's highly likely the companies will go bust, there arent many companies making this sort of insulation and even a few wks disruptions while the company gets restarted house building would grind to a halt, the government might decide it's cheaper to pay for the removal and take those responsible to court for corporate manslaughter. I expect it will become clearer depending on the final report. | |||
| |||
"It's same situation as asbestos, wonder material, oh dear it kills people! Get removing it, your cost.... the manufacturer and everyone else can say, building inspectors etc all signed it off...it wasn't a problem last year... it's so messy blaming will be hard... " It's not really the same is it, asbestos wasnt known to be dangerous until many years later, it was produced according to the standards it was meant to be , the cladding wasnt the companies falsified the data and said it wasnt a fire risk when they knew it was. | |||
"In other news amidst Covid-19 and Brexit chat: A cross-party effort to protect leaseholders living in flats from the cost of safety improvements has failed. An amendment that called on a ban on freeholders passing fire safety improvement costs on to leaseholders was beaten by 340 to 225. More on this in the link below: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-56174558 Is it fair to ask residents to foot the bill on buildings that should be safe?" It's as fair as asking the resident to pay for the roof, doors or windows. | |||
"It's same situation as asbestos, wonder material, oh dear it kills people! Get removing it, your cost.... the manufacturer and everyone else can say, building inspectors etc all signed it off...it wasn't a problem last year... it's so messy blaming will be hard... It's not really the same is it, asbestos wasnt known to be dangerous until many years later, it was produced according to the standards it was meant to be , the cladding wasnt the companies falsified the data and said it wasnt a fire risk when they knew it was." grenfell was built/started in 1972! no one gave a toss about fire regs, cycle helmets or smoking indoors or.... it was a whole world away ... cladding on outside was not required to be fire proof coz it was outside... so didnt have to meet standards. lets wait and see how the court battle goes if it even happens! | |||
"It's same situation as asbestos, wonder material, oh dear it kills people! Get removing it, your cost.... the manufacturer and everyone else can say, building inspectors etc all signed it off...it wasn't a problem last year... it's so messy blaming will be hard... It's not really the same is it, asbestos wasnt known to be dangerous until many years later, it was produced according to the standards it was meant to be , the cladding wasnt the companies falsified the data and said it wasnt a fire risk when they knew it was. grenfell was built/started in 1972! no one gave a toss about fire regs, cycle helmets or smoking indoors or.... it was a whole world away ... cladding on outside was not required to be fire proof coz it was outside... so didnt have to meet standards. lets wait and see how the court battle goes if it even happens!" The cladding was added in a 9 million refit completed in 2017. | |||
"It's same situation as asbestos, wonder material, oh dear it kills people! Get removing it, your cost.... the manufacturer and everyone else can say, building inspectors etc all signed it off...it wasn't a problem last year... it's so messy blaming will be hard... It's not really the same is it, asbestos wasnt known to be dangerous until many years later, it was produced according to the standards it was meant to be , the cladding wasnt the companies falsified the data and said it wasnt a fire risk when they knew it was. grenfell was built/started in 1972! no one gave a toss about fire regs, cycle helmets or smoking indoors or.... it was a whole world away ... cladding on outside was not required to be fire proof coz it was outside... so didnt have to meet standards. lets wait and see how the court battle goes if it even happens! The cladding was added in a 9 million refit completed in 2017. " im sure lots was added/removed/added over 50 years and it had nothing to do with any of the governments! | |||
"It's same situation as asbestos, wonder material, oh dear it kills people! Get removing it, your cost.... the manufacturer and everyone else can say, building inspectors etc all signed it off...it wasn't a problem last year... it's so messy blaming will be hard... It's not really the same is it, asbestos wasnt known to be dangerous until many years later, it was produced according to the standards it was meant to be , the cladding wasnt the companies falsified the data and said it wasnt a fire risk when they knew it was. grenfell was built/started in 1972! no one gave a toss about fire regs, cycle helmets or smoking indoors or.... it was a whole world away ... cladding on outside was not required to be fire proof coz it was outside... so didnt have to meet standards. lets wait and see how the court battle goes if it even happens! The cladding was added in a 9 million refit completed in 2017. im sure lots was added/removed/added over 50 years and it had nothing to do with any of the governments!" Buildings have to be built to regs, the regs are set by the government, if the data given by the makers is false, which is the case then the makers are liable, not the government's job to sort | |||
"It's same situation as asbestos, wonder material, oh dear it kills people! Get removing it, your cost.... the manufacturer and everyone else can say, building inspectors etc all signed it off...it wasn't a problem last year... it's so messy blaming will be hard... " That's why there are about 1.5 million buildings, with it still in them. | |||
"It's same situation as asbestos, wonder material, oh dear it kills people! Get removing it, your cost.... the manufacturer and everyone else can say, building inspectors etc all signed it off...it wasn't a problem last year... it's so messy blaming will be hard... That's why there are about 1.5 million buildings, with it still in them." Exactly. ... there are cars on road with no airbags or crumple zones or.... you could look at anything built in past and start suggesting improvement.... and pointing... we only crashed coz your car hasn't got abs? Traction control?.... How far we taking this? | |||
"It's same situation as asbestos, wonder material, oh dear it kills people! Get removing it, your cost.... the manufacturer and everyone else can say, building inspectors etc all signed it off...it wasn't a problem last year... it's so messy blaming will be hard... That's why there are about 1.5 million buildings, with it still in them." Sheet asbestos isnt really an issue unless you start cutting it with a disc cutter,generally its left in place or covered up it's the insulation type that is loose fibre that is the bad stuff and is generally removed if any work is required near it, of course artex contained it too. It's a horrible way to die. | |||
"It's same situation as asbestos, wonder material, oh dear it kills people! Get removing it, your cost.... the manufacturer and everyone else can say, building inspectors etc all signed it off...it wasn't a problem last year... it's so messy blaming will be hard... That's why there are about 1.5 million buildings, with it still in them. Exactly. ... there are cars on road with no airbags or crumple zones or.... you could look at anything built in past and start suggesting improvement.... and pointing... we only crashed coz your car hasn't got abs? Traction control?.... How far we taking this?" Those cars were built to the standards applicable at the time they were produced. Unlike the diesel fuel test scandal which cost the manufacturers billions in fines. The cladding used didn't comply with building regs from the moment they were installed. They were never compliant. If a building inspector had had the correct information available to him, the buildings would not have passed and been signed off as compliant. You could say the cars will be described as not to current standards, the illegally clad buildings were never to standard. | |||
