Chat Forum
It is currently Fri Feb 23, 2018 10:59 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1820 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 ... 46  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 10:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 22997
Location: SOB>Todd
bimboman wrote:
eugenius wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cft52h89roU&sns=em


Shame on those posters that voted Tory, quite frankly .



Oh dear.

Was that meant to be funny? :uhoh:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 10:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 1:44 pm
Posts: 45257
Location: Fighting political correctness with "banter"
Sefton wrote:
c69 wrote:
Panorama now :(

Anything to the headlines on the BBC website or lots of conjecture and anomalies?

Watch it on I player, it's just horrific.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 10:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Posts: 32686
Location: Planet Rock
Floppykid wrote:
bimboman wrote:
eugenius wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cft52h89roU&sns=em


Shame on those posters that voted Tory, quite frankly .



Oh dear.

Was that meant to be funny? :uhoh:

To be fair to bimbo I doubt most people voting tory had any idea the government would wilfully let these tower blocks continue to be clad in flammable blankets after they were told time after time after time it was unsafe.


Last edited by Anonymous. on Mon Jun 19, 2017 10:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 10:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3829
Location: Running from the Baby-faced Baby-eater
c69 wrote:
Sefton wrote:
c69 wrote:
Panorama now :(

Anything to the headlines on the BBC website or lots of conjecture and anomalies?

Watch it on I player, it's just horrific.


Short synopsis? Need a night away from it, so will catch up tomorrow night. The whole thing is absolutely harrowing. I watched an interview with locals on social media, and they were commenting on how the authorities aren't letting the truth out. They referenced their friend who Is a firefighter and was involved in the operation. He stated that they found 42 people dead in the one room. Like WTF is going on?


Last edited by El Homerino on Mon Jun 19, 2017 10:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 10:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 45477
Anonymous. wrote:
Floppykid wrote:
bimboman wrote:
eugenius wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cft52h89roU&sns=em


Shame on those posters that voted Tory, quite frankly .



Oh dear.

Was that meant to be funny? :uhoh:

To be fair to bimbo I doubt most people voting tory had any idea the government would wilfully let these tower blocks be clad in flammable blankets



Should we vote labour who put the stuff up in the first place ?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 10:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 1:44 pm
Posts: 45257
Location: Fighting political correctness with "banter"
bimboman wrote:
Anonymous. wrote:
Floppykid wrote:
bimboman wrote:
eugenius wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cft52h89roU&sns=em


Shame on those posters that voted Tory, quite frankly .



Oh dear.

Was that meant to be funny? :uhoh:

To be fair to bimbo I doubt most people voting tory had any idea the government would wilfully let these tower blocks be clad in flammable blankets



Should we vote labour who put the stuff up in the first place ?

I think you should stfu with your vile party political trolling on these threads ffs
Just for once


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 10:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Posts: 32686
Location: Planet Rock
bimboman wrote:
Anonymous. wrote:
Floppykid wrote:
bimboman wrote:
eugenius wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cft52h89roU&sns=em


Shame on those posters that voted Tory, quite frankly .



Oh dear.

Was that meant to be funny? :uhoh:

To be fair to bimbo I doubt most people voting tory had any idea the government would wilfully let these tower blocks continue to be clad in flammable blankets after they were told time after time after time it was unsafe.



Should we vote labour who put the stuff up in the first place ?

There are lots of things done every decade that at the time people thought was safe to do and it turns out it wasn't. Slag off the people who thought it was safe (or at least we don't have enough proof to prove otherwise) all you want. If the following proves to be true will you finally stop your bullshit
Quote:
Four separate government ministers were warned that fire regulations were not keeping people safe, in letters that have subsequently been seen by the BBC.
In the leaked letters, experts warn that those living in tower blocks like Grenfell Tower were "at risk".
At least 79 people are dead or missing presumed dead after the fire at the London high-rise last week.
The department that received the letters said work to improve regulation and safety had already been under way.
Leaked letters
The letters show experts have been worried about fire safety in tower blocks for years.
Following a fatal fire in Lakanal House in south London in 2009, a series of recommendations were made to keep people safe.
They were ignored. The government promised a review of fire regulations in 2013, but it still has not happened.
BBC One's Panorama has obtained a dozen letters sent by the All-Party Parliamentary Fire Safety and Rescue Group.
Informed by experts, it warned the government it "could not afford to wait for another tragedy".
Four ministers - all from the Department for Communities and Local Government - received letters but did not strengthen the regulations.
Ronnie King, a former chief fire officer who sits on the group, says the government has ignored repeated warnings about tower block safety.
"We have spent four years saying 'Listen, we have got the evidence, we've provided you with the evidence, there is clear public opinion towards this, you ought to move on this'," said Mr King.


