Grenfell tower

[Jason]

Can anyone think of a more ghastly job than the one the Queen does? What we have in the UK is a system where some unfortunate is chosen by fate (or God) to do a ghastly job, and we tend to end up with someone who does it reasonably or even in the case of our present Queen very well. People who might actually want to do the job are unsuitable precisely because they want it. Think Trump. For that matter think Macron.

 

[southeastone]

I suppose it shows that if you give someone, or most who are not privileged to be born into wealth, half a chance to build a future, they will grab a hold of it and run with it.

.

Is that why huge numbers of UK youth shun the free education on offer and leave school unable to read and write, funny how this is mostly black and white kids and the indians/chinese at the same schools get good results. The lowest achieving kids in the UK are black boys whose "culture" does not see working as an option

 

[chrisrobin]

It depends on how you view it. There are things worse than others. I'm sure Buckingham should have everyday jobs like everyone else, not sucking the money from the taxpayers. Buckingham struts around the planet and do nothing to build a future.

Without Buckingham Palace and many of the Royal Residences that litter the countryside there would be very little tourist industry in the UK.
Unlike Canadians the majority of Brits (expect some dissention on this) actually like their heritage and Royal Family.
Canada has little history other than murdering their indigenous peoples and treating them badly - speaking bastard French.
Ands as for the stupid notion that Buckingham Palace, by which I suppose you mean the Windsors, suck money from the tax payer's - to the contrary. Admission fees to Royal residences, income from crown estates (not to mention vast employment of people) , are all taxed, and while the Crown receive an allowance from the government it is far less that it gives in taxes. In real terms the Crown Estates give far more than is awarded.
In Canada what have you got to compare with anything that's in the UK - apart from a waterfall, that's not worth seeing - or a direct copy of something in the UK?

 

[chrisrobin]

It depends on how you view it. There are things worse than others. I'm sure Buckingham should have everyday jobs like everyone else, not sucking the money from the taxpayers. Buckingham struts around the planet and do nothing to build a future.

'Privileged' Justin Trudeau accused of colonialist attitude over boxing match
In one corner stood Canada’s youngest senator, heavily tattooed and armed with a black belt in karate. In the other stood a lanky Justin Trudeau, the underdog whom bookies were giving 3-1 odds against.
That 2012 boxing match marked a pivotal moment in Trudeau’s political career. But his account of the episode is now raising eyebrows, after he offered a glimpse into his decision to take on indigenous politician Patrick Brazeau.
“It wasn’t random,” Trudeau told Rolling Stone magazine in an interview published this week. “I wanted someone who would be a good foil, and we stumbled upon the scrappy tough-guy senator from an indigenous community. He fit the bill, and it was a very nice counterpoint. I saw it as the right kind of narrative, the right story to tell.”
The comments – part of a 6,800-word August cover story on the prime minister – sparked immediate reaction. “So ‘privileged white guy beats up Indian’ was the ‘right kind of narrative?’ Seriously?” wrote one person on Twitter,while another noted: “White guy in power & entitlement looks 4 an #Indigenous human to beat up so he looks like a strong white dude. How precious & colonial supreme.”
Others pointed to Trudeau’s much vaunted commitments to diversity and tackling the deep-rooted inequities facing many indigenous peoples in Canada. “What is up @JustinTrudeau after all your talk of inclusion you brag about beating up a guy with the issues you swore to address,” tweeted one.
Another said: “Trudeau literally using indigenous people as political props.”

so - what use is this guy?

 

[rbkwp]

feel if your born into it,ROYALTY or anything bloody else, nothing anyone can do about it
way it is

Trump for inst or Cameron/Obama, destined to play a role?

i think the 2 Princess Diana Royals for instance are building/have built there own future, within the constraints by/of the Royal perogative or whatever it is/however it works, too thick to work it out ha

either way hardly there fault they were born into the role

Taxpayers paying money in is as much the Govts doing as anything isent it?

I'm sure Buckingham should have everyday jobs like everyone else, not sucking the money from the taxpayers.

THANKS Jason for your treatise on the Queens role
and dont get me started on whats turning out to be the junior Trump like fiend, never get back in after this term, if he does the Canadian citizens will have been fooled a 2nd time

Another said: “Trudeau literally using indigenous people as political props.”

