The Great Tower Block Fire Tragedy of London

[bickster]

Just now, AVFCDAN said:

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

The vast majority of visitors to London will be from the UK, they will not be bringing money into the country, they will instead be diverting their spare money from their local community to the central London economy. This is why the tourism argument is complete nonsense, in fact, it's counterproductive. London needs the money less than almost everywhere else in the country

 

[chrisp65]

 

I'm well up for next weekend. 

 

[bickster]

51 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

 

I'm well up for next weekend. 

 

What is the collective noun for Royalist Nutjobs? (Answers on a postcard please)

[snowychap]

1 minute ago, bickster said:

What is the collective noun for Royalist Nutjobs? (Answers on a postcard please)

A Witchell?

[bickster]

Any way, we've digressed somewhat from the Grenfell topic so its probably best to get it back on Topic

[Stevo985]

39 minutes ago, bickster said:

What is the collective noun for Royalist Nutjobs? (Answers on a postcard please)

words removed

[Demitri_C]

4 hours ago, lapal_fan said:

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.

My question though is why is tax payer paying for this? Genuine question

[lapal_fan]

20 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

My question though is why is tax payer paying for this? Genuine question

I dunno, I'll ask Harry when I next see him. 

My point is, is you're not having to pay any more tax than you would because of it.  And you wouldn't pay any less tax if "we" weren't paying for it either. 

Edited May 14, 2018 by lapal_fan

[Demitri_C]

29 minutes ago, lapal_fan said:

I dunno, I'll ask Harry when I next see him. 

My point is, is you're not having to pay any more tax than you would because of it.  And you wouldn't pay any less tax if "we" weren't paying for it either. 

I get that I am not paying more of less but my argument is why does this money have to be wasted on a dress she will never wear again?

The only way I would be happy with this is if this dress was donated to charity and funds to towards homeless or a charity of that nature.

[chrisp65]

On Building Regs, it is still today very much the case that building control cannot cope with the work they are supposed to process in the time they are given to do it.

When an application goes in, a Client can choose to hire a private firm, or they can go through the local authority.

It is the norm to choose 'private'. This other company then notifies the local authority that they will be working in the area. The local authority then has three working days to express an interest, i.e. look at the project, look at the drawings and specification available and decide if it needs input. No response is deemed no interest from the LA and we are all free to go our own merry way with a scheme in Newcastle being 'monitored' by a small private firm in Exeter that relies on the repeat business to pay its staff wages.

The LA, with no prior knowledge that a scheme was coming in, does not have the resources or set up to receive post, allocate it to a case officer, assess it and respond within three days.

Literally once in the last 2 years I've had an LA express any interest in calling a scheme in to assess it.

I have recently had a question via e-mail from an LA, asking if a project has started yet. I was able to say not only had it started, but it finished 2 weeks ago.

If the proper assessment of materials isn't going to change much, and the review of building projects isn't going to change much, I'd guess nothing's going to change much. 

 

[bickster]

1 hour ago, lapal_fan said:

I dunno, I'll ask Harry when I next see him. 

My point is, is you're not having to pay any more tax than you would because of it.  And you wouldn't pay any less tax if "we" weren't paying for it either. 

But your tax might be paying for something more beneficial to society

[lapal_fan]

1 minute ago, bickster said:

But your tax might be paying for something more beneficial to society

I don't doubt it.

I do actually, because we know a lot about the type of people who spend it.  They're ****. 

[tonyh29]

19 hours ago, bickster said:

But your tax might be paying for something more beneficial to society

Bombs on Syria ?

[bickster]

4 hours ago, tonyh29 said:

Bombs on Syria ?

Might be, possibly, could be

[snowychap]

The Beeb:

Quote

The insulation that burned out of control on Grenfell Tower had never passed the required safety test and should never have been on the building, a BBC investigation has discovered.

Panorama understands the manufacturer, Celotex, used extra fire retardant in the product that qualified for the safety certificate.

A more flammable version was then sold for public use, the programme believes.

Celotex said it is co-operating with the police investigation and inquiry.

The company said it could not comment further but wished to express its deepest sympathies to everyone who was and remains affected by the fire. But it has not denied any of Panorama's allegations.

Panorama also accused Celotex of mis-selling the insulation with misleading marketing.

The programme has been advised that the way Celotex tested and sold the insulation could amount to corporate manslaughter.

Hundreds of buildings

The RS5000 insulation, which was used in the refurbishment of Grenfell, gives off toxic fumes which contain cyanide when it burns. Panorama understands that almost all of the 72 people who died at Grenfell were killed by smoke.

Celotex's plastic foam insulation has been used on hundreds of other buildings around the country.

Fire safety expert Arnold Tarling said he was shocked by the revelation: "Well, words fail me. This is absolutely mind-blowing. This material is all over the place."

The change in formula was not the only problem with the fire safety test that the insulation passed.

The BS8414-2 test only showed RS5000 was safe to use on certain new build projects when it was combined with a specific fire-proof cladding panel.

But Celotex knowingly misled buyers about RS5000.

Its marketing suggested the insulation was suitable for use with other cladding panels and for tower block refurbishment projects like Grenfell. Neither was true.

The company was repeatedly warned that its marketing was misleading, but it carried on mis-selling the product anyway.

Panorama has discovered Celotex targeted the contractors who were refurbishing Grenfell and specifically offered its flammable insulation - even though the company knew it was going to be combined with combustible cladding panels.