I'd be surprised if there were not Labour run councils up and down the country who for a few years at least have not know they had turned their high rises into death traps. I just hope there are none that continued to do so after they had the evidence shoved in their faces


Last edited by Anonymous. on Mon Jun 19, 2017 11:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 11:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2015 4:19 pm
Posts: 3232
Location: A Dreaming Spire
eugenius wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cft52h89roU&sns=em


Shame on those posters that voted Tory, quite frankly .

So much complete and utter shite in that video. Not least the idea that improving the visual quality of the area was only done to help rich people. Improving the external environment is good for everyone, especially those living there. Why wouldn't it be? As an example, look up Broken Windows Theory.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 11:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 17118
HurricaneWasp wrote:
eugenius wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cft52h89roU&sns=em


Shame on those posters that voted Tory, quite frankly .

So much complete and utter shite in that video. Not least the idea that improving the visual quality of the area was only done to help rich people. Improving the external environment is good for everyone, especially those living there. Why wouldn't it be? As an example, look up Broken Windows Theory.

Fûck me, you're reaching now.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 11:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 5406
El Homerino wrote:
c69 wrote:
Sefton wrote:
c69 wrote:
Panorama now :(

Anything to the headlines on the BBC website or lots of conjecture and anomalies?

Watch it on I player, it's just horrific.


Short synopsis? Need a night away from it, so will catch up tomorrow night. The whole thing is absolutely harrowing. I watched an interview with locals on social media, and they were commenting on how the authorities aren't letting the truth out. They referenced their friend who Is a firefighter and was involved in the operation. He stated that they found 42 people dead in the one room. Like WTF is going on?


Really. 42 people in one room?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 11:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 4:09 pm
Posts: 920
Santa wrote:
El Homerino wrote:
c69 wrote:
Sefton wrote:
c69 wrote:
Panorama now :(

Anything to the headlines on the BBC website or lots of conjecture and anomalies?

Watch it on I player, it's just horrific.


Short synopsis? Need a night away from it, so will catch up tomorrow night. The whole thing is absolutely harrowing. I watched an interview with locals on social media, and they were commenting on how the authorities aren't letting the truth out. They referenced their friend who Is a firefighter and was involved in the operation. He stated that they found 42 people dead in the one room. Like WTF is going on?


Really. 42 people in one room?


Suspect they were all coming down when they found a point they could go no further, and found the last bit of....

:?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 11:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 5406
armchair pundit wrote:

Suspect they were all coming down when they found a point they could go no further, and found the last bit of....

:?


Yeah. If true, that's kind of what I imagined.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 11:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 17118
Sounds like bollocks and probably is, but I've been in a couple of fire drills where the place has been flooded with smoke. Even with masks and oxygen people tend to clump/gather together and disorientation occurs very rapidly.

Without that equipment I can certainly see people clumping together down a dead end


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 11:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 5406
I'm going to hold my counsel on the 42. I don't want to be wrong and end up looking stupid on the Internet.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 20, 2017 12:11 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2015 4:19 pm
Posts: 3232
Location: A Dreaming Spire
happyhooker wrote:
HurricaneWasp wrote:
eugenius wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cft52h89roU&sns=em


Shame on those posters that voted Tory, quite frankly .

So much complete and utter shite in that video. Not least the idea that improving the visual quality of the area was only done to help rich people. Improving the external environment is good for everyone, especially those living there. Why wouldn't it be? As an example, look up Broken Windows Theory.

Fûck me, you're reaching now.

:roll: Come on. This idea that cladding was only installed to make the rich people feel good about themselves is just pathetic.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 20, 2017 12:13 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 5406
HurricaneWasp wrote:
happyhooker wrote:
HurricaneWasp wrote:
eugenius wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cft52h89roU&sns=em


Shame on those posters that voted Tory, quite frankly .

So much complete and utter shite in that video. Not least the idea that improving the visual quality of the area was only done to help rich people. Improving the external environment is good for everyone, especially those living there. Why wouldn't it be? As an example, look up Broken Windows Theory.

Fûck me, you're reaching now.

:roll: Come on. This idea that cladding was only installed to make the rich people feel good about themselves is just pathetic.


