Grenfell tower

[798686]

The building was designed and constructed, probably along with the others in late 60's early 70's. I can't seem to find if there have been any fires reported in the time to this day. There probably have been in 45 or more years with the amount of apartments, but my search can't seem to come up with any.

It was a "modern" day material which has caused this disaster, it's supply and installation and failure to adhere to "manufacturers"instruction. Not the construction of the building itself in the seventies.

Many of the buildings constructed in that time...and I started my apprenticeship in 1974, where constructed of far better fire rated materials than I see on the market now.

And I will say again, the Fireies would be absolutely gutted and heartbroken to think they may have missed something which their training has taught them to look for. The unexpected.

There was Trellick Tower, a while back, I think?

Plus one several years ago in Camden - maybe Chalcot, or something? Not sure either had new cladding tho.

Seems like a systemic failure to address the fact that reynobond PE was unsuitable.

 

[chrisrobin]

perhaps the difference lies in the nature of the job being done. You cannot mechanise social care, and clearing road drains or potholes doesnt lend itself well either. The partial solution has been to hire cheap foreigners.

Cheap foreigners, as you put it still get the basic wage and are doing jobs that some lazy benefit scroungers could do but are to lazy and fat living off the state. If they brought in regulations to make sure that able bodied persons should work if there is a job they could do or lose benefits then the country would be better off.

 

[rbkwp]

you may be interested to read of NZs 'leaky homes' balls up v
related and partially similar to this tragedy,where they change succesful proven methods
blame the idiots that create all these F'n laws with more emphasis to cover there own arses/jobs, and not the common citizen

btw
do you still have 'building inspectors' over there
the one i had in the 80s covering my bussiness building waa superb
of course only conforming to every fine detail of the code,at the time
thats key isent it,the building code/specs has to be spot on


Does not matter which government is in control.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leaky_homes_crisis


cladding added bc they can as of new shit then it goes up in flames within a year
f'n disgusting

Many of the buildings constructed in that time...

 

[185248]

you may be interested to read of NZs 'leaky homes' balls up v
related and partially similar to this tragedy,where they change succesful proven methods
blame the idiots that create all these F'n laws with more emphasis to cover there own arses/jobs, and not the common citizen

btw
do you still have 'building inspectors' over there
the one i had in the 80s covering my bussiness building waa superb
of course only conforming to every fine detail of the code,at the time
thats key isent it,the building code/specs has to be spot on


Does not matter which government is in control.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leaky_homes_crisis


cladding added bc they can as of new shit then it goes up in flames within a year
f'n disgusting

Many of the buildings constructed in that time...

We have what we call "Fire Engineers" here now. People certified to give certification and approval for fire related construction.

Yet, their approval depends on "Manufacturers specifications". What happens after that is not their problem.

This is where in my experience with modern day materials, their is no time proven modern day fire retardant construction.

There are numerous companies pushing their product with little or no practical, on site, experience. It is all based upon "Lab testing".

I have worked on in my time, multiple story construction, high rise, low rise and everything in between... many types of construction using many materials.. In my experience nothing so far as fire is concerned will penetrate a brick wall. Why? Because bricks are fired at a temperature of 1100 degrees centigrade.

Heat will eventually penetrate to cause combustion, through just about anything, even brick...but only after some hours. Given that what most people fill their apartments with is highly flammable and burns at high temperatures. Car parks under units need to be especially fire protected due to the fuel and combustible materials.

I have noticed here in recent years a swing away from newly approved fire rated materials back to the more traditional.....Why? Because of what has happened in the video I linked, and what has happened due to installation of a product that is being discussed in this thread.

New invention is great, but until it does the test of time for me, it is just an experiment. Something I will not gamble lives on.

 

[185248]

There was Trellick Tower, a while back, I think?

Plus one several years ago in Camden - maybe Chalcot, or something? Not sure either had new cladding tho.

Seems like a systemic failure to address the fact that reynobond PE was unsuitable.

Hi Joll..y Did those fires spread do you know?

 

[798686]

Hi Joll..y Did those fires spread do you know?

Not that I'm aware of? I think they were contained better than the Grenfell one, from what I remember.

