Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 8,341
true, my argument would be if the government cared they might want to put a bit of effort into youth suicide rates these days, as that's becoming a big issue.
Tower block fire - london
- Thread starter robfosters
- Start date
true, my argument would be if the government cared they might want to put a bit of effort into youth suicide rates these days, as that's becoming a big issue.
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Sep 2005
- Posts
- 16,726
What about women drivers? can we ban them
same story has been posted already - do we know for sure where this went wrong - did the council specify that cladding? Did a contractor take a shortcut? Was the other type of cladding specified and not used? etc..
and also, more pressing, where else is this cladding currently installed? How many other tall buildings are currently unsafe?
(questions not necessarily directed at you but just thoughts from that news)
I can sense your excitement at this development...
statistically safer for most ages on a per annum basis but women generally drive less distance wise so the picture is different per mile
would a labour council have paid for the more expensive option? more to spec than just fire retardance.... But in reality the cheapest bid that meets the regs by a company deemed able to do the work generally wins the bid be in tory or a labour council......
unless you have evidence to the contrary? Do you think there's not one labour run council with public housing with similar cladding on it?
That link says that they used Reynobond PE cladding as opposed to Reynobond FR cladding.
I have no idea about the technical specs of this but the datasheet for these products (here) lists both variants as 'Class A' for 'flame spread' and 'smoke developed'
Again, I dont know what any of these figures mean, but I wonder if the "more flammable" version talked about in the link actually still meets the regulations?
I think, like a few other posters, he's trying to make it a political issue before the facts have even really become clear
would you be calling it a council run building in the same fashion if it was a strong labour seat? I don't think so.... because I believe your a hypocrite using a tradegy to score political points
It doesn't automatically lay the blame on anyone. Did the architects provide a specification that allowed this material? Do relevant standards allow its use? Did a contractor decide to swap an approved material for a 'similar' one, not considering the implications? Had appropriate design, checking, inspection and testing procedures been carried out? Did the council pay for or provide appropriate construction supervision to ensure that work was done to spec?
A thorough investigation is needed and that will take time.
If somone has been negligent, fraudulent or whatever I hope that they will face the consequences. But equally, I don't what to see people or organisations that are not at fault being scapegoated in this.
It is a political issue because successive housing ministers have sat on a report in to the 2009 blaze at Lakanal House in Camberwell. Irrespective of the how this investigation pans out, the contents of that report and any recommendations should have been made available to guide industry.
But it is a Labour seat, that doesnt mean much however as the MP has barely had a moment to realise they won it. I have no idea what sort of council RBKC is, but if it's as horrific as my Labour (well ex-Labour) council, then I'd assume i could relate to the residents a tad. All council's are different, all MP's are different and i won't bother comparing reasonably.
It's not my fault that we've had 7 (20 years if we include Blairite disaster) of horrid ideological austerity/speculation based economy that keeps killing people indirectly with little to no justice being served, which is confirmed instantly by May's quick desire for it to be a public enquiry rather than an inquest.
/slow clap tho
/keep signalling
I'm sure 20 years of marxist corbyn leadership would have left us in a better state in your world view
still the marxist have always excelled at show trials and kangaroo courts so if they were in power no doubt they could swiftly appoint blame.... And punish those deemed responsible
I get that you're trying to blame the Tories at all cost, but think of this logically, if you argue that it wasn't the fault of the contractors who bought/installed the substandard cladding (the now defunct Harley Facades) or the project managers who hired them (Rydon Maintenance), or the landlord who hired them (Kensington and Chelsea TMO) but in fact the fault of the "Tory" council who hired them, isn't the next step in the ladder of lol to blame the voters who elected them?
A fair bit was spent because one of the reasons for cladding was for the surrounding neighborhoods (two conservation areas mainly) having a better view, its all in the planning documents on RBKC council site.
Do you have any proof of this? I've seen a few people claim it but outside of some out of context quotes nobodys been able to substantiate it yet.
Councils just put things out to tender and then decide on various factors (cost obviously being a big one but not the only concern) but if the materials meet building regs then what more are they supposed to do?
Surely the fact building regs allow it is the issue and more testing needs to be done on these materials.
Surely the fact building regs allow it is the issue and more testing needs to be done on these materials.