Yeah that one came out early and has stuck around.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 20, 2017 12:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 40211
c69 wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Anonymous. wrote:
Floppykid wrote:
bimboman wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cft52h89roU&sns=em


Shame on those posters that voted Tory, quite frankly


Oh dear.

Was that meant to be funny? :uhoh:

To be fair to bimbo I doubt most people voting tory had any idea the government would wilfully let these tower blocks be clad in flammable blankets



Should we vote labour who put the stuff up in the first place ?

I think you should stfu with your vile party political trolling on these threads ffs
Just for once



Vintage C69 :?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 20, 2017 12:20 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21922
HurricaneWasp wrote:
happyhooker wrote:
HurricaneWasp wrote:
eugenius wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cft52h89roU&sns=em


Shame on those posters that voted Tory, quite frankly .

So much complete and utter shite in that video. Not least the idea that improving the visual quality of the area was only done to help rich people. Improving the external environment is good for everyone, especially those living there. Why wouldn't it be? As an example, look up Broken Windows Theory.

Fûck me, you're reaching now.

:roll: Come on. This idea that cladding was only installed to make the rich people feel good about themselves is just pathetic.


I imagine Ferrier Point was also provided with cladding so that the Newham super-rich could have a nicer view

Image

http://www.wharf.co.uk/news/local-news/ ... y-13191542


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 20, 2017 1:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 33897
Location: Hut 8
msp. wrote:
It is all very well to blame budget cuts for the fire, They would of made a bad situation worse,

But it seems, the issue was caused by spending 8.5 million sticking what in effect firelighters to the outside of the building and removing fire doors from inside the building..

There was enough money sloshing around to have done the job properly.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 20, 2017 1:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20466
Torquemada 1420 wrote:
msp. wrote:
It is all very well to blame budget cuts for the fire, They would of made a bad situation worse,

But it seems, the issue was caused by spending 8.5 million sticking what in effect firelighters to the outside of the building and removing fire doors from inside the building..

There was enough money sloshing around to have done the job properly.


There certainly was and that is a disgusting part of all of this. To spend that much money and still not sort out the many safety concerns is disgraceful.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 20, 2017 2:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2619
c69 wrote:

I think you should stfu with your vile party political trolling on these threads ffs
Just for once

Why dont you condemn Eugenius and Anon and all the others who have also done it?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 20, 2017 2:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Posts: 32686
Location: Planet Rock
Glaston wrote:
c69 wrote:

I think you should stfu with your vile party political trolling on these threads ffs
Just for once

Why dont you condemn Eugenius and Anon and all the others who have also done it?

Fuck off. I've had a go at the Tory government for what they have done and when Eurenius slagged them off for something they didn't actually do I pointed it out. Are people really still trying to defend this government for ignoring all the warnings and recommendations it's had since it took power. There are thousands of people all over the country at risk because they clearly couldn't give a toss.

What was the first thing the leader of the council came out and did. Blamed the farking tenants for not wanting (according to him) the disruption of putting in sprinklers.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 20, 2017 2:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 7019
Quote:
There seems to be little reason for the government’s inaction other than a desire to save money and a head-in-the-sand hope that disaster would never strike. ‘I don’t feel vindicated, I feel angry’, said my colleague, who I worked on the investigation with. ‘There is a price to pay for cost-cutting and austerity’.


This is a tiresome crock of shite.

Govt and local authorities were spending tons of money refurbishing these blocks - and making them less safe in the process. It's pretty clear some industrial levels of stupidity were going on but it sure as hell has nothing to do with austerity.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 20, 2017 3:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10714
Poor cladding regulations are possibly the main cause for this fire.

The cladding is required for insulation reasons (fair enough) but no thought was given to the fire risk. So safe building are being turned into fire risks

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... wer-blocks
Quote:
“The issue is that, under building regulations, only the surface of the cladding has to be fire-proofed to class 0, which is about surface spread,” says Tarling. “The stuff behind it doesn’t, and it’s this which has burned.” He says he recently inspected a new-build eight storey block in south-east London where there was no fire protection in the external cavity walls. “The insulation behind the external cladding is flammable polyurethane. I know because I took a chunk out and burned it.”


This allowed the cladding used to be given the class 0 rating.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 20, 2017 3:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4210
Silver wrote:
Poor cladding regulations are possibly the main cause for this fire.