"It's same situation as asbestos, wonder material, oh dear it kills people! Get removing it, your cost.... the manufacturer and everyone else can say, building inspectors etc all signed it off...it wasn't a problem last year... it's so messy blaming will be hard... That's why there are about 1.5 million buildings, with it still in them. Exactly. ... there are cars on road with no airbags or crumple zones or.... you could look at anything built in past and start suggesting improvement.... and pointing... we only crashed coz your car hasn't got abs? Traction control?.... How far we taking this? Those cars were built to the standards applicable at the time they were produced. Unlike the diesel fuel test scandal which cost the manufacturers billions in fines. The cladding used didn't comply with building regs from the moment they were installed. They were never compliant. If a building inspector had had the correct information available to him, the buildings would not have passed and been signed off as compliant. You could say the cars will be described as not to current standards, the illegally clad buildings were never to standard. " I'm not sure that's true, let the legal battles commence. | |||
| |||
"It's same situation as asbestos, wonder material, oh dear it kills people! Get removing it, your cost.... the manufacturer and everyone else can say, building inspectors etc all signed it off...it wasn't a problem last year... it's so messy blaming will be hard... That's why there are about 1.5 million buildings, with it still in them. Sheet asbestos isnt really an issue unless you start cutting it with a disc cutter,generally its left in place or covered up it's the insulation type that is loose fibre that is the bad stuff and is generally removed if any work is required near it, of course artex contained it too. It's a horrible way to die." Yes, but it gets you in 20 to 30 years time, who cares about that when you are enjoying now. | |||
"It's same situation as asbestos, wonder material, oh dear it kills people! Get removing it, your cost.... the manufacturer and everyone else can say, building inspectors etc all signed it off...it wasn't a problem last year... it's so messy blaming will be hard... That's why there are about 1.5 million buildings, with it still in them. Sheet asbestos isnt really an issue unless you start cutting it with a disc cutter,generally its left in place or covered up it's the insulation type that is loose fibre that is the bad stuff and is generally removed if any work is required near it, of course artex contained it too. It's a horrible way to die. Yes, but it gets you in 20 to 30 years time, who cares about that when you are enjoying now." I guess smokers think the same, | |||
"Just read sky report, building inspectors used wrong out of date regs and signed it off.... I can't see anyone being held legally responsible. " From what I've read on the BBC website, the cladding could be installed in two way, method one involved fixing the panels flat with all the fixings visible from the exterior. Not the preferred method, but the method which passed the building regs specifications. Method two involved further bending of the material to allow the fixings to be concealed which happened to be the most used installation method, unfortunately it did not pass the test specification and as such should never have been used in buildings over 18 meters tall. The manufacturers never released the failed test results, leaving designers and installers believing the test results released covered either installation method. If the building inspectors were using out of date regs then obviously that's not helped, with the information they were given they would have passed it anyway as they were given the wrong information. Events like this rarely come down to one specific cause, it's usually a sequence of failures that result in something going so wrong. It does seem to stem from the manufacturers not releasing the failed test result data though. | |||
"Just read sky report, building inspectors used wrong out of date regs and signed it off.... I can't see anyone being held legally responsible. From what I've read on the BBC website, the cladding could be installed in two way, method one involved fixing the panels flat with all the fixings visible from the exterior. Not the preferred method, but the method which passed the building regs specifications. Method two involved further bending of the material to allow the fixings to be concealed which happened to be the most used installation method, unfortunately it did not pass the test specification and as such should never have been used in buildings over 18 meters tall. The manufacturers never released the failed test results, leaving designers and installers believing the test results released covered either installation method. If the building inspectors were using out of date regs then obviously that's not helped, with the information they were given they would have passed it anyway as they were given the wrong information. Events like this rarely come down to one specific cause, it's usually a sequence of failures that result in something going so wrong. It does seem to stem from the manufacturers not releasing the failed test result data though. " and why was it even getting cladding? just so it wasnt so fucking ugly? who decided it even needed it..... your right, a sequence of failures that will make nailing anyone difficult... | |||
"Just read sky report, building inspectors used wrong out of date regs and signed it off.... I can't see anyone being held legally responsible. From what I've read on the BBC website, the cladding could be installed in two way, method one involved fixing the panels flat with all the fixings visible from the exterior. Not the preferred method, but the method which passed the building regs specifications. Method two involved further bending of the material to allow the fixings to be concealed which happened to be the most used installation method, unfortunately it did not pass the test specification and as such should never have been used in buildings over 18 meters tall. The manufacturers never released the failed test results, leaving designers and installers believing the test results released covered either installation method. If the building inspectors were using out of date regs then obviously that's not helped, with the information they were given they would have passed it anyway as they were given the wrong information. Events like this rarely come down to one specific cause, it's usually a sequence of failures that result in something going so wrong. It does seem to stem from the manufacturers not releasing the failed test result data though. and why was it even getting cladding? just so it wasnt so fucking ugly? who decided it even needed it..... your right, a sequence of failures that will make nailing anyone difficult..." Grenfell was considered to be lacking in aesthetic qualities for Kensington and Chelsea... It has some insulation properties. From the reports of the residents before, during and after it sounds like they were just polishing a turd... | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Meanwhile, as I said a few days ago there has now been another fire in a building with the same cladding. At the time of writing there are fortunately no reported fatalities thankfully. 125 firefighters and 20 appliances. There is no time to debate in court about who is responsible. The country has the resources to fix this issue within weeks so it should be done. Argue about the bill once people are safe. " I completely agree with this sentiment. Identify which buildings have it and get it removed ASAP. Deal with the bill later | |||