No cladding, probably.

 

[798686]

Some of the vocals on this are unbelievable.

Heart-breaking.

 

[185248]

Some of the vocals on this are unbelievable.

Heart-breaking.

I really feel for those guys. The guys that place their lives on the line, yet think they could have done that little bit more.

What more can you place on the line than your own life.

 

[Jason]

One summary I saw of the election was "young Brits vote for free stuff". The argument that the socialists have made is that:
1) The state should pay for all sorts of stuff.
2) The other should pay - the rich, big business, small business, national debt, little green men from Mars - basically anyone but me.
3) this is "justified" because the government pays for policy X which I don't like. RIght now we have £1bn for good projects in NI. This is not seen as NI jumping the queue, but somehow as proof that government can spend what it likes.

We need a root and branch rethink of social housing. Probably towers like Grenfell should be Demolished. Retrofitting sprinklers is problematic, they only have one staircase, there are issues with them. However the new housing may need to be somewhere other than one of the most expensive boroughs in the UK. It may well need to be places like Milton Keynes, so 30 mins by train from London.

 

[chrisrobin]

Who are all these well spoken articulate people claiming to represent the survivors of Grenfell Tower?
Why is it that the BBC seeks out those who claim to be suffering abnormally, who claim to be not listened to, who make spurious unfounded claims - all claims never allowed to be answered by voices or moderates representing the same world rather than the politically motivated.
Where is the minister this weekend who claimed the block was a slum? And who makes a slum in the first place. The block was built new, up kept for years but who really let it become a slum - if indeed that what it had become as McDonald claims.

 

[geitjeshoeder]

I as a entrepreneur believe social housing should be near the places people work, if you want to hire servers at fast food restaurants, or have mailmen, underground conductors, security guards and street-cleaners be able to start on time, you need to house those people in YOUR community, because you want to employ those people as a community, either by paying them enough or by providing adequate social housing. Since wages are as they are and taxes are also as they are, social housing is a logical choice for modern western open economies. It allows me as an employer to issue a competitive wage for some, or a low wage for certain other positions whilst not having to think about housing said employees.

 

[chrisrobin]

hey guys, remember all those hospitals and schools out there built and maintained by private companies- making a profit in doing so - and bleeding the NHS dry in overheads costs and low maintenance - well, when it came to fire insulation guess where they saved the cash...
and hey guys
guess who's idea it was to get private companies to fund these hospitals and schools in what was seen to many as a long term financial disaster for health and education. Blair and Brown in the borrow spend bonanza.
I hear you say but without this funding they wouldn't have been built... well they were and it cost so lest hope that at no extra cost to the NHS or Schools they rectify any poor insulation that could be regarded as a fire risk.

 

[dandelion]

You are showing the socialist's fundamental failure to understand profit. Every planning application yields a profit which is more money for other things, including social care.

Trying to fund social care by a tax on building control officers is ridiculous. Especially since government have privatised building inspection, so builders have simply hired private inspectors to certify their unsafe materials

Seems like a systemic failure to address the fact that reynobond PE was unsuitable.

Very unlikely to be simply this brand which is unsuitable. The whole concept of placing a sheet of flammable material around the outside of a building is unsuitable. In fact, the metal cladding might in effect have created a chimney sucking air up through it, between the metal and concrete, and boosting the fire between the cladding and wall. So it wasnt just a fire on the outside, but a forced draft of flames spreading upwards behind the metal, to windows above and then through those probably plastic windows back into more flats.

I saw some pictures of the Laconal house which also caught fire, and I think they were probably lucky because it had balconies, which probably acted as a fire break in its new cladding.

What democratic governments face these days is they are expected to pull money out of their arses to pay for an ever increasing population. A population that has less resources and job capability to pay for.