 

[185248]

Can anyone think of a more ghastly job than the one the Queen does? What we have in the UK is a system where some unfortunate is chosen by fate (or God) to do a ghastly job, and we tend to end up with someone who does it reasonably or even in the case of our present Queen very well. People who might actually want to do the job are unsuitable precisely because they want it. Think Trump. For that matter think Macron.

The Queen is the head of the Church Of England.

What does this church do with regard to supporting the poorer subjects of the UK nation or Commonwealth?

Since many of the missionaries to these nations where on the timber ships would have been of the above to convert them to Christianity...(No, I have not googled )

 

[chrisrobin]

The Queen is the head of the Church Of England.
correct

What does this church do with regard to supporting the poorer subjects of the UK nation or Commonwealth?
within the uk and in the Commonwealth they provide help and shelter for the poor and needy.
I cannot say what the Catholic Church does, Baptists, Methodists, Mormons etc....


Since many of the missionaries to these nations where on the timber ships would have been of the above to convert them to Christianity...(No, I have not googled )

I struggled to make sense of your wording but take it you are referring the missionary outposts which were all over what was the British Empire and is now regarded as the Commonwealth. And yes, the aim was to convert them to Christianity (in its many variations) and to provide comfort and support.

 

[185248]

I struggled to make sense of your wording but take it you are referring the missionary outposts which were all over what was the British Empire and is now regarded as the Commonwealth. And yes, the aim was to convert them to Christianity (in its many variations) and to provide comfort and support.

Yes, sometimes I find it difficult chris, to not revert to old world wording when I am tired and it's late...I look at my posts sometimes and it looks like a section out of the movie Dune script, everything is back to front.

Buggered if I know why I do this.

Thanks for taking the time to try though.

The Native Australians here were not looking for comfort or support. Yes, they had their own spiritual beliefs which gave them comfort and support. Which is why I suppose their culture lasted 60,000 years, and ours is in a situation of dissolving after a couple of thousand

Then Europeans arrived, interrupted their 60,000 years of technical evolution, but retarded spiritual evolution.............with their own beliefs, see how screwed up we are. Now they are confused and lost.

A shame we could not blend their spiritual belief with modern technology. Then we may have an answer.

Their belief was to believe in our Earth. While we for the most part are doing our best to destroy it.

 

[chrisrobin]

Yes, sometimes I find it difficult chris, to not revert to old world wording when I am tired and it's late...I look at my posts sometimes and it looks like a section out of the movie Dune script, everything is back to front.

Buggered if I know why I do this.

Thanks for taking the time to try though.

The Native Australians here were not looking for comfort or support. Yes, they had their own spiritual beliefs which gave them comfort and support. Which is why I suppose their culture lasted 60,000 years, and ours is in a situation of dissolving after a couple of thousand

Then Europeans arrived, interrupted their 60,000 years of technical evolution, but retarded spiritual evolution.............with their own beliefs, see how screwed up we are. Now they are confused and lost.

A shame we could not blend their spiritual belief with modern technology. Then we may have an answer.

Their belief was to believe in our Earth. While we for the most part are doing our best to destroy it.

please don't think I am defending the spread of Christianity or any other faiths, like many others I long ago gave up the idea there was one ultimate being or entity overseeing the world - that is something best left for me to do with myself.
Being of Australian stock, settled in the outback at the turn of the last century I am fairly well aware of the ancient believes and find them more in tune with modern living than doing stuff with loaves and fishes.
I keep forgetting you have strange sleeping habits (all to do with the world being upside down in your part of the world) but you have to admit the internet is a wonderful creation which not only does away with time it spreads word quicker than you can read - and sometimes this really isn't for the best. Its an indication that the world is now becoming a smaller place - once letters and passengers (and copies of comics) took 6 weeks to travel between Sydney and London, now....whoosh

 

[Jason]

An interesting thought experiment. I wonder how an aboriginal Australian might have responded to the idea of cladding Grenfell and hundreds of other towers?

1) The primary reason for cladding was insulation, ultimately an EU requirement. Curiously the cladding cost more than say 50 years of additional fuel use (surely the maximum life of these towers). There was no economic argument. There may be an argument in terms of reduced carbon, though even here the matter is not simple as production of the insulation and its installation are processes which create a lot of carbon. Aluminium is exceptionally energy intensive to produce. Probably a viewpoint unencumbered by western political discourse around the need to reduce future carbon emissions would have said the cladding is pointless.

