Tower block fire - london

Caracus2k · 16 Jun 2017 at 14:33

sanaxe1 said:
Just because money was spent it doesn't mean it wasn't austerity. It could have been that to have the building to a safe standard it would have cost £12m but only £9m was approved due to austerity for example.

practically everything could have 'more money spent on it' to make it 'safer' the guidelines for the acceptable standard are the building regs in this case. Money supply is in practice finite and choices have to be made ....and is not then only consideration people want a nice comfortable environment as well

MooMoo444 · 16 Jun 2017 at 14:36

Traumatised firefighters who "saw things they had never seen before" in the Grenfell Tower blaze are receiving counselling through the fire brigade.

Deputy Assistant Commissioner Jane Philpott said crews had witnessed shocking scenes. One firefighter, identified as Terry, said he had seen "nothing like it" during his 27 years in the service.

Another, Ben Holehouse, 45, said he witnessed scenes of complete "devastation and horror."

The firefighters and London Fire Brigade said the operation was physically and mentally exhausting.

Mental health experts said a large majority of emergency workers experienced stress and other mental health problems.

grim

StriderX · 16 Jun 2017 at 14:37

Caracus2k said:
practically everything could have 'more money spent on it' to make it 'safer' the guidelines for the acceptable standard are the building regs in this case. Money supply is in practice finite and choices have to be made ....and is not then only consideration people want a nice comfortable environment as well

Eh, no... the money supply is less than it should be, just look at GILT undersupply for UK debt that the market had as much as 6 times oversubscribed. National debt is the safest investment ever, but pray tell how you know otherwise?

sanaxe1 · 16 Jun 2017 at 14:37

ubersonic said:
Government contracts don't usually work like that, they either go all out (or at least attempt to) or say they don't have the money and do nothing.

My local council were planning a £9m renovation of the town centre. Due to budget cuts they only spent £3m on the renovation of the town centre.

Caracus2k · 16 Jun 2017 at 14:44

StriderX said:
Eh, no Money supply is less than it should be, just look at GILT undersupply for UK debt that the market had as much as 6 times oversubscribed. National debt is the safest investment ever, but pray tell how you know otherwise?

money supply for a council or housing association is most definitely 'finite'. If the works did (that's an 'if') met building regs then you wouldn't get very far spending millions more when you have to weigh up multiple competing demands

ubersonic · 16 Jun 2017 at 14:45

StriderX said:
"To accord with the development plan by ensuring that the character and appearance of the area are preserved and living conditions of those living near the development suitably protected."

That's standard planning permission blurb, it means you're not allowed to paint it flourescent pink or some nonsense like that which would lower the character/appearance of the area.

Caracus2k · 16 Jun 2017 at 14:47

ubersonic said:
That's standard planning permission blurb, it means you're not allowed to paint it flourescent pink or some nonsense like that which would lower the character/appearance of the area.

No it's evidence of an evil tory plan to recklessly endanger the poor whilst making sure they have nice views /sarcasm

StriderX · 16 Jun 2017 at 14:48

ubersonic said:
That's standard planning permission blurb, it means you're not allowed to paint it flourescent pink or some nonsense like that which would lower the character/appearance of the area.

Which is why it's relatively unimportant, honestly it's not a totally stupid reason to do something, it would be if it was the only reason - which i have no idea.

dalehitchy1 · 16 Jun 2017 at 14:48

Just watched the Andrea interview

http://news.sky.com/story/andrea-le...m-not-meeting-grenfell-tower-victims-10917280

You can see the anger. May really could have calmed the situation down by just turning up and having a few small chats.

I understand anger can het out of hand but the role of a good leader is to lead. Its really disheartening whe you have lost everything and a privileged MP turns up and talks to the police then fobs off.

Caracus2k · 16 Jun 2017 at 14:52

dalehitchy1 said:
Just watched the Andrea interview

http://news.sky.com/story/andrea-le...m-not-meeting-grenfell-tower-victims-10917280

You can see the anger. May really could have calmed the situation down by just turning up and having a few small chats.

I understand anger can het out of hand but the role of a good leader is to lead. Its really disheartening whe you have lost everything and a privileged MP turns up and talks to the police then fobs off.

get real ....she would have just be the target of vitriol and the media would have been there to lap it up. End result no benefit to the residents and no benefit to the tories or May. Even Sadiq Khan took some grief

Cern · 16 Jun 2017 at 14:52

Caracus2k said:
money supply for a council or housing association is most definitely 'finite'. If the works did (that's an 'if') met building regs then you wouldn't get very far spending millions more when you have to weigh up multiple competing demands

Yes money supply is finite and even without austerity councils cannot do everything they might want to do. But it is not enough to simply say that if a development meets building regulations then going for cheapest possible option is 100% fine. It's well known that the bar is set rather low in certain areas of safety regulation. It's also clear that the Conservative government plan to use Brexit to have a bonfire of red tape to further deregulate and lower the bar still further so that their developer and landlord cronies can make even more money. So "meeting regulations" becomes meaningless if those regulations offer no tangible protection.

dowie · 16 Jun 2017 at 14:55

sanaxe1 said:
Just because money was spent it doesn't mean it wasn't austerity. It could have been that to have the building to a safe standard it would have cost £12m but only £9m was approved due to austerity for example.

well we just had an 'expert' on the BBC saying that the costs were quite high for this sort of project and other materials could have been used. The idea that this is just the cheapest option rather than perhaps a bad decision isn't so clear. There certainly doesn't seem to be a clear argument that it is the fault of 'austerity' or 'the Tories' - much as people in here would seem to like to turn this into a political rant.

