Tower Block fire in London?

All things Rugby
armchair pundit
Posts: 919
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 4:09 pm

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by armchair pundit »

Anonymous. wrote:
Flockwitt wrote:
Anonymous. wrote:I give up with the info coming out from the government. First they say there are 600 tower blocks with the similar cladding to Grenfell tower. Then they say they got it wrong and it's 600 blocks that need testing and they are testing 100 samples a day and upwards of 27 are expected to fail.
Now they are saying they are working round the clock but have only had 34 samples and all 34 have failed but not to worry because councils are only sending samples of cladding they are worried about. If they have the capacity to test 100 a day and they are working round the clock since Wednesday how is it they have only tested 34. I'm thinking another correction to the info is likely.
Do they state in what way are they failing Anon?
‘So far the cladding from 34 high-rise buildings, in 17 local authority areas, has failed the combustibility test.’
http://metro.co.uk/2017/06/24/governmen ... z4kzrx1h8J
It's at least as likely to be bad journalism as much as it is a bad press release though isnt it ?

Article seems to be all over the place.
bimboman
Posts: 70523
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by bimboman »

Anonymous. wrote:
Flockwitt wrote:
Anonymous. wrote:I give up with the info coming out from the government. First they say there are 600 tower blocks with the similar cladding to Grenfell tower. Then they say they got it wrong and it's 600 blocks that need testing and they are testing 100 samples a day and upwards of 27 are expected to fail.
Now they are saying they are working round the clock but have only had 34 samples and all 34 have failed but not to worry because councils are only sending samples of cladding they are worried about. If they have the capacity to test 100 a day and they are working round the clock since Wednesday how is it they have only tested 34. I'm thinking another correction to the info is likely.
Do they state in what way are they failing Anon?
‘So far the cladding from 34 high-rise buildings, in 17 local authority areas, has failed the combustibility test.’
http://metro.co.uk/2017/06/24/governmen ... z4kzrx1h8J

You're conflatinting 1/2 dozen different issues to reach your conclusion. Genuinly quite stupid.
User avatar
Anonymous 1
Posts: 41995
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Location: Planet Rock

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by Anonymous 1 »

armchair pundit wrote:
Anonymous. wrote:
Flockwitt wrote:
Anonymous. wrote:I give up with the info coming out from the government. First they say there are 600 tower blocks with the similar cladding to Grenfell tower. Then they say they got it wrong and it's 600 blocks that need testing and they are testing 100 samples a day and upwards of 27 are expected to fail.
Now they are saying they are working round the clock but have only had 34 samples and all 34 have failed but not to worry because councils are only sending samples of cladding they are worried about. If they have the capacity to test 100 a day and they are working round the clock since Wednesday how is it they have only tested 34. I'm thinking another correction to the info is likely.
Do they state in what way are they failing Anon?
‘So far the cladding from 34 high-rise buildings, in 17 local authority areas, has failed the combustibility test.’
http://metro.co.uk/2017/06/24/governmen ... z4kzrx1h8J
It's at least as likely to be bad journalism as much as it is a bad press release though isnt it ?

Article seems to be all over the place.
To some extent but the government has some blame
Government withdraws claim that 600 tower blocks have Grenfell Tower-type cladding

The government has now clarified the line given out at the No 10 lobby briefing about 600 tower blocks having cladding similar to that used on Grenfell Tower. (See 11.53am.) The spokesperson used the word “similar”, but that was misleading. The government is now saying 600 is the figure for the number of tower blocks with cladding of some kind.
User avatar
shaggy
Posts: 810
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by shaggy »

Now we have more than a sample size of one I wonder if we can link the cladding to austerity?
armchair pundit
Posts: 919
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 4:09 pm

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by armchair pundit »

Anonymous. wrote:
armchair pundit wrote:
Anonymous. wrote:
Flockwitt wrote:
Anonymous. wrote:I give up with the info coming out from the government. First they say there are 600 tower blocks with the similar cladding to Grenfell tower. Then they say they got it wrong and it's 600 blocks that need testing and they are testing 100 samples a day and upwards of 27 are expected to fail.
Now they are saying they are working round the clock but have only had 34 samples and all 34 have failed but not to worry because councils are only sending samples of cladding they are worried about. If they have the capacity to test 100 a day and they are working round the clock since Wednesday how is it they have only tested 34. I'm thinking another correction to the info is likely.
Do they state in what way are they failing Anon?
‘So far the cladding from 34 high-rise buildings, in 17 local authority areas, has failed the combustibility test.’
http://metro.co.uk/2017/06/24/governmen ... z4kzrx1h8J
It's at least as likely to be bad journalism as much as it is a bad press release though isnt it ?