2) the secondary reason was to improve the look of ugly buildings. This was seen as a way to increase pride in the estate, and the primary beneficiaries were the people of Grenfell and of the finger towers immediately around it. Probably a viewpoint unencumbered by western political discourse would have sourced local pride elsewhere.

Perhaps we shouldn't have clad the tower in any material whatsoever. However this breaches established political thinking and EU directives.

Curiously a similar issue has just surfaced with speed humps. Speed humps slow down cars and save lives, and it is even possible to estimate how many lives are saved. However speed humps cause vehicles to slow down and then accelerate using a lot more fuel, and they slow the passage of emergency vehicles. Now we can estimate the lives lost specifically as a result of the extra pollution caused by speed humps, and it turns out that it is a little greater than the number of lives saved by reducing speed. It may well be that the government will be facing some form of class legal action. There are now calls to take out some existing speed humps in order to save lives.

In the end all local authorities can do is apply the guidelines as they exist. Sometimes the guidelines are wrong, but it can be years before we realise this.

 

[185248]

An interesting thought experiment. I wonder how an aboriginal Australian might have responded to the idea of cladding Grenfell and hundreds of other towers?

1) The primary reason for cladding was insulation, ultimately an EU requirement. Curiously the cladding cost more than say 50 years of additional fuel use (surely the maximum life of these towers). There was no economic argument. There may be an argument in terms of reduced carbon, though even here the matter is not simple as production of the insulation and its installation are processes which create a lot of carbon. Aluminium is exceptionally energy intensive to produce. Probably a viewpoint unencumbered by western political discourse around the need to reduce future carbon emissions would have said the cladding is pointless.

2) the secondary reason was to improve the look of ugly buildings. This was seen as a way to increase pride in the estate, and the primary beneficiaries were the people of Grenfell and of the finger towers immediately around it. Probably a viewpoint unencumbered by western political discourse would have sourced local pride elsewhere.

Perhaps we shouldn't have clad the tower in any material whatsoever. However this breaches established political thinking and EU directives.

Curiously a similar issue has just surfaced with speed humps. Speed humps slow down cars and save lives, and it is even possible to estimate how many lives are saved. However speed humps cause vehicles to slow down and then accelerate using a lot more fuel, and they slow the passage of emergency vehicles. Now we can estimate the lives lost specifically as a result of the extra pollution caused by speed humps, and it turns out that it is a little greater than the number of lives saved by reducing speed. It may well be that the government will be facing some form of class legal action. There are now calls to take out some existing speed humps in order to save lives.

In the end all local authorities can do is apply the guidelines as they exist. Sometimes the guidelines are wrong, but it can be years before we realise this.

If you had lived in Aus Jase...we go from the tropical to sub zero within a few thousand kilometres. Native Australians survived in deserts of little, to rainforests of plenty.

The cladding used was a mistake of economics, not a mistake of manufacturers recommendations.

Ugly Buildings? I take it they would have looked good at the time they were built, not on today's architectural specifications.

I worked on some pretty " ugly" buildings back then too. Well, back then they were what was designed for the times.

1) As I've said early on, if manufacturers specs were not adhered to, the installer, or builder is at fault.

2) Also, the certifier who approved installation according to manufacturers specs, failed to do so, is at fault.

3) The Fire services who attended the scene to extinguish the fire are at fault also because they failed to adhere to their training.

The innocent people here are those who lost their lives because they placed their trust in those above.

Each of those companies and public service employees failed in their duty. Not the victims who paid the rent to live in those units.

What I have drawn into question is.....I understand the " stiff upper lip " diatribe.

Where is the sacrifice which once we observed during times of crisis? Where is the support from those who can afford it?

So, the Queen adopts a new Corgi?

 

[chrisrobin]

Its really funny about the EU directives, and yes, they were the primary reason Grenfell and other blocks were clad - to be more fuel efficient and heat conserving.
Interesting you note the cost of the cladding and the materials used would have cost more than the fuel they saved and at the same time added a huge extra burden on the carbon footprint.
Ah, the carbon footprint, not a couple of words much in common use now. When the wind turbines were designed and built it would have taken twice there lifetime before they became fuel efficient, the carbon footprint just for the building will never be recovered and the cost of building is why electricity is going to be so expensive.
One sure way, not tried because its not on show is water power. For years water was used to power factory's, mills etc, water is free, it just took a bit of ingenuity to do this - Windsor Castle for example has water generators, flood tides, waterfalls, there's a lot of natural water flowing that's going to waste.
Instead we litter the countryside with the turbine blight....
But tis gets us away from building cladding. Cladding voids were left to reduce the overall weight on the buildings, substitutes didn't look good and were in the main not totally efficient at keeping in heat - so, when the EU came along "ordering" the change the UK leapt at this idea which would spruce up old blocks and give them a new lease of life and be more pleasant to look at.
In the haste to please the EU, do cosmetic improvements, and with the advantage of hindsight......