But that isnt true. Something like the tenth richest nation in the world (been falling since we announced leaving the EU), richer than ever in its history. Of course we can afford it. We are choosing not to tax the wealthy, who are getting an increasing share of that income. And thus governments run out of money as we are seeing now.

btw do you still have 'building inspectors' over there the one i had in the 80s covering my bussiness building waa superb. of course only conforming to every fine detail of the code,at the time
thats key isent it,the building code/specs has to be spot on

You know what, I'm a history buff sometimes. In WW1 three british battle cruisers sank in the battle of jutland because of uncontrolled fires exploding their own ammunition. It wasnt because the ship's designer's hadnt thought about such a problem, but because the crews were ignoring safety measures to get the ammunition out to the guns faster. Whereas there should have been empty metal corridors between the ammo stores and guns, they stacked ammo there too. Just like placing flammable cladding on what was designed as an uninflamable concrete wall. Fire naturally spread through the handy combustibles.

Cutting corners which turned out to be really important 100 years ago. Which is precisely what happened here. Same problem.

 

[chrisrobin]

Trying to fund social care by a tax on building control officers is ridiculous. Especially since government have privatised building inspection, so builders have simply hired private inspectors to certify their unsafe materials

Very unlikely to be simply this brand which is unsuitable. The whole concept of placing a sheet of flammable material around the outside of a building is unsuitable. In fact, the metal cladding might in effect have created a chimney sucking air up through it, between the metal and concrete, and boosting the fire between the cladding and wall. So it wasnt just a fire on the outside, but a forced draft of flames spreading upwards behind the metal, to windows above and then through those probably plastic windows back into more flats.

I saw some pictures of the Laconal house which also caught fire, and I think they were probably lucky because it had balconies, which probably acted as a fire break in its new cladding.

But that isnt true. Something like the tenth richest nation in the world (been falling since we announced leaving the EU), richer than ever in its history. Of course we can afford it. We are choosing not to tax the wealthy, who are getting an increasing share of that income. And thus governments run out of money as we are seeing now.


You know what, I'm a history buff sometimes. In WW1 three british battle cruisers sank in the battle of jutland because of uncontrolled fires exploding their own ammunition. It wasnt because the ship's designer's hadnt thought about such a problem, but because the crews were ignoring safety measures
and this is the crux of the whole debacle
.

 

[dandelion]

guess who's idea it was to get private companies to fund these hospitals and schools in what was seen to many as a long term financial disaster for health and education. Blair and Brown in the borrow spend bonanza.

Fraid Not. PFI was invented by the tories in the Thatcher/Major administration. I distinctly remember people giving sigh of relief that the ridiculously expensive PFI would be ditched when Labour came to power. But like so many other conservative inventions, it continued.

One summary I saw of the election was "young Brits vote for free stuff".

Labour idenitifed two particular complaints which are real. One is no housing they can hope to ever afford. The other is being saddled with a massive debt just to get a job. Not as if the actual stuff learnt at uni will be any use for most of the people doing degress. Mostly, its a scam. By banks to keep people in debt and therefore bleed them throughout heir lives. Jason, you attack high taxes, why do you not attack high debts? its all the same, and far worse that the elite rich get to tax the poor.

the new housing may need to be somewhere other than one of the most expensive boroughs in the UK

Geitjeshoeder told you thea nswer to that. If you expect people to work for low wages providing services in rich areas, they have to live there too. The solution is to get rid of some of the rich people, not the poor.

 

[Jason]

Labour idenitifed two particular complaints which are real. One is no housing they can hope to ever afford. The other is being saddled with a massive debt just to get a job. Not as if the actual stuff learnt at uni will be any use for most of the people doing degress. Mostly, its a scam. By banks to keep people in debt and therefore bleed them throughout heir lives. Jason, you attack high taxes, why do you not attack high debts? its all the same, and far worse that the elite rich get to tax the poor.

Geitjeshoeder told you thea nswer to that. If you expect people to work for low wages providing services in rich areas, they have to live there too. The solution is to get rid of some of the rich people, not the poor.

I oppose high debts, both state debt and individual debt.

The problem with students paying for their undergraduate courses is the level of those costs. The idea was that the marketplace would see universities compete on price, and the overwhelming majority would charge far less than £9,000pa. However this overlooks the issue that UK universities are regulated by frameworks which make it very hard for new entrants to come into the market, while the existing universities are pretty much operating a price cartel. There are a very few exceptions which demonstrate that top-quality teaching can be provided for a lot less than £9,000pa.