Matt Wrack, general secretary of the Fire Brigades Union, said Panorama's allegations should be investigated: "If there are breaches of the law then those people need to be held to account."

'Co-operating fully'

Celotex said it wished to express its deepest sympathies to everyone who was and remains affected by the fire.

It said it was co-operating fully with all the inquiries into the Grenfell Tower fire, including the police investigation and the public inquiry.

"We believe that the right forum for considering and assessing the many, complex and inter-related issues which arise in relation to the fire - and which require consideration of the involvement of all relevant parties - is through these official investigations. We do not think it is appropriate to comment any further outside of or in advance of that process."

When Panorama told Celotex that its actions might amount to corporate manslaughter, the company said: "We fully recognise the seriousness of the Grenfell fire. It is for this reason that we believe the public inquiry and the police investigation are the right processes to consider the events leading up to the fire, and the night of the fire itself."

The programme also reveals for the first time that the cladding panels and insulation used at Grenfell were never tested together before the fire.

Robert Bond, chief executive of the main contractor Rydon, tells the programme that testing of the cladding system wasn't required because "it was deemed to comply".

But Panorama understands the company had a legal responsibility to test the system for safety.

Grenfell: Who is to Blame? will be broadcast on BBC One at 20:00 BST on 21 May.

 

[snowychap]

UK government admits £400m to replace flammable cladding will be taken from Affordable Homes Programme

Quote

A £400m fund announced by Theresa May to pay for replacing combustible cladding on up to 158 social housing high-rise buildings following the Grenfell Tower fire, means fewer affordable homes will be built in the coming years, it has emerged.

The government has admitted that the funds for the renovations are being taken from the Affordable Homes Programme.

Neither May nor the secretary of state for housing, James Brokenshire, mentioned that the money was coming from that budget when they announced the bailout last week, triggering widespread relief in the housing sector.

Across England more than 300 towers rising above 18 metres and clad in similar materials to those used on Grenfell have failed laboratory fire tests and about half are in the social housing sector. Social landlords had lobbied the government hard for the money, saying they could not otherwise afford the replacement work.

Uncertainty remains about what cladding materials should be used because the government has yet to confirm whether all combustible materials will be banned for cladding, although on Wednesday May said she was “minded” to do so.

The details of the funding for the scheme emerged in a written answer from the housing minister, Dominic Raab, following questioning from the shadow housing secretary, John Healey.

Raab said: “This does mean that fewer homes will be delivered in the short term.” But he claimed that £400m would be added to the next Affordable Homes Programme budget, which was not due to start until 2021-22.

The initial aim was to provide 225,000 units through the Affordable Homes Programme up to 2021. The government has not said how many fewer homes would be built.

Even if £150,000 were spent building every home it would mean a reduction in the new supply of affordable housing units of almost 2,700 over the period up to 2021-22.

Raab said: “The government will fully fund the removal and replacement of dangerous aluminium composite material cladding [used on Grenfell] on buildings owned by councils and housing associations, with costs estimated at £400m ... Our Affordable Homes Programme remains over £9bn, with £400m of that now available in 2021-22.

“This responds to calls from social landlords for longer term certainty of grant funding for new homes. The programme will still deliver the same number of homes, but this does mean that fewer homes will be delivered in the short term.”

He added: “We will announce more details shortly about how councils and housing associations can apply for funding, including conditions attached to the grant.”

[TRO]

On 21/05/2018 at 17:33, snowychap said:

The Beeb:

 

The thing that puzzles me, is the little coverage of the source of the fire.

I have read or heard nothing about the Flat in question, who lived there?, what caused it? ( just a vague suggestion of a refrigerator malfunction) etc,etc.

Surely , the cause of this fire lay in one Flat?

For sure the magnitude of the fire lay in the cladding and all the other criticisms are legitimate.....But one flat caused this fire and all the other things being said just caused the mass devastation....I don't get how we can easily skip over the source, so easily.

[Paddywhack]

One of the rags named the person who they believed lived in the flat and printed their photo, which most people agreed was a disgusting thing to do.

[snowychap]

24 minutes ago, TRO said:

The thing that puzzles me, is the little coverage of the source of the fire.

I have read or heard nothing about the Flat in question, who lived there?, what caused it? ( just a vague suggestion of a refrigerator malfunction) etc,etc.

Surely , the cause of this fire lay in one Flat?

For sure the magnitude of the fire lay in the cladding and all the other criticisms are legitimate.....But one flat caused this fire and all the other things being said just caused the mass devastation....I don't get how we can easily skip over the source, so easily.

I'm not sure why it's of import (given that it hasn't been reported as arson). Fires happen.

 

[bickster]

7 minutes ago, TRO said:

The thing that puzzles me, is the little coverage of the source of the fire.

I have read or heard nothing about the Flat in question, who lived there?, what caused it? ( just a vague suggestion of a refrigerator malfunction) etc,etc.

Surely , the cause of this fire lay in one Flat?

For sure the magnitude of the fire lay in the cladding and all the other criticisms are legitimate.....But one flat caused this fire and all the other things being said just caused the mass devastation....I don't get how we can easily skip over the source, so easily.

The source is pretty much irrelevant if it wasn't for the cladding the fire would probably not have spread past the one flat, certainly not as fast and certainly not with cyanide gas being given off, most people died as a result of the gas inhilation