• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics

galeforce said:
from what I've seen of budget negotiations i'm sure it didn't come down to saving £2 a panel, this would have been part of a much wider cost reduction exercise and this was merely the line the tragedy has been traced too

it's never a single failing that causes these disasters, the press do a disservice to the complexities with their hot takes
Click to expand...

Surely the failure is that regulations allow buildings to be cladded in the material used? It should be banned and it should have been on a banned list already, given that it is banned in other countries on buildings of a certain height.
 
the dza said:
Surely the failure is that regulations allow buildings to be cladded in the material used? It should be banned and it should have been on a banned list already, given that it is banned in other countries on buildings of a certain height.
Click to expand...

Do you think they purposely sourced this?
 
parklane1 said:
Indeed on lots of things, like going to the CM leaders shouting and bawling about he was going to changes things, coming back with his tail between his legs and then doing a runner when the majority decided to vote out. If anyone IS to blame for Brexit he is.
Click to expand...

I had a row with some local party members after the Lisbon treaty debacle. Said I woyld never trust him or vote for him. Lisbon treaty is where it all started to go wrong for Cameron, that is the seed that grew Brexit because a lot after that went to UKIP and did not return.

As for Brown he lost an election but before the change over signed the new EU budget which is half the problem for us now. What with selling our Gold at record lows, I would say that man should be in a prison cell right now. You do not want to get me started on what he did to my pension.
 
Grays_1890 said:
Do you think they purposely sourced this?
Click to expand...

I suppose that someone chose this over a different option and this was done for one reason or another, but I don't know.

My point is, it should not have been an option, regulations should have precluded that type of cladding from being available. This is a regulatory failure, imo.
 
the dza said:
I suppose that someone chose this over a different option and this was done for one reason or another, but I don't know.

My point is, it should not have been an option, regulations should have precluded that type of cladding from being available. This is a regulatory failure, imo.
Click to expand...
You'll probably find that the cheaper ones are rated to standard sbdhdhdg3636362b and the expensive ones to dhdhdhd773d. So some average Joe in the council shrugged and picked one.
 
the dza said:
I suppose that someone chose this over a different option and this was done for one reason or another, but I don't know.

My point is, it should not have been an option, regulations should have precluded that type of cladding from being available. This is a regulatory failure, imo.
Click to expand...

One option people won't accept is maybe its just an awful awful accident
 
scaramanga said:
You'll probably find that the cheaper ones are rated to standard sbdhdhdg3636362b and the expensive ones to dhdhdhd773d. So some average Joe in the council shrugged and picked one.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't surprise me, I don't think someone made a malicious choice to save a few grand on a £10m development, that doesn't really make a lot of sense. I've never had to make a choice like that, but if I did, I would think I'd choose the one that covers my arse in a worst case scenario, which would be the safe option that costs a negligible amount more.

But some bod at the council/whoever makes the decision should not have the choice to make, we have the expertise in this country for stuff like this to be regulated and people protected. Then the options available to people who don't know what's safe and what isn't is then restricted to safe choices.
 
Grays_1890 said:
One option people won't accept is maybe its just an awful awful accident
Click to expand...

How is it an accident if the cladding is flammable and dangerous to the degree that it is already banned in Germany and the USA for buildings above a certain height? Not everything in the world is just "oh well, nobodies fault, nevermind." This is a massive phuck up that would have happened sooner or later and now that it has happened, perhaps the regulations that were not strong enough in the first place will be further strengthened to protect people.
 
the dza said:
Wouldn't surprise me, I don't think someone made a malicious choice to save a few grand on a £10m development, that doesn't really make a lot of sense. I've never had to make a choice like that, but if I did, I would think I'd choose the one that covers my arse in a worst case scenario, which would be the safe option that costs a negligible amount more.

But some bod at the council/whoever makes the decision should not have the choice to make, we have the expertise in this country for stuff like this to be regulated and people protected. Then the options available to people who don't know what's safe and what isn't is then restricted to safe choices.
Click to expand...
I don't think you can just ban the product entirely, it has to be on a use case.

I might be wrong, but my understanding is that the product is rated as safe enough on buildings with sprinkler systems and some other measures. Again, I'm fairly sure it will come down to a lack of expertise and someone simply not knowing or assuming without checking.
 
scaramanga said:
I don't think you can just ban the product entirely, it has to be on a use case.

I might be wrong, but my understanding is that the product is rated as safe enough on buildings with sprinkler systems and some other measures. Again, I'm fairly sure it will come down to a lack of expertise and someone simply not knowing or assuming without checking.
Click to expand...

Yes, I think that's why (according to the news online) this type of cladding is banned for buildings above a certain height, in both Germany and the USA. I also read somewhere that some German politicians are calling for a strengthening of their own regulations in light of the fire in Kensington.
 
the dza said:
How is it an accident if the cladding is flammable and dangerous to the degree that it is already banned in Germany and the USA for buildings above a certain height? Not everything in the world is just "oh well, nobodies fault, nevermind." This is a massive phuck up that would have happened sooner or later and now that it has happened, perhaps the regulations that were not strong enough in the first place will be further strengthened to protect people.
Click to expand...
Some tweets on the BBC just now that suggest the fire retardant version of the cladding might not have been available when the work was done, whether that's the case or not will have to be established, but perhaps shows the need to wait until we know the facts before apportioning the blame?

https://twitter.com/x/status/875718791669440514
 
Seedy Ron said:
Some tweets on the BBC just now that suggest the fire retardant version of the cladding might not have been available when the work was done, whether that's the case or not will have to be established, but perhaps shows the need to wait until we know the facts before apportioning the blame?

https://twitter.com/x/status/875718791669440514
Click to expand...

And if we had regulations prohibiting the use of the type of cladding that was used, then it would not matter if the other type was not available at the time, because the flammable stuff would not have been available to use in any event.
 
parklane1 said:
Indeed on lots of things, like going to the CM leaders shouting and bawling about he was going to changes things, coming back with his tail between his legs and then doing a runner when the majority decided to vote out. If anyone IS to blame for Brexit he is.
Click to expand...

I think his hands were tied.
Do you blame him for the referendum choice/lack of a new settlement with the EU or both

Also I wouldn't believe Theresa May when she goes into talks either with her rhetoric of " no deal is better than a bad deal". She will have to accept less.
 
spitshine said:
She will have to accept less.
Click to expand...

She won't be in post by the end of the summer, let alone the end of negotiations. The government is careering from disaster to disaster at the moment and she is making them worse.

This feels like the end of the Major government when they had no control of events. What is really scary is that we are just one week after an election and theoretically, this could last for five years.
 
the dza said:
And if we had regulations prohibiting the use of the type of cladding that was used, then it would not matter if the other type was not available at the time, because the flammable stuff would not have been available to use in any event.
Click to expand...
True, again though was that known when it was used? Was it already banned in the United States & Germany? Was the fire in Dubai before or after they put this stuff on? I've had a quick look but not found out yet.
 
This all makes me wonder how many other disasters waiting to happen there are. I just sort of assumed we had the proper regulations for fire safety, I didn't think it was possible, in this country, to put some stuff on the outside of a tower block that isn't safe in the event of a fire.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back