"Typical tory attitude of "it doesn't affect me so why should my taxes be used for this?". Meanwhile 10s of thousands of families are living in immediate danger through no fault of their own. Every single day there is a risk of another Grenfell and people go to bed at night terrified. A government's first duty is the safety of it's citizens and this isn't a problem that can afford the time to be dragged through courts before resolving it. If we have £200m to spunk on a new HMS Racist then we can afford to fix this immediately. And then, just like Johnson's wallpaper, we can argue about who pays the final bill later. Make the properties safe first. What a load of rubbish, I'm not aware of how many blocks are affected by this but there has been ONE fire that was caused by an exploding fridge, the chances of such a combination are minimal and if a fire happened again people would evacuate not stay in their flats, it seems to have overlooked that many fewer would have died had they not stayed in their flats, the advice given by the fire brigades is bonkers. None of that diminishes the impact of those who died and in no way am I dismissing that." Total bollocks , the advice was based on the building being upto the required standard , it wasn’t but the firefighters dealing with the fire would not have known that initially. High rise blocks when properly built according to building regs , the fire will never spread from the source flat , the fault lies with contractors and with building control . Also there is no absolute proof that fewer would have died , it’s speculation. | |||
"Lakanal House? Realistically, with the number of problems found nationwide in the immediate aftermath of Grenfell - cladding, poor fire breaks, inadequate evacuation plans, flammable balconies - it won't be a surprise if there is another fatal fire in the next couple of years. Probably not on the scale of Grenfell but one death is too many. And even without deaths, those who live there can't get insurance, can't sell to move when life changes (babies, job offers, divorce, marriage). Top that with the fear that an overloaded socket downstairs could kill you in your sleep and you have a mental health crisis in the making. HS2, Trident, paying off the DUP to get them onside (how's that going BTW?). All fine to blow billions on. Spend a few million short term to save lives? (Most of which will be recovered by fining the builders responsible). No, that's a waste of money. How could an over loaded socket possibly kill you if the electric circuits are correctly installed and tested. ? All that happens is that a circuit breaker would trip." How could a building like Grenfell burn from top to bottom if the cladding was correctly installed ..... | |||
"Typical tory attitude of "it doesn't affect me so why should my taxes be used for this?". Meanwhile 10s of thousands of families are living in immediate danger through no fault of their own. Every single day there is a risk of another Grenfell and people go to bed at night terrified. A government's first duty is the safety of it's citizens and this isn't a problem that can afford the time to be dragged through courts before resolving it. If we have £200m to spunk on a new HMS Racist then we can afford to fix this immediately. And then, just like Johnson's wallpaper, we can argue about who pays the final bill later. Make the properties safe first. What a load of rubbish, I'm not aware of how many blocks are affected by this but there has been ONE fire that was caused by an exploding fridge, the chances of such a combination are minimal and if a fire happened again people would evacuate not stay in their flats, it seems to have overlooked that many fewer would have died had they not stayed in their flats, the advice given by the fire brigades is bonkers. None of that diminishes the impact of those who died and in no way am I dismissing that. Total bollocks , the advice was based on the building being upto the required standard , it wasn’t but the firefighters dealing with the fire would not have known that initially. High rise blocks when properly built according to building regs , the fire will never spread from the source flat , the fault lies with contractors and with building control . Also there is no absolute proof that fewer would have died , it’s speculation." No that's complete bollovks, fire regs in flats are designed to stop a fire spreading for a set time by the use of fire doors etc, not completely | |||
" Total bollocks , the advice was based on the building being upto the required standard , it wasn’t but the firefighters dealing with the fire would not have known that initially. High rise blocks when properly built according to building regs , the fire will never spread from the source flat , the fault lies with contractors and with building control . " The idea of the building regs is that a fire should be able to be contained in the source area long enough to enable evacuation and emergency services to get on scene. | |||
"Typical tory attitude of "it doesn't affect me so why should my taxes be used for this?". Meanwhile 10s of thousands of families are living in immediate danger through no fault of their own. Every single day there is a risk of another Grenfell and people go to bed at night terrified. A government's first duty is the safety of it's citizens and this isn't a problem that can afford the time to be dragged through courts before resolving it. If we have £200m to spunk on a new HMS Racist then we can afford to fix this immediately. And then, just like Johnson's wallpaper, we can argue about who pays the final bill later. Make the properties safe first. What a load of rubbish, I'm not aware of how many blocks are affected by this but there has been ONE fire that was caused by an exploding fridge, the chances of such a combination are minimal and if a fire happened again people would evacuate not stay in their flats, it seems to have overlooked that many fewer would have died had they not stayed in their flats, the advice given by the fire brigades is bonkers. None of that diminishes the impact of those who died and in no way am I dismissing that. Total bollocks , the advice was based on the building being upto the required standard , it wasn’t but the firefighters dealing with the fire would not have known that initially. High rise blocks when properly built according to building regs , the fire will never spread from the source flat , the fault lies with contractors and with building control . Also there is no absolute proof that fewer would have died , it’s speculation. No that's complete bollovks, fire regs in flats are designed to stop a fire spreading for a set time by the use of fire doors etc, not completely " chief fire officer fucked up, if the fire is internal they keep people in flats and yes fire doors etc can buy time for fire crews to fetch people rather than them running round all over the place, BUT because fire was on outside of building she should have just evacuated asap, if she had, there would have been no deaths. | |||
"Typical tory attitude of "it doesn't affect me so why should my taxes be used for this?". Meanwhile 10s of thousands of families are living in immediate danger through no fault of their own. Every single day there is a risk of another Grenfell and people go to bed at night terrified. A government's first duty is the safety of it's citizens and this isn't a problem that can afford the time to be dragged through courts before resolving it. If we have £200m to spunk on a new HMS Racist then we can afford to fix this immediately. And then, just like Johnson's wallpaper, we can argue about who pays the final bill later. Make the properties safe first. What a load of rubbish, I'm not aware of how many blocks are affected by this but there has been ONE fire that was caused by an exploding fridge, the chances of such a combination are minimal and if a fire happened again people would evacuate not stay in their flats, it seems to have overlooked that many fewer would have died had they not stayed in their flats, the advice given by the fire brigades is bonkers. None of that diminishes the impact of those who died and in no way am I dismissing that. Total bollocks , the advice was based on the building being upto the required standard , it wasn’t but the firefighters dealing with the fire would not have known that initially. High rise blocks when properly built according to building regs , the fire will never spread from the source flat , the fault lies with contractors and with building control . Also there is no absolute proof that fewer would have died , it’s speculation. No that's complete bollovks, fire regs in flats are designed to stop a fire spreading for a set time by the use of fire doors etc, not completely " Show me a relatively recent non clad high rise building that is up to the correct standards where the fire has spread significantly outside the original compartment ? They are designed so that a fire will not spread outside the original compartment (flat) , Shirley towers for instance pretty much burned itself out and never spread outside the compartment, no cladding and no damage to firebreaks by incompetent builders . | |||
