The Great Tower Block Fire Tragedy of London

[blandy]

3 hours ago, snowychap said:

the implication of the 1 in 500 rulings being appealed statistic is that the system has a 99.8% success rate (where success is measured by acceptance of the ruling), isn't it? 

Yes, exactly my point. But unless we know how many of the rulings were "fix this" (it could be say half of them, but have no idea) it's still meaningless as a measure of there being a lax regime, or a cosy regime. If the stat is out of 500 rejections, only one was appealed that suggests the vast majority of flaws picked up are recognised as flaws and dealt with. Without knowing how many approvals v rejections there were overall, we can't see the picture.

I completely accept all the points being made - I was just wanting clarification on the stats from someone who could give more detail.

[blandy]

1 hour ago, chrisp65 said:

Building Control approval is a process of negotiation

That's interesting. And surprising. I mean taking a car for an MoT test isn't a negotiation, nor should it be. There are standards which must be met, and that's that. It's concerning that buildings are treated more laxly or as @peterms says "a reasonable conclusion would be that the system we have is weak to the point of danger, easily flouted, and needs radical change.  A bit like another sector, banking, in fact.  This is where light touch regulation, self-certification, and bonfires of red tape, lead."

[chrisp65]

39 minutes ago, blandy said:

That's interesting. And surprising. I mean taking a car for an MoT test isn't a negotiation, nor should it be. There are standards which must be met, and that's that. It's concerning that buildings are treated more laxly or as @peterms says "a reasonable conclusion would be that the system we have is weak to the point of danger, easily flouted, and needs radical change.  A bit like another sector, banking, in fact.  This is where light touch regulation, self-certification, and bonfires of red tape, lead."

The MOT is a good comparison.

The MOT will say exhaust emissions need to be (12) bits of poison per million. Bang, it's there in black and white and the car has to achieve 12 bits of pollution. Pass / Fail.

If the Building Regs did car MOT's it would read something like: the vehicle shall not unduly pollute 

We could then explain to the garage that whilst the car chucks out 20 bits of pollution, we have been planting trees out the garden and intend to give the asthmatic kid next door a cylinder of oxygen for Christmas. Pass!

 

Building Regulation Part B volume 1 deals with the Fire in dwellinghouses.

The actual legislation you need to comply with is 49 words long:

The building shall be designed and constructed so that there are appropriate provisions for the early warning of fire and appropriate means of escape in case of fire from the building to a place of safety outside the building capable of being safely and effectively used at all material times.

That's it, that's what you have to comply with. The rest of the book is suggested examples and typical solutions to typical scenarios. None of the rest of the book is law or gospel.

Appropriate provision for early warning?

That's an alarm system yes? Maybe not, you can promise that there will always be an employed person standing watch at all times. You could have cctv monitoring it from a call centre. You can come up with any proposal you fancy, the BC Officer then decides if what you are proposing is an appropriate early warning. If an alarm going off has consequences, you can argue that the alarms are silent, or can only be triggered by staff with a key. You don't want all the cell doors of a prison failing open if anyone can press the alarm, you don't want a 97dB alarm going off in the nervous pregnancy ward... So you can either write a document for every possible scenario in every possible type of building...or you have a suitably vague 49 word thing.

Place of safety?

That could be queuing down a smoke filled 24 storey single file staircase, or it could be stay in your flat and wait to be rescued...Waiting to be rescued presumes work was carried out to a certain standard...

 

I guess it's a bit like letting Volkswagen Audi write up the MOT test procedure. That'll be mostly fine.

[peterms]

32 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

The MOT is a good comparison.

The MOT will say exhaust emissions need to be (12) bits of poison per million. Bang, it's there in black and white and the car has to achieve 12 bits of pollution. Pass / Fail.

...

I guess it's a bit like letting Volkswagen Audi write up the MOT test procedure. That'll be mostly fine.

Yes, it's a good comparison.  So is VW Audi, where on new car emissions tests, some of their staff were deliberately, systematically falsifying results, taking actions which they knew (or given their background and the publicity given to emissions and the reason for reducing them, certainly should have known) would kill an unknown number of unidentifiable people.

And this is a firm which would probably have been regarded as reputable, blue-chip, and above such things.  Not a back street operation, not a marginal firm that has to cut corners to survive.  Their staff cheating a system where there are clear and non-negotiable limits, and killing people as a result, as a matter of deliberate and conscious choice.

It underlines that we really cannot work on the principle that firms will play fair and be honest about the quality and safety of their products, if they can profit by cheating and lying.  Our regulatory system must reflect that, not the childish naivete of that bumbling idiot Cameron and his fellow-travellers.

[snowychap]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

I was just wanting clarification on the stats from someone who could give more detail.

chriscook.newsnight@bbc.co.uk

1 hour ago, blandy said:

unless we know how many of the rulings were "fix this" (it could be say half of them, but have no idea) it's still meaningless as a measure of there being a lax regime, or a cosy regime

I don't agree but that's because I think you're looking at it slightly wrongly, i.e. you're trying to work out whether a regime/process is definitively x or y from the raw data. Even if you were to have the number of fails or passes added in, it wouldn't necessarily give you that.

I think we're in danger of getting sidetracked on this tiny part of the thing, though.