Has there been some profiteering on the part of contractors here?

Caracus2k · 16 Jun 2017 at 14:57

Cern said:
Yes money supply is finite and even without austerity councils cannot do everything they might want to do. But it is not enough to simply say that if a development meets building regulations then going for cheapest possible option is 100% fine. It's well known that the bar is set rather low in certain areas of safety regulation. It's also clear that the Conservative government plan to use Brexit to have a bonfire of red tape to further deregulate and lower the bar still further so that their developer and landlord cronies can make even more money. So "meeting regulations" becomes meaningless if those regulations offer no tangible protection.

I'm not for weakening building regs..... so what would be a 100% fine solution im your view (i don't believe it exists as life is a series of trade offs)

sanaxe1 · 16 Jun 2017 at 14:57

dowie said:
well we just had an 'expert' on the BBC saying that the costs were quite high for this sort of project and other materials could have been used. The idea that this is just the cheapest option rather than perhaps a bad decision isn't so clear. There certainly doesn't seem to be a clear argument that it is the fault of 'austerity' or 'the Tories' - much as people in here would seem to like to turn this into a political rant.

I'm not saying that it was austerity which caused this. I was just pointing out to People that just because money has been spent i on something doesn't mean that it wasn't austerity.

Cern · 16 Jun 2017 at 15:01

dowie said:
well we just had an 'expert' on the BBC saying that the costs were quite high for this sort of project and other materials could have been used. The idea that this is just the cheapest option rather than perhaps a bad decision isn't so clear. There certainly doesn't seem to be a clear argument that it is the fault of 'austerity' or 'the Tories' - much as people in here would seem to like to turn this into a political rant.

Has there been some profiteering on the part of contractors here?

It would seem to be the case. There was a more fire resistant option which would have been £2 per square metre more expensive, which in the big picture of things wouldn't have put the overall cost up that much or indeed eaten into their profits that much.

There's no suggestion the company that did the cladding broke the law, the materials used appear to have been within regulations, just the cheapest possible that conformed to regulations. This only goes to back up the point that regulations become meaningless if the bar is set too low.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...-grenfell-tower-identified-as-omnis-exteriors

ubersonic · 16 Jun 2017 at 15:02

dowie said:
Has there been some profiteering on the part of contractors here?

Well we don't have all the facts yet but we do know that the contractor used substandard cladding which didn't meet building regs, and that that contractor has since gone out of business, so yes lol.

Dis86 · 16 Jun 2017 at 15:03

ubersonic said:
Well we don't have all the facts yet but we do know that the contractor used substandard cladding which didn't meet building regs, and that that contractor has since gone out of business, so yes lol.

Source? Everything I've read says it meets regs.

Cern · 16 Jun 2017 at 15:04

Caracus2k said:
I'm not for weakening building regs..... so what would be a 100% fine solution im your view (i don't believe it exists as life is a series of trade offs)

£2 per square metre extra for flame resistant materials is not much of a "trade off" if you ask me. It might not have stopped the building burning down, but it might have slowed the fire down enough to save more lives.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...-grenfell-tower-identified-as-omnis-exteriors

LOAM · 16 Jun 2017 at 15:04

dowie said:
ah but the tories, the tories... etc.. didn't that relate to private landlords - what does that have to do with the maintenance of council owned tower blocks? I guess as it is housing related it is an excuse to start more ranting about 'the Tories'

No it was report into the fire at Lakanal House in 2009, who's landlord was Southwark council.

Caracus2k · 16 Jun 2017 at 15:05

Cern said:
It would seem to be the case. There was a more fire resistant option which would have been £2 per square metre more expensive, which in the big picture of things wouldn't have put the overall cost up that much or indeed eaten into their profits that much.

There's no suggestion the company that did the cladding broke the law, the materials used appear to have been within regulations, just the cheapest possible that conformed to regulations. This only goes to back up the point that regulations become meaningless if the bar is set too low.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...-grenfell-tower-identified-as-omnis-exteriors

so an enquiry properly conducted can make a recommendation to change the building regs......

cost and fire retardance are not the only consideration .... How much did the alternative weigh, how easy is it to fit and handle, what's its comparative longevity etc etc