Article seems to be all over the place.
To some extent but the government has some blame
Government withdraws claim that 600 tower blocks have Grenfell Tower-type cladding

The government has now clarified the line given out at the No 10 lobby briefing about 600 tower blocks having cladding similar to that used on Grenfell Tower. (See 11.53am.) The spokesperson used the word “similar”, but that was misleading. The government is now saying 600 is the figure for the number of tower blocks with cladding of some kind.
Fair point !
bimboman
Posts: 70523
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by bimboman »

Anonymous. wrote:
armchair pundit wrote:
Anonymous. wrote:
Flockwitt wrote:
Anonymous. wrote:I give up with the info coming out from the government. First they say there are 600 tower blocks with the similar cladding to Grenfell tower. Then they say they got it wrong and it's 600 blocks that need testing and they are testing 100 samples a day and upwards of 27 are expected to fail.
Now they are saying they are working round the clock but have only had 34 samples and all 34 have failed but not to worry because councils are only sending samples of cladding they are worried about. If they have the capacity to test 100 a day and they are working round the clock since Wednesday how is it they have only tested 34. I'm thinking another correction to the info is likely.
Do they state in what way are they failing Anon?
‘So far the cladding from 34 high-rise buildings, in 17 local authority areas, has failed the combustibility test.’
http://metro.co.uk/2017/06/24/governmen ... z4kzrx1h8J
It's at least as likely to be bad journalism as much as it is a bad press release though isnt it ?

Article seems to be all over the place.
To some extent but the government has some blame
Government withdraws claim that 600 tower blocks have Grenfell Tower-type cladding

The government has now clarified the line given out at the No 10 lobby briefing about 600 tower blocks having cladding similar to that used on Grenfell Tower. (See 11.53am.) The spokesperson used the word “similar”, but that was misleading. The government is now saying 600 is the figure for the number of tower blocks with cladding of some kind.


there clearly wasn't a claim that they had Grenfel tower type cladding, that's the journo forgiving the median earlier hyperbole. It didn't withdraw anything, other in the Moron media and its moron conflating readers.
User avatar
Anonymous 1
Posts: 41995
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Location: Planet Rock

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by Anonymous 1 »

bimboman wrote:
Anonymous. wrote: To some extent but the government has some blame
Government withdraws claim that 600 tower blocks have Grenfell Tower-type cladding

The government has now clarified the line given out at the No 10 lobby briefing about 600 tower blocks having cladding similar to that used on Grenfell Tower. (See 11.53am.) The spokesperson used the word “similar”, but that was misleading. The government is now saying 600 is the figure for the number of tower blocks with cladding of some kind.
there clearly wasn't a claim that they had Grenfel tower type cladding, that's the journo forgiving the median earlier hyperbole. It didn't withdraw anything, other in the Moron media and its moron conflating readers.
So all the papers and online sites that reported there were 600 buildings with similar cladding after the government briefing only did so because their journalists were morons and there was no real need for the government to later say what it they really meant was there were 600 buildings with cladding of some kind ?
English councils have estimated that 600 high-rise buildings used similar cladding to the block in west London that was the scene of last week's tragedy.

Addressing questions about whether any of the blocks will be evacuated, a Downing Street spokeswoman said: "Obviously nobody will be living in buildings that are unsafe. They will be rehoused if they need to be
Torygraph
Last edited by Anonymous 1 on Sun Jun 25, 2017 9:03 am, edited 1 time in total.
bimboman
Posts: 70523
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by bimboman »

"Similar" "same" .........
Silver
Posts: 9980
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by Silver »

shaggy wrote:Now we have more than a sample size of one I wonder if we can link the cladding to austerity?
No we can't. The cladding is a regulations issue

Maybe the lack of other fire prevention measure like fire door, alarms or sprinklers can be linked to austerity but not the cladding used.
User avatar
Anonymous 1
Posts: 41995
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Location: Planet Rock

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by Anonymous 1 »

bimboman wrote:"Similar" "same" .........
The word similar is used on this page quite a few times. The word same was first used by you. Unless you are talking about an earlier use of the word on a previous page. If you are you should really quote the post
User avatar
shaggy
Posts: 810
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by shaggy »

Silver wrote:
shaggy wrote:Now we have more than a sample size of one I wonder if we can link the cladding to austerity?
No we can't. The cladding is a regulations issue

Maybe the lack of other fire prevention measure like fire door, alarms or sprinklers can be linked to austerity but not the cladding used.
So Corbyn was wrong to make this correlation and use it for political gain?
armchair pundit
Posts: 919
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 4:09 pm

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by armchair pundit »

bimboman wrote:"Similar" "same" .........
Tbf, the only reason why the word "similar" would be used, would be to indicate that the cladding was one that created the same type of risk as the grenfall cladding, or at least one that might create the same type of risk. Why else use the word ? To all intents and purposes they might as well have used the word "same". Seems something has gone wrong in communication/understanding somewhere.