| |||
"Typical tory attitude of "it doesn't affect me so why should my taxes be used for this?". Meanwhile 10s of thousands of families are living in immediate danger through no fault of their own. Every single day there is a risk of another Grenfell and people go to bed at night terrified. A government's first duty is the safety of it's citizens and this isn't a problem that can afford the time to be dragged through courts before resolving it. If we have £200m to spunk on a new HMS Racist then we can afford to fix this immediately. And then, just like Johnson's wallpaper, we can argue about who pays the final bill later. Make the properties safe first. What a load of rubbish, I'm not aware of how many blocks are affected by this but there has been ONE fire that was caused by an exploding fridge, the chances of such a combination are minimal and if a fire happened again people would evacuate not stay in their flats, it seems to have overlooked that many fewer would have died had they not stayed in their flats, the advice given by the fire brigades is bonkers. None of that diminishes the impact of those who died and in no way am I dismissing that. Total bollocks , the advice was based on the building being upto the required standard , it wasn’t but the firefighters dealing with the fire would not have known that initially. High rise blocks when properly built according to building regs , the fire will never spread from the source flat , the fault lies with contractors and with building control . Also there is no absolute proof that fewer would have died , it’s speculation. No that's complete bollovks, fire regs in flats are designed to stop a fire spreading for a set time by the use of fire doors etc, not completely chief fire officer fucked up, if the fire is internal they keep people in flats and yes fire doors etc can buy time for fire crews to fetch people rather than them running round all over the place, BUT because fire was on outside of building she should have just evacuated asap, if she had, there would have been no deaths." There would still have been deaths . You act like it’s a very simple decision but it isn’t , just like most people think firefighting is just squirting as much water on a fire as possible . The stairwells and corridors were filled with thick black rancid smoke and hot fire gases , it doesn’t take many lung fulls to kill you , if the building was not bodged then everyone would have survived a minor incident , remember where the blame lies . One firefighter had to be hospitalised after giving his breathing apparatus to a casualty he was assisting down the stairs , he collapsed and had to be rescued by another firefighter . Immediate mass evacuation causes huge problems in the corridors and stairwells . You are oversimplifying the situation . | |||
"Typical tory attitude of "it doesn't affect me so why should my taxes be used for this?". Meanwhile 10s of thousands of families are living in immediate danger through no fault of their own. Every single day there is a risk of another Grenfell and people go to bed at night terrified. A government's first duty is the safety of it's citizens and this isn't a problem that can afford the time to be dragged through courts before resolving it. If we have £200m to spunk on a new HMS Racist then we can afford to fix this immediately. And then, just like Johnson's wallpaper, we can argue about who pays the final bill later. Make the properties safe first. What a load of rubbish, I'm not aware of how many blocks are affected by this but there has been ONE fire that was caused by an exploding fridge, the chances of such a combination are minimal and if a fire happened again people would evacuate not stay in their flats, it seems to have overlooked that many fewer would have died had they not stayed in their flats, the advice given by the fire brigades is bonkers. None of that diminishes the impact of those who died and in no way am I dismissing that. Total bollocks , the advice was based on the building being upto the required standard , it wasn’t but the firefighters dealing with the fire would not have known that initially. High rise blocks when properly built according to building regs , the fire will never spread from the source flat , the fault lies with contractors and with building control . Also there is no absolute proof that fewer would have died , it’s speculation. No that's complete bollovks, fire regs in flats are designed to stop a fire spreading for a set time by the use of fire doors etc, not completely chief fire officer fucked up, if the fire is internal they keep people in flats and yes fire doors etc can buy time for fire crews to fetch people rather than them running round all over the place, BUT because fire was on outside of building she should have just evacuated asap, if she had, there would have been no deaths." There would still have been deaths . You act like it’s a very simple decision but it isn’t , just like most people think firefighting is just squirting as much water on a fire as possible . The stairwells and corridors were filled with thick black rancid smoke and hot fire gases , it doesn’t take many lung fulls to kill you , if the building was not bodged then everyone would have survived a minor incident , remember where the blame lies . One firefighter had to be hospitalised after giving his breathing apparatus to a casualty he was assisting down the stairs , he collapsed and had to be rescued by another firefighter . Immediate mass evacuation causes huge problems in the corridors and stairwells . You are oversimplifying the situation . | |||
"Typical tory attitude of "it doesn't affect me so why should my taxes be used for this?". Meanwhile 10s of thousands of families are living in immediate danger through no fault of their own. Every single day there is a risk of another Grenfell and people go to bed at night terrified. A government's first duty is the safety of it's citizens and this isn't a problem that can afford the time to be dragged through courts before resolving it. If we have £200m to spunk on a new HMS Racist then we can afford to fix this immediately. And then, just like Johnson's wallpaper, we can argue about who pays the final bill later. Make the properties safe first. What a load of rubbish, I'm not aware of how many blocks are affected by this but there has been ONE fire that was caused by an exploding fridge, the chances of such a combination are minimal and if a fire happened again people would evacuate not stay in their flats, it seems to have overlooked that many fewer would have died had they not stayed in their flats, the advice given by the fire brigades is bonkers. None of that diminishes the impact of those who died and in no way am I dismissing that. Total bollocks , the advice was based on the building being upto the required standard , it wasn’t but the firefighters dealing with the fire would not have known that initially. High rise blocks when properly built according to building regs , the fire will never spread from the source flat , the fault lies with contractors and with building control . Also there is no