 

[Jason]

1) As I've said early on, if manufacturers specs were not adhered to, the installer, or builder is at fault.

2) Also, the certifier who approved installation according to manufacturers specs, failed to do so, is at fault.

3) The Fire services who attended the scene to extinguish the fire are at fault also because they failed to adhere to their training.

I don't think (3) is a reasonable point. There is no suggestion that the fire brigade could have handled the blaze any better. They arrived very quickly to a building that was already well alight and burning rapidly.

Yes (1) is worth considering. There is some discussion that the manufacturer's guidelines were altered in order to use less cladding and reduce the weight on the building, leaving gaps behind the cladding. The key consideration is whether the builder had the paperwork saying that this was a safe practice and the cladding could indeed be installed in this way. The initial view is that the paperwork was in place - that the builder made this modification and building regulations permitted it.

(2) is also worth considering. The inspection regime would have checked what had been done against what the builder said he had done, and checked this against building regulations.

It is possible that there will be corporate manslaughter charges against either or both the council and the company acting as landlord. This appears to suggest that (1) is not the problem. It's a long road from saying there is the potential for corporate manslaughter charges. If these succeed it will presumably be because either or both deliberately misinterpreted building regulations. If this is the case then hundreds of local authorities and landlords have also misinterpreted building regulations but have been lucky in that there has been no fire.

We seem to be looking at a situation where the primary fault was with the building regulations. Councils and landlords apply the regulations. They don't have the skills to do something that is different. Nor do they have a right to go for a more expensive option just because it is even safer than building regulations require. (There may be other reasons for more expensive options.) Safety regulations is a specialised area and a lot of non-specialist councillors cannot do more than apply the regulations.

If the regulations are faulty then we need to look at the way in which these regulations have come into existence. They go back a lot of years, and regulations for the aluminium and the insulator are complex. The most likely reality is that it is a form of muddle. The interaction between the cladding, insulator, gap and tower height was not considered by the regulations, and a risk not identified. Building regulations are in effect produced by teams of specialists and passed before a committee of MPs. The political dimension is whether the appropriate committee of MPs accepted recommendations or in some way watered them down. I would have thought some journalist somewhere must be searching for this information.

 

[185248]

The regulations existed

I don't think (3) is a reasonable point. There is no suggestion that the fire brigade could have handled the blaze any better. They arrived very quickly to a building that was already well alight and burning rapidly.

Yes (1) is worth considering. There is some discussion that the manufacturer's guidelines were altered in order to use less cladding and reduce the weight on the building, leaving gaps behind the cladding. The key consideration is whether the builder had the paperwork saying that this was a safe practice and the cladding could indeed be installed in this way. The initial view is that the paperwork was in place - that the builder made this modification and building regulations permitted it.

(2) is also worth considering. The inspection regime would have checked what had been done against what the builder said he had done, and checked this against building regulations.

It is possible that there will be corporate manslaughter charges against either or both the council and the company acting as landlord. This appears to suggest that (1) is not the problem. It's a long road from saying there is the potential for corporate manslaughter charges. If these succeed it will presumably be because either or both deliberately misinterpreted building regulations. If this is the case then hundreds of local authorities and landlords have also misinterpreted building regulations but have been lucky in that there has been no fire.

We seem to be looking at a situation where the primary fault was with the building regulations. Councils and landlords apply the regulations. They don't have the skills to do something that is different. Nor do they have a right to go for a more expensive option just because it is even safer than building regulations require. (There may be other reasons for more expensive options.) Safety regulations is a specialised area and a lot of non-specialist councillors cannot do more than apply the regulations.

If the regulations are faulty then we need to look at the way in which these regulations have come into existence. They go back a lot of years, and regulations for the aluminium and the insulator are complex. The most likely reality is that it is a form of muddle. The interaction between the cladding, insulator, gap and tower height was not considered by the regulations, and a risk not identified. Building regulations are in effect produced by teams of specialists and passed before a committee of MPs. The political dimension is whether the appropriate committee of MPs accepted recommendations or in some way watered them down. I would have thought some journalist somewhere must be searching for this information.

