That is twisting it - Socialism/Communism ultimately is an attempt to brute force past the inadequacies of human nature, eventually you reach the point (due to the problems of reconciling between individuals under those principles) that for them to be successful you have to resort to Totalitarianism it isn't something that is advocated in the writings of Marx, etc. but an unfortunately reality that can be seen time and time again in history.
Tower block fire - london
- Thread starter robfosters
- Start date
That is twisting it - Socialism/Communism ultimately is an attempt to brute force past the inadequacies of human nature, eventually you reach the point (due to the problems of reconciling between individuals under those principles) that for them to be successful you have to resort to Totalitarianism it isn't something that is advocated in the writings of Marx, etc. but an unfortunately reality that can be seen time and time again in history.
this is very confused.. no one has even mentioned Smith apart from you
What is twisting what?
In discussing a chancellor who values Marx ideas, It's been suggested Marxism is somehow an equivalent or opposite to fascism.
Whilst fascism AKA Radical Nationalist Authoritarianism (let's shake hands with Trump) is virtually, by definition, totalitarian government for national interest, I can't see where Marx suggested/encouraged similar, primarily, because he likely didn't.
I'll mention it once more, because it does and should shake these simple notions of lefties and righties a little.
"Communist" China is by most measures the most successful "Capitalist" nation on earth at the moment.
This is not me advocating becoming China, just pointing out that perhaps the post war governments (Red and Blue) weren't raging communists, perhaps they just read a little Marx/Smith as I'm sure did Keynes, who's work informed western Europe for some time!
If you're confused over the comparison of blaming smith for Hitler or Marx for Stalin we can discuss it further, perhaps a new thread at this point would be useful!
I don't think I'm the one who is confused here - what on earth does Hitler have to do with Adam Smith?
I suggested corbyn would have blood on his hands by the end of the weekend and you suggested a wager - hmmmm...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...grenfell-tower-protesters-revealed-volunteer/
By "direct paths" he is talking about the real world unfolding of a system using those principles rather than the ideology proscribed by the likes of Marx.
So getting back on topic...
Apparently the cladding that was used on Grenfell tower was banned in the UK for high rise buildings.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...enfell-tower-banned-in-uk-says-philip-hammond
Apparently the cladding that was used on Grenfell tower was banned in the UK for high rise buildings.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...enfell-tower-banned-in-uk-says-philip-hammond
Was posted earlier that isn't true or atleast its a more complex story.
Supposedly its legal to use in the UK including on high rise (according to the company selling it) but there are queries over whether it was used in a way that was breach of regulations for it.
Supposedly its legal to use in the UK including on high rise (according to the company selling it) but there are queries over whether it was used in a way that was breach of regulations for it.
Last edited:
The fire regulations say that the materials used on the outside of a building should be appropriate. It's in approved document B (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...chment_data/file/485420/BR_PDF_AD_B1_2013.pdf).
So while the material wasn't specifically banned, the regulations already do/did cover what you're allowed to build things out of. In the same way that petrol isn't illegal but there's likely a law that you'd fall foul of if you tried to fill a public swimming pool with it.
The discussion then moves onto how buildings are approved, who has responsibility for ensuring the specified materials as per planning submissions are used and not substituted, and how a final inspection is carried out to ensure that the finished product matches the approved plans. My understanding is that there's a lot of self-certification that may need to be reconsidered.
So while the material wasn't specifically banned, the regulations already do/did cover what you're allowed to build things out of. In the same way that petrol isn't illegal but there's likely a law that you'd fall foul of if you tried to fill a public swimming pool with it.
The discussion then moves onto how buildings are approved, who has responsibility for ensuring the specified materials as per planning submissions are used and not substituted, and how a final inspection is carried out to ensure that the finished product matches the approved plans. My understanding is that there's a lot of self-certification that may need to be reconsidered.
It's banned in the USA and Germany but not here supposedly. It's a weird story, if the news are correct about the fire resistant alternative being £2 more expensive, there is such mishandling of this. Rydon (i think) who won the contract, offered just shy of £9 million to do the refurb but there was £10 million set aside from the government. Why cut a corners there, I literally can't get my head around it.
Problem as i see it, is, how would the building inspectors know if what was inside the cladding was fire resistant or not, the actually cladding looks the same i would have thought, just what's hidden away will be different. It's not like they are going to check every single bit of cladding. I personally lay more blame at the constructors, these guys are meant to be the experts, it's why the government contract this stuff out. Shocking cutting of corners, if that is the case though.we need to see the designs to have a full understanding of what was meant to be used and where.
Problem as i see it, is, how would the building inspectors know if what was inside the cladding was fire resistant or not, the actually cladding looks the same i would have thought, just what's hidden away will be different. It's not like they are going to check every single bit of cladding. I personally lay more blame at the constructors, these guys are meant to be the experts, it's why the government contract this stuff out. Shocking cutting of corners, if that is the case though.we need to see the designs to have a full understanding of what was meant to be used and where.
Last edited:
There is so much misinformation being published. On one hand you have the Independent claiming it wasn't fire rated then theres the Guardian saying it was fire rated. Pretty sure they switched sides at one point.
I have no idea which one is correct
.
I have no idea which one is correct
.thought you were on about lilly allen for a mo, saw that silly mare on the tv having a good ole rant at the gov, odd how the gov is getting blamed by the media and celebs rather than the council.
Make people personally liable for the answers they give to people doing the final sign-off on the build. If you're in doubt that what you're installing is legit then take a panel from the batch aside and try and set it on fire. "Dunno what we built that out of, can you sign the work off anyway please" isn't workable.
I guess somebody felt bad about the laughable £10 given to those who survived and are paying out £5,500 instead, which is all fine and good for those who lost their belongings, but what about those who
lost a loved one?
http://www.scotsman.com/news/grenfell-tower-disaster-victims-to-be-given-5-500-each-1-4479289
lost a loved one?
http://www.scotsman.com/news/grenfell-tower-disaster-victims-to-be-given-5-500-each-1-4479289
It's not like they're allowed to walk back in and get their stuff...
I should bloody well hope so. Also according to the Metro this morning, the 5500 is only a start.
Associate
- Joined
- 22 Sep 2007
- Posts
- 2,184
- Location
- Abingdon
I like the way the protestors are beating anyone in a suit they think works for the council and then complain that the council isn't doing enough to help them.
It's like watching news from some despotic third world country.
It's like watching news from some despotic third world country.