absolute proof that fewer would have died , it’s speculation. No that's complete bollovks, fire regs in flats are designed to stop a fire spreading for a set time by the use of fire doors etc, not completely chief fire officer fucked up, if the fire is internal they keep people in flats and yes fire doors etc can buy time for fire crews to fetch people rather than them running round all over the place, BUT because fire was on outside of building she should have just evacuated asap, if she had, there would have been no deaths." With respect what your stating with hindsight simply serves to indicate that you don't have any understanding of firefighting policies, procedures etc which as a lay person is fine.. The whole premise of the stay put policy is still that a properly constructed 'compartment' compliant with building regs will contain a fire within that space.. That was the mindset of the initial oic, the crews who had years of attendance and dealing with such incidents. It sounds simplistically easy to say but to have initiated a full evacuation putting residents into a smoke filled environment, down one stairwell which had firefighters dragging hose up to fight the fire in the initial flat would have led to loss of life too.. Think logically about putting a couple of hundred people, some very young, some elderly, some with mobility issues into one stairwell which had heavy smoke logging.. Think about how many firefighters needed, how much ba, ba set duration needed for that, and how many for firefighting.. Whilst the court of public opinion seems to have made its mind up and that the stay put policy led to many deaths, that same policy in a properly constructed and therefore safe high rise saves lives daily .. It's why it was designed.. | |||
"Typical tory attitude of "it doesn't affect me so why should my taxes be used for this?". Meanwhile 10s of thousands of families are living in immediate danger through no fault of their own. Every single day there is a risk of another Grenfell and people go to bed at night terrified. A government's first duty is the safety of it's citizens and this isn't a problem that can afford the time to be dragged through courts before resolving it. If we have £200m to spunk on a new HMS Racist then we can afford to fix this immediately. And then, just like Johnson's wallpaper, we can argue about who pays the final bill later. Make the properties safe first. What a load of rubbish, I'm not aware of how many blocks are affected by this but there has been ONE fire that was caused by an exploding fridge, the chances of such a combination are minimal and if a fire happened again people would evacuate not stay in their flats, it seems to have overlooked that many fewer would have died had they not stayed in their flats, the advice given by the fire brigades is bonkers. None of that diminishes the impact of those who died and in no way am I dismissing that. Total bollocks , the advice was based on the building being upto the required standard , it wasn’t but the firefighters dealing with the fire would not have known that initially. High rise blocks when properly built according to building regs , the fire will never spread from the source flat , the fault lies with contractors and with building control . Also there is no absolute proof that fewer would have died , it’s speculation. No that's complete bollovks, fire regs in flats are designed to stop a fire spreading for a set time by the use of fire doors etc, not completely chief fire officer fucked up, if the fire is internal they keep people in flats and yes fire doors etc can buy time for fire crews to fetch people rather than them running round all over the place, BUT because fire was on outside of building she should have just evacuated asap, if she had, there would have been no deaths. There would still have been deaths . You act like it’s a very simple decision but it isn’t , just like most people think firefighting is just squirting as much water on a fire as possible . The stairwells and corridors were filled with thick black rancid smoke and hot fire gases , it doesn’t take many lung fulls to kill you , if the building was not bodged then everyone would have survived a minor incident , remember where the blame lies . One firefighter had to be hospitalised after giving his breathing apparatus to a casualty he was assisting down the stairs , he collapsed and had to be rescued by another firefighter . Immediate mass evacuation causes huge problems in the corridors and stairwells . You are oversimplifying the situation ." no im not, if they had acted straight away everyone would have been out, but they told people to stay put, by the time they started moving them in was too late..... thats why they struggled. yes they followed procedure, the wrong one, but even if there was no procedure anyone could see just get them out. Some times the rule book needs to go out the window, but people dont do that anymore incase they get sued later... so you end up with fuck ups like this. | |||
"Typical tory attitude of "it doesn't affect me so why should my taxes be used for this?". Meanwhile 10s of thousands of families are living in immediate danger through no fault of their own. Every single day there is a risk of another Grenfell and people go to bed at night terrified. A government's first duty is the safety of it's citizens and this isn't a problem that can afford the time to be dragged through courts before resolving it. If we have £200m to spunk on a new HMS Racist then we can afford to fix this immediately. And then, just like Johnson's wallpaper, we can argue about who pays the final bill later. Make the properties safe first. What a load of rubbish, I'm not aware of how many blocks are affected by this but there has been ONE fire that was caused by an exploding fridge, the chances of such a combination are minimal and if a fire happened again people would evacuate not stay in their flats, it seems to have overlooked that many fewer would have died had they not stayed in their flats, the advice given by the fire brigades is bonkers. None of that diminishes the impact of those who died and in no way am I dismissing that. Total bollocks , the advice was based on the building being upto the required standard , it wasn’t but the firefighters dealing with the fire would not have known that initially. High rise blocks when properly built according to building regs , the fire will never spread from the source flat , the fault lies with contractors and with building control . Also there is no absolute proof that fewer would have died , it’s speculation. No that's complete bollovks, fire regs in flats are designed to stop a fire spreading for a set time by the use of fire doors etc, not completely chief fire officer fucked up, if the fire is internal they keep people in flats and yes fire doors etc can buy time for fire crews to fetch people rather than them running round all over the place, BUT because fire was on outside of building she should have just evacuated asap, if she had, there would have been no deaths. There would still have been deaths . You act like it’s a very simple decision but it isn’t , just like most people think firefighting is just squirting as much water on a fire as possible . The stairwells and corridors were filled with thick black rancid smoke and hot fire gases , it doesn’t take many lung fulls to kill you , if the building was not bodged then everyone would have survived a minor incident , remember where the blame lies . One firefighter had to be hospitalised after giving his breathing apparatus to a casualty he was assisting down the stairs , he collapsed and had to be rescued by another firefighter . Immediate mass evacuation causes huge problems in the corridors and stairwells . You are oversimplifying the situation . no im not, if they had acted straight away everyone would have been out, but they told people to stay put, by the time they started moving them in was too late..... thats why they struggled. yes they followed procedure, the wrong one, but even if there was no procedure anyone could see just get them out. Some times the rule book needs to go out the window, but people dont do that anymore incase they get sued later... so you end up with fuck ups like this." Nope , your totally wrong , but pointless arguing with somebody like you . | |||