The cladding is required for insulation reasons (fair enough) but no thought was given to the fire risk. So safe building are being turned into fire risks

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... wer-blocks
Quote:
“The issue is that, under building regulations, only the surface of the cladding has to be fire-proofed to class 0, which is about surface spread,” says Tarling. “The stuff behind it doesn’t, and it’s this which has burned.” He says he recently inspected a new-build eight storey block in south-east London where there was no fire protection in the external cavity walls. “The insulation behind the external cladding is flammable polyurethane. I know because I took a chunk out and burned it.”


This allowed the cladding used to be given the class 0 rating.


Absolutely spot on.

I posted a link about this pages ago.

There's a loophole that the cladding and insulation don't have a standard when used together or something akin to it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 20, 2017 3:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 33897
Location: Hut 8
theo wrote:
Torquemada 1420 wrote:
msp. wrote:
It is all very well to blame budget cuts for the fire, They would of made a bad situation worse,

But it seems, the issue was caused by spending 8.5 million sticking what in effect firelighters to the outside of the building and removing fire doors from inside the building..

There was enough money sloshing around to have done the job properly.


There certainly was and that is a disgusting part of all of this. To spend that much money and still not sort out the many safety concerns is disgraceful.

You'll see the same appalling wastage every day in the NHS. It's just harder to see the negative outcomes.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 20, 2017 3:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20466
Jake wrote:
Silver wrote:
Poor cladding regulations are possibly the main cause for this fire.

The cladding is required for insulation reasons (fair enough) but no thought was given to the fire risk. So safe building are being turned into fire risks

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... wer-blocks
Quote:
“The issue is that, under building regulations, only the surface of the cladding has to be fire-proofed to class 0, which is about surface spread,” says Tarling. “The stuff behind it doesn’t, and it’s this which has burned.” He says he recently inspected a new-build eight storey block in south-east London where there was no fire protection in the external cavity walls. “The insulation behind the external cladding is flammable polyurethane. I know because I took a chunk out and burned it.”


This allowed the cladding used to be given the class 0 rating.


Absolutely spot on.

I posted a link about this pages ago.

There's a loophole that the cladding and insulation don't have a standard when used together or something akin to it.


The loophole is that if it can be proven that the whole cladding system - including fixings, fire breaks and ventilation channels - are tested to a required standard then they comply. Trouble is how do you test a cladding system for a 22 storey tower? it's all theoretical so, in essence, bollocks when placed into the real world.

It's a major flaw in the system. The type of aluminium cladding used here could only have been used if they had convinced the inspector that the entire system complied with regs. In reality those panels should have been banned outright and certainly banned outright on any tall buildings.

Some major reviews are happening right now to check if they are used on other buildings both commercial and residential. Expect a lot of retrofitting to be taking place - good news for the construction industry!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 20, 2017 3:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4210
theo wrote:
Jake wrote:
Silver wrote:
Poor cladding regulations are possibly the main cause for this fire.

The cladding is required for insulation reasons (fair enough) but no thought was given to the fire risk. So safe building are being turned into fire risks

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... wer-blocks
Quote:
“The issue is that, under building regulations, only the surface of the cladding has to be fire-proofed to class 0, which is about surface spread,” says Tarling. “The stuff behind it doesn’t, and it’s this which has burned.” He says he recently inspected a new-build eight storey block in south-east London where there was no fire protection in the external cavity walls. “The insulation behind the external cladding is flammable polyurethane. I know because I took a chunk out and burned it.”


This allowed the cladding used to be given the class 0 rating.


Absolutely spot on.

I posted a link about this pages ago.

There's a loophole that the cladding and insulation don't have a standard when used together or something akin to it.


The loophole is that if it can be proven that the whole cladding system - including fixings, fire breaks and ventilation channels - are tested to a required standard then they comply. Trouble is how do you test a cladding system for a 22 storey tower? it's all theoretical so, in essence, bollocks when placed into the real world.

It's a major flaw in the system. The type of aluminium cladding used here could only have been used if they had convinced the inspector that the entire system complied with regs. In reality those panels should have been banned outright and certainly banned outright on any tall buildings.

Some major reviews are happening right now to check if they are used on other buildings both commercial and residential. Expect a lot of retrofitting to be taking place - good news for the construction industry!


Theo,

Related- the tests for glazed fire screens were changed by BRE and BBA because at one point, you could test a frame to 1.5 hrs for insulation and integ, and a piece of glass for the same, but you didn't have to test them together as one structure.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 20, 2017 3:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 33897
Location: Hut 8
Jake wrote:
Silver wrote:
Poor cladding regulations are possibly the main cause for this fire.