Much more value in concentrating on the wider points Chris has made.

[blandy]

59 minutes ago, snowychap said:

you're trying to work out whether a regime/process is definitively x or y from the raw data

Au contraire, I'm saying the data doesn't show anything or allow any accurate conclusions to be drawn, as it's deficient, as presented, unless anyone could expand further on it. That was all. But as you say, sidetracking from Chris's detailed answers since I asked for more info.

[Risso]

I don't know how things work in the UK, but over here Building Control is a government organisation, and from my albeit limited dealings with them, there's not much in the way of negotiation.  For just about everything, there are clearly prescribed parameters.  Sizes and shapes of building materials, electrical standards and fire safety precautions.  My wife did up a couple of three-bedroomed cottages as holiday accommodation, and we had to install a sprinkler system and fire alarms in each.  The first firm of builders we had were shite, and they were kicked off the job after building control threatened to shut the project down as they'd used the wrong size roof timbers amongst other errors.  We've got a commercial property division at work, and even at the much bigger macro level, there's certainly no suggesion that Building Control are anything other than a bunch of uber-pedantic civil servants with the power to stop you in your tracks should you drop a bollock, which is as it should be.  Is it really that different in the UK?

[chrisp65]

9 minutes ago, Risso said:

I don't know how things work in the UK, but over here Building Control is a government organisation, and from my albeit limited dealings with them, there's not much in the way of negotiation.  For just about everything, there are clearly prescribed parameters.  Sizes and shapes of building materials, electrical standards and fire safety precautions.  My wife did up a couple of three-bedroomed cottages as holiday accommodation, and we had to install a sprinkler system and fire alarms in each.  The first firm of builders we had were shite, and they were kicked off the job after building control threatened to shut the project down as they'd used the wrong size roof timbers amongst other errors.  We've got a commercial property division at work, and even at the much bigger macro level, there's certainly no suggesion that Building Control are anything other than a bunch of uber-pedantic civil servants with the power to stop you in your tracks should you drop a bollock, which is as it should be.  Is it really that different in the UK?

We do work on the IOM.

Yes, it's very different in many ways to the mainland english system. Scotland is different again.

[peterms]

Interesting piece here on the influence of the industry on building regulations and silencing people who warned of danger, to increase profit.

Quote

...Even before the first bodies had been removed from Grenfell Tower, senior figures in the fire safety sector began revealing a number of uncomfortable truths: they knew plastic insulation was storing up problems; they had suspected a disaster would happen; and many of them had been telling the Government for years that the building regulation and control system was not fit for purpose.

And some went further; claiming that elements of the plastics industry were not only helping to write the rules that require more insulation to be fitted to buildings, but were also trying to silence people who questioned whether plastic insulation was safe.

Time after time we were told the plastic insulation industry was highly litigious, that speaking out about its fire safety was impossible, and that while the story should be told, no-one would go on camera. Eventually we found a former government scientist who agreed to talk, on condition of anonymity, about the pressures he faced. He said threats to sue him had made him unwell...

 

[markavfc40]

33 minutes ago, peterms said:

Interesting piece here on the influence of the industry on building regulations and silencing people who warned of danger, to increase profit.

 

I think this line sums it up "private profit should have no role in public safety" 

Those representing private companies have been involved in drafting building standards and regulations. The whole things stinks.

Edited November 27, 2017 by markavfc40

[Demitri_C]

 

 

[Davkaus]

There's a lot of reasons I don't join in with singing a song pleading with a deity I don't believe in, to save a monarch I don't believe should exist, but deflecting the blame from the people actually responsible on to the monarchy is quite peculiar. 

Ben McKenna's internet connection costs £15+ a month. That could help save dozens of children from malnutrition. What a heartless bastard.

Edited May 14, 2018 by Davkaus

[lapal_fan]

Yea. The money is arbitrary really. She could have had a dress found in a skip and that wouldn't have saved anyone at Grenfell.

I get the argument, but it's a shit one to be fair.  

There are a trillion things deemed more "worthwhile" spending money on.

I'm no hater of the royals, but I'm no lover either. They don't affect me at all.

[Xann]

[AVFCDAN]

1 hour ago, Demitri_C said:

 

 

The wedding itself will generate millions in tourism though so really its a moot point.

[bickster]

4 minutes ago, AVFCDAN said:

The wedding itself will generate millions in tourism though so really its a moot point.

That old chestnut. Where can I buy tourisms?

[PompeyVillan]

18 minutes ago, bickster said:

That old chestnut. Where can I buy tourisms?

I get a monthly 'tourism' benefit payed into my bank account. It's great, god save them all.

[Amsterdam_Neil_D]

35 minutes ago, Xann said:

The Tories have designed their Christmas card already; they have gone very early here IMO.

The addition of a small packet of "Grenfell Soot" is also a nice touch as oppose to non-eco-friendly glitter and stars that sometimes accompanies cards of this type.

 

[PompeyVillan]

Well at least she's pretending to look upset about it. It's the least she could do. 

As it happens, it's actually all that she has done. 

[AVFCDAN]

53 minutes ago, bickster said:

That old chestnut. Where can I buy tourisms?

So the worldwide interest and increased tourist levels around the event count for nothing?