"Typical tory attitude of "it doesn't affect me so why should my taxes be used for this?". Meanwhile 10s of thousands of families are living in immediate danger through no fault of their own. Every single day there is a risk of another Grenfell and people go to bed at night terrified. A government's first duty is the safety of it's citizens and this isn't a problem that can afford the time to be dragged through courts before resolving it. If we have £200m to spunk on a new HMS Racist then we can afford to fix this immediately. And then, just like Johnson's wallpaper, we can argue about who pays the final bill later. Make the properties safe first. What a load of rubbish, I'm not aware of how many blocks are affected by this but there has been ONE fire that was caused by an exploding fridge, the chances of such a combination are minimal and if a fire happened again people would evacuate not stay in their flats, it seems to have overlooked that many fewer would have died had they not stayed in their flats, the advice given by the fire brigades is bonkers. None of that diminishes the impact of those who died and in no way am I dismissing that. Total bollocks , the advice was based on the building being upto the required standard , it wasn’t but the firefighters dealing with the fire would not have known that initially. High rise blocks when properly built according to building regs , the fire will never spread from the source flat , the fault lies with contractors and with building control . Also there is no absolute proof that fewer would have died , it’s speculation. No that's complete bollovks, fire regs in flats are designed to stop a fire spreading for a set time by the use of fire doors etc, not completely chief fire officer fucked up, if the fire is internal they keep people in flats and yes fire doors etc can buy time for fire crews to fetch people rather than them running round all over the place, BUT because fire was on outside of building she should have just evacuated asap, if she had, there would have been no deaths. There would still have been deaths . You act like it’s a very simple decision but it isn’t , just like most people think firefighting is just squirting as much water on a fire as possible . The stairwells and corridors were filled with thick black rancid smoke and hot fire gases , it doesn’t take many lung fulls to kill you , if the building was not bodged then everyone would have survived a minor incident , remember where the blame lies . One firefighter had to be hospitalised after giving his breathing apparatus to a casualty he was assisting down the stairs , he collapsed and had to be rescued by another firefighter . Immediate mass evacuation causes huge problems in the corridors and stairwells . You are oversimplifying the situation . no im not, if they had acted straight away everyone would have been out, but they told people to stay put, by the time they started moving them in was too late..... thats why they struggled. yes they followed procedure, the wrong one, but even if there was no procedure anyone could see just get them out. Some times the rule book needs to go out the window, but people dont do that anymore incase they get sued later... so you end up with fuck ups like this. Nope , your totally wrong , but pointless arguing with somebody like you ." well it didnt work the way it was done did it! | |||
"Typical tory attitude of "it doesn't affect me so why should my taxes be used for this?". Meanwhile 10s of thousands of families are living in immediate danger through no fault of their own. Every single day there is a risk of another Grenfell and people go to bed at night terrified. A government's first duty is the safety of it's citizens and this isn't a problem that can afford the time to be dragged through courts before resolving it. If we have £200m to spunk on a new HMS Racist then we can afford to fix this immediately. And then, just like Johnson's wallpaper, we can argue about who pays the final bill later. Make the properties safe first. What a load of rubbish, I'm not aware of how many blocks are affected by this but there has been ONE fire that was caused by an exploding fridge, the chances of such a combination are minimal and if a fire happened again people would evacuate not stay in their flats, it seems to have overlooked that many fewer would have died had they not stayed in their flats, the advice given by the fire brigades is bonkers. None of that diminishes the impact of those who died and in no way am I dismissing that. Total bollocks , the advice was based on the building being upto the required standard , it wasn’t but the firefighters dealing with the fire would not have known that initially. High rise blocks when properly built according to building regs , the fire will never spread from the source flat , the fault lies with contractors and with building control . Also there is no absolute proof that fewer would have died , it’s speculation. No that's complete bollovks, fire regs in flats are designed to stop a fire spreading for a set time by the use of fire doors etc, not completely chief fire officer fucked up, if the fire is internal they keep people in flats and yes fire doors etc can buy time for fire crews to fetch people rather than them running round all over the place, BUT because fire was on outside of building she should have just evacuated asap, if she had, there would have been no deaths. There would still have been deaths . You act like it’s a very simple decision but it isn’t , just like most people think firefighting is just squirting as much water on a fire as possible . The stairwells and corridors were filled with thick black rancid smoke and hot fire gases , it doesn’t take many lung fulls to kill you , if the building was not bodged then everyone would have survived a minor incident , remember where the blame lies . One firefighter had to be hospitalised after giving his breathing apparatus to a casualty he was assisting down the stairs , he collapsed and had to be rescued by another firefighter . Immediate mass evacuation causes huge problems in the corridors and stairwells . You are oversimplifying the situation . no im not, if they had acted straight away everyone would have been out, but they told people to stay put, by the time they started moving them in was too late..... thats why they struggled. yes they followed procedure, the wrong one, but even if there was no procedure anyone could see just get them out. Some times the rule book needs to go out the window, but people dont do that anymore incase they get sued later... so you end up with fuck ups like this. Nope , your totally wrong , but pointless arguing with somebody like you . well it didnt work the way it was done did it!" There was procedure . But it was removed Londonis not controlled by Fire brigade regulatiins anymore . Hasnt since before the 2012 olympics . It was taken away ti make sure that buildings could be put up Wuickly without cutting through safety red tape . Im still nit sure if it was Labour or Conservative . Probably both , although grenfell is definitley under the control of conservatives in Hammersmith & Fulham . It was called the Hackney paper on building regs or something similar. How can buildings be built or redesigned without FB building regs in place ? Its just pathetic | |||