The cladding is required for insulation reasons (fair enough) but no thought was given to the fire risk. So safe building are being turned into fire risks

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... wer-blocks
Quote:
“The issue is that, under building regulations, only the surface of the cladding has to be fire-proofed to class 0, which is about surface spread,” says Tarling. “The stuff behind it doesn’t, and it’s this which has burned.” He says he recently inspected a new-build eight storey block in south-east London where there was no fire protection in the external cavity walls. “The insulation behind the external cladding is flammable polyurethane. I know because I took a chunk out and burned it.”


This allowed the cladding used to be given the class 0 rating.


Absolutely spot on.

I posted a link about this pages ago.

There's a loophole that the cladding and insulation don't have a standard when used together or something akin to it.

Genius. Theoretically, you could take 2 inert substances and when put together, create something lethal and so the notion of ignoring the complete item and its function is ludicrous. The only other point being they could have rendered the insulation practically inert if they had not built the cladding to create chimneys up the sides.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 20, 2017 3:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Posts: 32686
Location: Planet Rock
theo wrote:
Jake wrote:
Silver wrote:
Poor cladding regulations are possibly the main cause for this fire.

The cladding is required for insulation reasons (fair enough) but no thought was given to the fire risk. So safe building are being turned into fire risks

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... wer-blocks
Quote:
“The issue is that, under building regulations, only the surface of the cladding has to be fire-proofed to class 0, which is about surface spread,” says Tarling. “The stuff behind it doesn’t, and it’s this which has burned.” He says he recently inspected a new-build eight storey block in south-east London where there was no fire protection in the external cavity walls. “The insulation behind the external cladding is flammable polyurethane. I know because I took a chunk out and burned it.”


This allowed the cladding used to be given the class 0 rating.


Absolutely spot on.

I posted a link about this pages ago.

There's a loophole that the cladding and insulation don't have a standard when used together or something akin to it.


The loophole is that if it can be proven that the whole cladding system - including fixings, fire breaks and ventilation channels - are tested to a required standard then they comply. Trouble is how do you test a cladding system for a 22 storey tower? it's all theoretical so, in essence, bollocks when placed into the real world.

It's a major flaw in the system. The type of aluminium cladding used here could only have been used if they had convinced the inspector that the entire system complied with regs. In reality those panels should have been banned outright and certainly banned outright on any tall buildings.

Some major reviews are happening right now to check if they are used on other buildings both commercial and residential. Expect a lot of retrofitting to be taking place - good news for the construction industry!

Lots of councils in London have come out in the few days and stated categorically they have fire resistant cladding. One who used the same firm that did the Grenfell building has confined on that occasion the firm fitted cladding with a rockwool core.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 20, 2017 3:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4210
Torquemada 1420 wrote:
Jake wrote:
Silver wrote:
Poor cladding regulations are possibly the main cause for this fire.

The cladding is required for insulation reasons (fair enough) but no thought was given to the fire risk. So safe building are being turned into fire risks

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... wer-blocks
Quote:
“The issue is that, under building regulations, only the surface of the cladding has to be fire-proofed to class 0, which is about surface spread,” says Tarling. “The stuff behind it doesn’t, and it’s this which has burned.” He says he recently inspected a new-build eight storey block in south-east London where there was no fire protection in the external cavity walls. “The insulation behind the external cladding is flammable polyurethane. I know because I took a chunk out and burned it.”


This allowed the cladding used to be given the class 0 rating.


Absolutely spot on.

I posted a link about this pages ago.

There's a loophole that the cladding and insulation don't have a standard when used together or something akin to it.

Genius. Theoretically, you could take 2 inert substances and when put together, create something lethal and so the notion of ignoring the complete item and its function is ludicrous. The only other point being they could have rendered the insulation practically inert if they had not built the cladding to create chimneys up the sides.



Yup.

And, generally, there are two ways of obtaining compliance to a given perfromance specification:

1. Test
2. Theoretical calculations

For structural eng, point 2 works well enough in most cases. But, and it's a big but, some theoretical calcs that involve volumetric considerations, just work on paper but fail for various reasons on test.