Fire regulations have existed for eons. The only thing which has been relaxed is manufacturers using laboratory testing to introduce new products onto the market.

(3) Is a very reasonable point. Because fire protection training requires....expect fires to be contained, not to depend on types of construction or guidelines. Always expect a fire to behave in an unconventional manner.

It's not a political issue. The framework has been set up over a number of years for high rise buildings to be constructed and fire rated. ..

Nothing is ever ..Fire Proof. Like nothing is ever water proof, vaccine proof, antiseptic proof, space proof, meteorite proof...whatever.

It is Fire Resistant. In this case it was far from it, the fire service failed to adhere to " There is no fire proof product" Even brick will succumb to lava. They, in the end failed to adhere to their training. Never Trust Fire to be predictable.

No Jase, there are people to blame here. Not regulations. Don't you think there have been enough fires which have claimed lives to know better?

There are also those to blame for the waffle that persists.

Geeze, even in the Towering Inferno movie, back in the 70's..Yet we still build buildings higher than we are capable of rescue.

 

[185248]

People design buildings, we have lived with fire since the beginning of time.

To use it as an excuse " DOH, we did not know" is crap, and you know it.

That would be my legal argument.

Prove me wrong.

 

[chrisrobin]

Once upon a time men moved things by hand.
Then the "invented" the wheel
My goodness didn't this make things better when in the 1900's cars were killing people who were run over by wheels - all because when they were invented no-one saw they could be dangerous and built in precautions.
Things move on, science gets better, testing becomes more rigorous.
Once cigarettes were deemed to be safe, alcohol a pleasant thing to use, drugs could cure...
now we know cigarettes cause cancer, alcohol has terrible side effects and addictions while drugs once used to heal and cure being used leisure pursuits can also kill.
Things and perceptions change, the world grows up, how many governments have said (usually as an excuse because e they didn't) "we'll learn from our mistakes"..We evolve and hopefully learn as we go, the world isn't flat, there is global warming and fumes from diesels can kill. Airplanes can vanish in thin air unless they are ALL fitted with tracker devices.
And so testing gets better and better but then the testing never stops and the fine tuning for safety gets better.
Currently out there there is a guy stopping his tractor on a slope, he thinks he's put the brake on but he hasn't and consequently the tractor is going to run backwards and kill him - so who's fault?
Once man rubbed two sticks together and made fire there have been fire risks, fire assessments and yet still there have been fatal fires. Since that first early discovery man has found more ways to make fire, and will continue to find new ways and yes, they will cause problems but man will move forward...

 

[Jason]

No Jase, there are people to blame here. Not regulations.

It is certainly possible that there are people to blame. However it is also possible that there are not.

We can all be wise after the event. We all now know there is a problem. However it is possible that the regulations were reasonable and were properly applied. The unfortunate reality is that there is some level of risk in any possible building. We used to use asbestos as a building material, until we found we were wrong, but I don't think blame can be attached to the people who used it. (In the UK asbestos is in just about every building from the 1950s, 60s and 70s, and taking it out is a major task.)

 

[185248]

Jase, we once lived on plains with fire, in caves with fire, in tents, teepees, lowset homes with fire. We have built fireplaces into our construction for years.

We understand the science of fire, what it needs to survive. In that time we have built up our fire prevention service, a whole new industry and employment has been built upon our knowledge of fire.

"Wise after the event"? What jase, from the first time someone was burnt? The first time a person was burnt at the stake, or the fire of London?

What else can fire do that it has not taught us since the stone age?

After the event? Of what? Man creating fire?

People have fucked up here. Not the fire. Fire did as it always has. It burned.

 

[Jason]

People have fucked up here. Not the fire. Fire did as it always has. It burned.

The issue remains whether it was a mistake or whether it was criminal negligence. The horror of the outcome does not change this fundamental issue.

It may be that it was a mistake. Like asbestos as a building material.

 

[185248]

Asbestos has not been used here since 1980.

The horror is, someone cut corners.

If I installed a product which was not rated for the purpose it was intended for. I would be liable, prosecuted and guilty.

If I failed as a firefighter not to follow my training I would be held liable, prosecuted and found guilty for not following basic training.

Asbestos has not been with us since we learned to make fire jase.

Just seems you have run out of legs to stand on. Must be wooden ones