"Typical tory attitude of "it doesn't affect me so why should my taxes be used for this?". Meanwhile 10s of thousands of families are living in immediate danger through no fault of their own. Every single day there is a risk of another Grenfell and people go to bed at night terrified. A government's first duty is the safety of it's citizens and this isn't a problem that can afford the time to be dragged through courts before resolving it. If we have £200m to spunk on a new HMS Racist then we can afford to fix this immediately. And then, just like Johnson's wallpaper, we can argue about who pays the final bill later. Make the properties safe first. What a load of rubbish, I'm not aware of how many blocks are affected by this but there has been ONE fire that was caused by an exploding fridge, the chances of such a combination are minimal and if a fire happened again people would evacuate not stay in their flats, it seems to have overlooked that many fewer would have died had they not stayed in their flats, the advice given by the fire brigades is bonkers. None of that diminishes the impact of those who died and in no way am I dismissing that. Total bollocks , the advice was based on the building being upto the required standard , it wasn’t but the firefighters dealing with the fire would not have known that initially. High rise blocks when properly built according to building regs , the fire will never spread from the source flat , the fault lies with contractors and with building control . Also there is no absolute proof that fewer would have died , it’s speculation. No that's complete bollovks, fire regs in flats are designed to stop a fire spreading for a set time by the use of fire doors etc, not completely chief fire officer fucked up, if the fire is internal they keep people in flats and yes fire doors etc can buy time for fire crews to fetch people rather than them running round all over the place, BUT because fire was on outside of building she should have just evacuated asap, if she had, there would have been no deaths. There would still have been deaths . You act like it’s a very simple decision but it isn’t , just like most people think firefighting is just squirting as much water on a fire as possible . The stairwells and corridors were filled with thick black rancid smoke and hot fire gases , it doesn’t take many lung fulls to kill you , if the building was not bodged then everyone would have survived a minor incident , remember where the blame lies . One firefighter had to be hospitalised after giving his breathing apparatus to a casualty he was assisting down the stairs , he collapsed and had to be rescued by another firefighter . Immediate mass evacuation causes huge problems in the corridors and stairwells . You are oversimplifying the situation . no im not, if they had acted straight away everyone would have been out, but they told people to stay put, by the time they started moving them in was too late..... thats why they struggled. yes they followed procedure, the wrong one, but even if there was no procedure anyone could see just get them out. Some times the rule book needs to go out the window, but people dont do that anymore incase they get sued later... so you end up with fuck ups like this." You can not evacuate 120 flats with over 320 people into a single stairwell which is smoke logged.. You can't do it even if the stairwell is not compromised with smoke not unless you happen to have about a hundred personnel sat waiting outside before hand.. Look at Israel last week where over 45 people were crushed to death, countless football stadia incidents over the last fifty years of similar consequences .. One stairwell, and yes it's easy to sit back and say in ignorance of actually knowing what, how and when such a thing entails that 'should have been done' .. The stay put policy is under review which essentially means we don't have a safer evidence based safer system of dealing with multiple people in high rise domestic and commercial buildings, my gut feeling is it will stay the go to policy.. The issue was the building was wrapped in petrol which everyone agrees was and is a monumentally negligent position.. | |||
"Typical tory attitude of "it doesn't affect me so why should my taxes be used for this?". Meanwhile 10s of thousands of families are living in immediate danger through no fault of their own. Every single day there is a risk of another Grenfell and people go to bed at night terrified. A government's first duty is the safety of it's citizens and this isn't a problem that can afford the time to be dragged through courts before resolving it. If we have £200m to spunk on a new HMS Racist then we can afford to fix this immediately. And then, just like Johnson's wallpaper, we can argue about who pays the final bill later. Make the properties safe first. What a load of rubbish, I'm not aware of how many blocks are affected by this but there has been ONE fire that was caused by an exploding fridge, the chances of such a combination are minimal and if a fire happened again people would evacuate not stay in their flats, it seems to have overlooked that many fewer would have died had they not stayed in their flats, the advice given by the fire brigades is bonkers. None of that diminishes the impact of those who died and in no way am I dismissing that. Total bollocks , the advice was based on the building being upto the required standard , it wasn’t but the firefighters dealing with the fire would not have known that initially. High rise blocks when properly built according to building regs , the fire will never spread from the source flat , the fault lies with contractors and with building control . Also there is no absolute proof that fewer would have died , it’s speculation. No that's complete bollovks, fire regs in flats are designed to stop a fire spreading for a set time by the use of fire doors etc, not completely chief fire officer fucked up, if the fire is internal they keep people in flats and yes fire doors etc can buy time for fire crews to fetch people rather than them running round all over the place, BUT because fire was on outside of building she should have just evacuated asap, if she had, there would have been no deaths. There would still have been deaths . You act like it’s a very simple decision but it isn’t , just like most people think firefighting is just squirting as much water on a fire as possible . The stairwells and corridors were filled with thick black rancid smoke and hot fire gases , it doesn’t take many lung fulls to kill you , if the building was not bodged then everyone would have survived a minor incident , remember where the blame lies . One firefighter had to be hospitalised after giving his breathing apparatus to a casualty he was assisting down the stairs , he collapsed and had to be rescued by another firefighter . Immediate mass evacuation causes huge problems in the corridors and stairwells . You are oversimplifying the situation . no im not, if they had acted straight away everyone would have been out, but they told people to stay put, by the time they started moving them in was too late..... thats why they struggled. yes they followed procedure, the wrong one, but even if there was no procedure anyone could see just get them out. Some times the rule book needs to go out the window, but people dont do that anymore incase they get sued later... so you end up with fuck ups like this. Nope , your totally wrong , but pointless arguing with somebody like you . well it didnt work the way it was done did it! There was procedure . But it was removed Londonis not controlled by Fire brigade regulatiins anymore . Hasnt since before the 2012 olympics . It was taken away ti make sure that buildings could be put up Wuickly without cutting through safety red tape . Im still nit sure if it was Labour or Conservative . Probably both , although grenfell is definitley under the control of conservatives in Hammersmith & Fulham . It was called the Hackney paper on building regs or something similar. How can buildings be built or redesigned without FB building regs in place ? Its just pathetic" 2005, the introduction of the regulatory reform order which essentially said there is no need for the fire service fire safety teams and others in local authorities who work together at all stages from initial planning through to sign off of buildings to ensure compliance.. The responsibility falls upon the 'responsible person' be that the buildings owner or the management organisation to ensure compliance with all aspects of fire safety, inspections of systems etc.. It was done to save money and all governments since then have gone along with it.. Within all that is the dogs breakfast that the regs have become which allowed a company to fraudulently rubber stamp it's cladding as safe.. | |||