I worked on the displacement ventilation of T3 Pier at Heathrow when at BRE- HAL asked us to physically test the calcs- the true performance was nothing like the prediction- the reason was very mathmatical, way above my comprehension, but it didn't work.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 20, 2017 3:48 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 13472
Anonymous. wrote:
dantedelew wrote:
Anonymous. wrote:
Yeah right. Put it this way. K&C were expecting a lot more money to spend on their properties. However as soon as the Conservative government came in they cut the money councils were to receive. So clearly each project had less to spend on it. Including Grenfell Tower.
I appreciate that the Grenfell refurb was a couple of years back but if K&C genuinely felt strapped, you'd have thought they'd increase council tax by the the max 5% this year. They haven't, they've gone for around 2%. Looks like they feel their fnnaices aren't too bad.


It's a Tory council. Providing fewer services and cutting costs is part of their mantra. Increasing council tax to replace money that was taken by a Tory government is not something they were likely to do. Any plans to do so would make headlines.


Quote:
Surrey council abandons plan to raise council tax by 15%
7th of Feb


Quote:
Theresa May accused of doing 'sweetheart deal' with Tory Surrey council to stop embarrassing tax rise
8th of Feb

At Prime Minister’s Questions on Wednesday Jeremy Corbyn produced leaked texts apparently from the flagship Tory council’s leader to a central government civil servant which suggested a “memorandum of understanding” had been reached to find a “solution”.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 68831.html


That's completely unrelated. They wanted to raise the C Tax on the tenuous premise that they needed to pay for social care. They needed a mandate from the residents to do so, and thought they would get it because only the old people would bother to vote, but it met such strong opposition they just decided to put it up by 5% each year forever instead.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 20, 2017 4:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Posts: 32686
Location: Planet Rock
RodneyRegis wrote:
Anonymous. wrote:
dantedelew wrote:
Anonymous. wrote:
Yeah right. Put it this way. K&C were expecting a lot more money to spend on their properties. However as soon as the Conservative government came in they cut the money councils were to receive. So clearly each project had less to spend on it. Including Grenfell Tower.
I appreciate that the Grenfell refurb was a couple of years back but if K&C genuinely felt strapped, you'd have thought they'd increase council tax by the the max 5% this year. They haven't, they've gone for around 2%. Looks like they feel their fnnaices aren't too bad.


It's a Tory council. Providing fewer services and cutting costs is part of their mantra. Increasing council tax to replace money that was taken by a Tory government is not something they were likely to do. Any plans to do so would make headlines.


Quote:
Surrey council abandons plan to raise council tax by 15%
7th of Feb


Quote:
Theresa May accused of doing 'sweetheart deal' with Tory Surrey council to stop embarrassing tax rise
8th of Feb

At Prime Minister’s Questions on Wednesday Jeremy Corbyn produced leaked texts apparently from the flagship Tory council’s leader to a central government civil servant which suggested a “memorandum of understanding” had been reached to find a “solution”.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 68831.html


That's completely unrelated. They wanted to raise the C Tax on the tenuous premise that they needed to pay for social care. They needed a mandate from the residents to do so, and thought they would get it because only the old people would bother to vote, but it met such strong opposition they just decided to put it up by 5% each year forever instead.


Meanwhile Kensington & Chelsea are in the business of giving £100 rebates to it's richest council tax payers.
Quote:
In 2014, the council decided to hand back £100 to residents paying the top rate of council tax in 2014 after a claimed “overachieving efficiency drive”, a decision criticised in a letter to the Guardian following the high-rise fire.

The rebate was paid weeks before local elections which returned a Conservative council, the author of the letter wrote. “Austerity, K&C style: you give to the rich while taking from the poor (nobody with discounted bills or claiming council tax support was eligible to share in the bounty of the town hall blue-chips).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 20, 2017 4:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5760
Cheap council tax in Kensington & Chelsea anyway

Band Range of Values
RBKC Council Tax

GLA Tax Total Council Tax
A up to and including £40,000 £521.33 £186.68 £708.01
B £40,001 to £52,000 £608.22 £217.79 £826.01
C £52,001 to £68,000 £695.11 £248.91 £944.02
D £68,001 to £88,000 £782.00 £280.02 £1062.02
E £88,001 to £120,000 £955.78 £342.25 £1298.03
F £120,001 to £160,000 £1129.56 £404.47 £1534.03
G £160,001 to £320,000 £1303.33 £466.70 £1770.03
H over £320,000 £1564.00 £560.04 £2124.04


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 20, 2017 4:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20466
Anonymous. wrote:
theo wrote:
Jake wrote:
Silver wrote:
Poor cladding regulations are possibly the main cause for this fire.