The Conservative manifesto just ignored this issue. We need much cheaper undergraduate degrees, and we need some form of state scholarship system so that very many can in fact study for free (or nearly free).

The Conservative manifesto also ignored the issue of low wages. We need to get wages up. This means that a lot of the cafes and hotels in London (big low wage areas) need to pay more for their workers. The market place can sort this out once we stop the never-ending stream of EU nationals willing to accept very low wages. Fundamentally we need to reduce the supply of workers in order to push up the price of labour. This will of course mean additional costs for business, and we need to look at reducing their costs in other areas, so in effect less tax. The typical London hotel should find itself paying more in wages, less in tax, and so maintaining the same costs to consumers.

I do think there is a fundamental issue about social housing in areas as expensive as Kensington and Chelsea. If you are earning say £70,000 pa (more than treble an average salary) you will not be able to afford to live in K&C and will commute. I'm not sure that there is any fundamental issue with the idea that those requiring social housing should commute. Of course they need to be able to afford to commute. In part they need higher salary; in part however we have to get our transport costs down. We need driver-less (and conductor-less) trains.

The Conservatives made an utter hash of these issues in the 2017 manifesto. They must do better in 2022.

 

[chrisrobin]

Fraid Not. PFI was invented by the tories in the Thatcher/Major administration. I distinctly remember people giving sigh of relief that the ridiculously expensive PFI would be ditched when Labour came to power. But like so many other conservative inventions, it continued.
supported and used to great effect by our glorious Socialist leaders, Blair and Brown.as a way of getting something for nothing, don't pay for it today if you can pay for it tomorrow their well known often talked about mantra.

Labour idenitifed two particular complaints which are real. One is no housing they can hope to ever afford. The other is being saddled with a massive debt just to get a job. Not as if the actual stuff learnt at uni will be any use for most of the people doing degress. Mostly, its a scam. By banks to keep people in debt and therefore bleed them throughout heir lives. Jason, you attack high taxes, why do you not attack high debts? its all the same, and far worse that the elite rich get to tax the poor.

Geitjeshoeder told you thea nswer to that. If you expect people to work for low wages providing services in rich areas, they have to live there too. The solution is to get rid of some of the rich people, not the poor.

 

[dandelion]

I oppose high debts, both state debt and individual debt.

Then I dont understand why you support conservatives. High house prices is national policy and totally a choice made by government.

The problem with students paying for their undergraduate courses is the level of those costs.

I do wonder what the £$% is costing so much since the main input surely should be staff time, and that has been slashed! I suppose again, students are paying for expensive accommodation during their three years typically away from home. Both their own accommodatin and university buildings. The negative effects of property prices are utterly insidious.

The market place can sort this out once we stop the never-ending stream of EU nationals willing to accept very low wages.

Actually, I fancy that is the other way round. The europeans are here because UK people will not work for such low wages.

Fundamentally we need to reduce the supply of workers in order to push up the price of labour.

Increase Minimum wage. probably needs a London weighting too.

we need to look at reducing their costs in other areas, so in effect less tax.

Rubbish. Businesses need to pay their way instead os using subisdised labour. And then still pay taxes on their profits. If they cant make a profit, why should we be subsidisng them so they can?

The typical London hotel should find itself paying more in wages, less in tax, and so maintaining the same costs to consumers.

No, we need to slash property prices. Get people out of London to cut demand for property. The Brexit exodus of banks will likely do it.

I'm not sure that there is any fundamental issue with the idea that those requiring social housing should commute.

Obviously there is. They cant afford to.

in part however we have to get our transport costs down.

on the contrary, they ought to be at cost, or higher. We should be seeking to make it harder for business to concentrate inside cities. There should be a tax on commuting.

 

[Chrysippus]

There should be a tax on commuting.

Yeah, the tax on tea over here didn't work out for you very well...

 

[798686]

Yeah, the tax on tea over here didn't work out for you very well...

Which we want back, now you mention it.

Boston Harbour's tasted good for 200 years off the back of our free tea.

And don't even get me started on all that oil we gifted you in the Gulf...