"Typical tory attitude of "it doesn't affect me so why should my taxes be used for this?". Meanwhile 10s of thousands of families are living in immediate danger through no fault of their own. Every single day there is a risk of another Grenfell and people go to bed at night terrified. A government's first duty is the safety of it's citizens and this isn't a problem that can afford the time to be dragged through courts before resolving it. If we have £200m to spunk on a new HMS Racist then we can afford to fix this immediately. And then, just like Johnson's wallpaper, we can argue about who pays the final bill later. Make the properties safe first. What a load of rubbish, I'm not aware of how many blocks are affected by this but there has been ONE fire that was caused by an exploding fridge, the chances of such a combination are minimal and if a fire happened again people would evacuate not stay in their flats, it seems to have overlooked that many fewer would have died had they not stayed in their flats, the advice given by the fire brigades is bonkers. None of that diminishes the impact of those who died and in no way am I dismissing that. Total bollocks , the advice was based on the building being upto the required standard , it wasn’t but the firefighters dealing with the fire would not have known that initially. High rise blocks when properly built according to building regs , the fire will never spread from the source flat , the fault lies with contractors and with building control . Also there is no absolute proof that fewer would have died , it’s speculation. No that's complete bollovks, fire regs in flats are designed to stop a fire spreading for a set time by the use of fire doors etc, not completely chief fire officer fucked up, if the fire is internal they keep people in flats and yes fire doors etc can buy time for fire crews to fetch people rather than them running round all over the place, BUT because fire was on outside of building she should have just evacuated asap, if she had, there would have been no deaths. There would still have been deaths . You act like it’s a very simple decision but it isn’t , just like most people think firefighting is just squirting as much water on a fire as possible . The stairwells and corridors were filled with thick black rancid smoke and hot fire gases , it doesn’t take many lung fulls to kill you , if the building was not bodged then everyone would have survived a minor incident , remember where the blame lies . One firefighter had to be hospitalised after giving his breathing apparatus to a casualty he was assisting down the stairs , he collapsed and had to be rescued by another firefighter . Immediate mass evacuation causes huge problems in the corridors and stairwells . You are oversimplifying the situation . no im not, if they had acted straight away everyone would have been out, but they told people to stay put, by the time they started moving them in was too late..... thats why they struggled. yes they followed procedure, the wrong one, but even if there was no procedure anyone could see just get them out. Some times the rule book needs to go out the window, but people dont do that anymore incase they get sued later... so you end up with fuck ups like this." Jesus wept | |||
| |||
"The issue is the makers falsified the test results " Which could not have happened under the old system, we used to have a government Fire research laboratory which new building products were stringently tested before being passed as safe.. | |||
"Typical tory attitude of "it doesn't affect me so why should my taxes be used for this?". Meanwhile 10s of thousands of families are living in immediate danger through no fault of their own. Every single day there is a risk of another Grenfell and people go to bed at night terrified. A government's first duty is the safety of it's citizens and this isn't a problem that can afford the time to be dragged through courts before resolving it. If we have £200m to spunk on a new HMS Racist then we can afford to fix this immediately. And then, just like Johnson's wallpaper, we can argue about who pays the final bill later. Make the properties safe first. What a load of rubbish, I'm not aware of how many blocks are affected by this but there has been ONE fire that was caused by an exploding fridge, the chances of such a combination are minimal and if a fire happened again people would evacuate not stay in their flats, it seems to have overlooked that many fewer would have died had they not stayed in their flats, the advice given by the fire brigades is bonkers. None of that diminishes the impact of those who died and in no way am I dismissing that. Total bollocks , the advice was based on the building being upto the required standard , it wasn’t but the firefighters dealing with the fire would not have known that initially. High rise blocks when properly built according to building regs , the fire will never spread from the source flat , the fault lies with contractors and with building control . Also there is no absolute proof that fewer would have died , it’s speculation. No that's complete bollovks, fire regs in flats are designed to stop a fire spreading for a set time by the use of fire doors etc, not completely chief fire officer fucked up, if the fire is internal they keep people in flats and yes fire doors etc can buy time for fire crews to fetch people rather than them running round all over the place, BUT because fire was on outside of building she should have just evacuated asap, if she had, there would have been no deaths. There would still have been deaths . You act like it’s a very simple decision but it isn’t , just like most people think firefighting is just squirting as much water on a fire as possible . The stairwells and corridors were filled with thick black rancid smoke and hot fire gases , it doesn’t take many lung fulls to kill you , if the building was not bodged then everyone would have survived a minor incident , remember where the blame lies . One firefighter had to be hospitalised after giving his breathing apparatus to a casualty he was assisting down the stairs , he collapsed and had to be rescued by another firefighter . Immediate mass evacuation causes huge problems in the corridors and stairwells . You are oversimplifying the situation . no im not, if they had acted straight away everyone would have been out, but they told people to stay put, by the time they started moving them in was too late..... thats why they struggled. yes they followed procedure, the wrong one, but even if there was no procedure anyone could see just get them out. Some times the rule book needs to go out the window, but people dont do that anymore incase they get sued later... so you end up with fuck ups like this. You can not evacuate 120 flats with over 320 people into a single stairwell which is smoke logged.. You can't do it even if the stairwell is not compromised with smoke not unless you happen to have about a hundred personnel sat waiting outside before hand.. Look at Israel last week where over 45 people were crushed to death, countless football stadia incidents over the last fifty years of similar consequences .. One stairwell, and yes it's easy to sit back and say in ignorance of actually knowing what, how and when such a thing entails that 'should have been done' .. The stay put policy is under review which essentially means we don't have a safer evidence based safer system of dealing with multiple people in high rise domestic and commercial buildings, my gut feeling is it will stay the go to policy.. The issue was the building was wrapped in petrol which everyone agrees was and is a monumentally negligent position.." Yep , said far better then I can explain it . | |||