The cladding is required for insulation reasons (fair enough) but no thought was given to the fire risk. So safe building are being turned into fire risks

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... wer-blocks
Quote:
“The issue is that, under building regulations, only the surface of the cladding has to be fire-proofed to class 0, which is about surface spread,” says Tarling. “The stuff behind it doesn’t, and it’s this which has burned.” He says he recently inspected a new-build eight storey block in south-east London where there was no fire protection in the external cavity walls. “The insulation behind the external cladding is flammable polyurethane. I know because I took a chunk out and burned it.”


This allowed the cladding used to be given the class 0 rating.


Absolutely spot on.

I posted a link about this pages ago.

There's a loophole that the cladding and insulation don't have a standard when used together or something akin to it.


The loophole is that if it can be proven that the whole cladding system - including fixings, fire breaks and ventilation channels - are tested to a required standard then they comply. Trouble is how do you test a cladding system for a 22 storey tower? it's all theoretical so, in essence, bollocks when placed into the real world.

It's a major flaw in the system. The type of aluminium cladding used here could only have been used if they had convinced the inspector that the entire system complied with regs. In reality those panels should have been banned outright and certainly banned outright on any tall buildings.

Some major reviews are happening right now to check if they are used on other buildings both commercial and residential. Expect a lot of retrofitting to be taking place - good news for the construction industry!

Lots of councils in London have come out in the few days and stated categorically they have fire resistant cladding. One who used the same firm that did the Grenfell building has confined on that occasion the firm fitted cladding with a rockwool core.

Just more ammo to smash K&C with. They really are shysters for spending that much money but no making the building safe and not using fire resistant cladding. I wonder how many across the borough are the same.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 20, 2017 4:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20466
Torquemada 1420 wrote:
Jake wrote:
Silver wrote:
Poor cladding regulations are possibly the main cause for this fire.

The cladding is required for insulation reasons (fair enough) but no thought was given to the fire risk. So safe building are being turned into fire risks

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... wer-blocks
Quote:
“The issue is that, under building regulations, only the surface of the cladding has to be fire-proofed to class 0, which is about surface spread,” says Tarling. “The stuff behind it doesn’t, and it’s this which has burned.” He says he recently inspected a new-build eight storey block in south-east London where there was no fire protection in the external cavity walls. “The insulation behind the external cladding is flammable polyurethane. I know because I took a chunk out and burned it.”


This allowed the cladding used to be given the class 0 rating.


Absolutely spot on.

I posted a link about this pages ago.

There's a loophole that the cladding and insulation don't have a standard when used together or something akin to it.

Genius. Theoretically, you could take 2 inert substances and when put together, create something lethal and so the notion of ignoring the complete item and its function is ludicrous. The only other point being they could have rendered the insulation practically inert if they had not built the cladding to create chimneys up the sides.


You generally need to leave a gap between the cladding and the main structure to allow ventilation to stop damp ingress. But normally you put in fire breaks (physical barriers) to stop the air taking the fire up numerous storeys. Now either the fire breaks didn't work or there weren't any.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 20, 2017 4:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4210
Petros wrote:
Cheap council tax in Kensington & Chelsea anyway

Band Range of Values
RBKC Council Tax

GLA Tax Total Council Tax
A up to and including £40,000 £521.33 £186.68 £708.01
B £40,001 to £52,000 £608.22 £217.79 £826.01
C £52,001 to £68,000 £695.11 £248.91 £944.02
D £68,001 to £88,000 £782.00 £280.02 £1062.02
E £88,001 to £120,000 £955.78 £342.25 £1298.03
F £120,001 to £160,000 £1129.56 £404.47 £1534.03
G £160,001 to £320,000 £1303.33 £466.70 £1770.03
H over £320,000 £1564.00 £560.04 £2124.04


I would suggest that nothing really falls into A to G anyway.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 20, 2017 4:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 33897
Location: Hut 8
theo wrote:
You generally need to leave a gap between the cladding and the main structure to allow ventilation to stop damp ingress. But normally you put in fire breaks (physical barriers) to stop the air taking the fire up numerous storeys. Now either the fire breaks didn't work or there weren't any.

Assume the original structure was damp proof anyway so even if you permanently hosed the (original) outside wall, it would remain dry? Anyway, I hear you but one solution would be solid, water resistant material. Even polystyrene blocks would have been less disastrous?!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 20, 2017 4:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Posts: 32686
Location: Planet Rock
theo wrote:
Torquemada 1420 wrote:
Jake wrote:
Silver wrote:
Poor cladding regulations are possibly the main cause for this fire.

The cladding is required for insulation reasons (fair enough) but no thought was given to the fire risk. So safe building are being turned into fire risks

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... wer-blocks
Quote:
“The issue is that, under building regulations, only the surface of the cladding has to be fire-proofed to class 0, which is about surface spread,” says Tarling. “The stuff behind it doesn’t, and it’s this which has burned.” He says he recently inspected a new-build eight storey block in south-east London where there was no fire protection in the external cavity walls. “The insulation behind the external cladding is flammable polyurethane. I know because I took a chunk out and burned it.”


This allowed the cladding used to be given the class 0 rating.


Absolutely spot on.

I posted a link about this pages ago.

There's a loophole that the cladding and insulation don't have a standard when used together or something akin to it.

Genius. Theoretically, you could take 2 inert substances and when put together, create something lethal and so the notion of ignoring the complete item and its function is ludicrous. The only other point being they could have rendered the insulation practically inert if they had not built the cladding to create chimneys up the sides.


You generally need to leave a gap between the cladding and the main structure to allow ventilation to stop damp ingress. But normally you put in fire breaks (physical barriers) to stop the air taking the fire up numerous storeys. Now either the fire breaks didn't work or there weren't any.

They were in the plans

Quote:
There is also uncertainty over how the project’s adherence with building regulations was scrutinised. The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, where Grenfell Tower is situated, said a “full plans decision notice was not required in this case” and that “a completion certificate was issued” instead.

According to the government’s website, a full plans decision notice is “the most thorough option”, but this was not taken.
Neither the borough nor the cladding contractor, Harley, responded when asked to comment on why this route was not taken.

The Reynobond cladding applied to the Grenfell tower last year as part of a £10m refurbishment is made from powder-coated aluminium panels that are usually filled with plastic insulation, which is flammable.

As detailed on the planning application, fire barriers were due to be inserted between the cladding on each floor to limit the spread to small melt out areas. But Dr Jim Glocking, technical director at the Fire Protection Association, said its own tests on external thermal insulation cladding systems showed that if these barriers are breached by a vent or a pipe, “a chimney effect may quickly develop that will cause the very rapid consumption of the insulation and expansion of the damage area”.

Geoff Wilkinson, managing director of Wilkinson Construction Consultants, said the hole could be relatively modest in size, adding: “Even a drill hole of four inches in diameter can be enough.”

During planning in 2012, the building service engineering company Max Fordham advised that one option in the refurbishment was to remove “fire stopping” systems temporarily in order to install new heating pipes. It is unclear if that approach was taken and Max Fordham did not return request for comment.

The cladding contractor, Harley, declined to comment on how the system was built out – citing the forthcoming investigation and public inquiry. But it is understood the design differed to that which was detailed in planning documents. Investigators are likely to want to quickly establish whether details such as cavity fire barriers, which appeared in planning drawings, were included.



Last edited by Anonymous. on Tue Jun 20, 2017 4:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 20, 2017 4:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20466
Torquemada 1420 wrote:
theo wrote:
You generally need to leave a gap between the cladding and the main structure to allow ventilation to stop damp ingress. But normally you put in fire breaks (physical barriers) to stop the air taking the fire up numerous storeys. Now either the fire breaks didn't work or there weren't any.

Assume the original structure was damp proof anyway so even if you permanently hosed the (original) outside wall, it would remain dry? Anyway, I hear you but one solution would be solid, water resistant material. Even polystyrene blocks would have been less disastrous?!


If you don't leave an air gap the moisture sits there and then expands/contracts and breaks up the structure or simply doesn't dry out and you get damp. Remember they put this cladding over the top of the original concrete facade so there are still the old external walls behind it. It's fine when it is open to the elements as it will dry out but if covered it can fester. So you need a gap. But you also need fire breaks.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1820 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 ... 46  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 8dog, assfly, BBB, Big Nipper, Chips, CrazyIslander, dam0, englishchief, fatcat, _fatprop, frankster, Google Adsense [Bot], guy smiley, irishrugbyua, Liathroidigloine, lorcanoworms, ManInTheBar, Maniototo Man, maxbox, monty, mr bungle, Mullet 2, MungoMan, Newsome, Nobleman, Oxbow, penguin, RodneyRegis, Rowdy, Rumham, Saint, Shrekles, Silvio Berlusconi, slick, TFC1, Toulon's Not Toulouse, towny, wilber, Zakar and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group