The proofof the pudding's in the eating anyway, and after that press conference/release, pretty much all of the mainstream media was reported that 600 blocks were affected, when clearly that wasn't the case. 600 blocks had had cladding (of some kind) fitted during a refurbishment (i think).
User avatar
Flockwitt
Posts: 6814
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by Flockwitt »

Anonymous. wrote:
Flockwitt wrote:
Anonymous. wrote:I give up with the info coming out from the government. First they say there are 600 tower blocks with the similar cladding to Grenfell tower. Then they say they got it wrong and it's 600 blocks that need testing and they are testing 100 samples a day and upwards of 27 are expected to fail.
Now they are saying they are working round the clock but have only had 34 samples and all 34 have failed but not to worry because councils are only sending samples of cladding they are worried about. If they have the capacity to test 100 a day and they are working round the clock since Wednesday how is it they have only tested 34. I'm thinking another correction to the info is likely.
Do they state in what way are they failing Anon?
‘So far the cladding from 34 high-rise buildings, in 17 local authority areas, has failed the combustibility test.’
http://metro.co.uk/2017/06/24/governmen ... z4kzrx1h8J
That's, um, strange. How did the materials get certified in the first instance if they fail a combustibility test? There are combustibility tests just to make kids toys, let alone a building that people are going to live in. That's either a different test or the cladding was never tested, which doesn't make sense.
Silver
Posts: 9980
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by Silver »

Flockwitt wrote:
Anonymous. wrote:
Flockwitt wrote:
Anonymous. wrote:I give up with the info coming out from the government. First they say there are 600 tower blocks with the similar cladding to Grenfell tower. Then they say they got it wrong and it's 600 blocks that need testing and they are testing 100 samples a day and upwards of 27 are expected to fail.
Now they are saying they are working round the clock but have only had 34 samples and all 34 have failed but not to worry because councils are only sending samples of cladding they are worried about. If they have the capacity to test 100 a day and they are working round the clock since Wednesday how is it they have only tested 34. I'm thinking another correction to the info is likely.
Do they state in what way are they failing Anon?
‘So far the cladding from 34 high-rise buildings, in 17 local authority areas, has failed the combustibility test.’
http://metro.co.uk/2017/06/24/governmen ... z4kzrx1h8J
That's, um, strange. How did the materials get certified in the first instance if they fail a combustibility test? There are combustibility tests just to make kids toys, let alone a building that people are going to live in. That's either a different test or the cladding was never tested, which doesn't make sense.
This cladding was EU approved. Non fire resistant cladding has also been approved for use in NZ and Aust.

My guess (no more) is the lobbyists put pressure on the regulation setters. As they must have known of the fire risk. for example the US has outlawed this cladding as had Germany before these EU regulations were introduced. so Germany were allowed to retain their regulations as they already had them in place for cladding.
User avatar
Anonymous 1
Posts: 41995
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Location: Planet Rock

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by Anonymous 1 »

Flockwitt wrote:
Anonymous. wrote:
Flockwitt wrote: ‘So far the cladding from 34 high-rise buildings, in 17 local authority areas, has failed the combustibility test.’
http://metro.co.uk/2017/06/24/governmen ... z4kzrx1h8J
That's, um, strange. How did the materials get certified in the first instance if they fail a combustibility test? There are combustibility tests just to make kids toys, let alone a building that people are going to live in. That's either a different test or the cladding was never tested, which doesn't make sense.
The government has already said the cladding is banned on high rise buildings in the UK but I don't think many people believe they are telling the truth. However banned or not it does not seem right that a building can be signed off as safe with this cladding. Plus if it is not already banned in this country it will be soon which considering the government has had many many warnings about this type of cladding in the past from safety experts it really should have been banned years ago.
User avatar
Covfefe
Posts: 119
Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2017 7:48 am

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by Covfefe »

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 06026.html

I can understand why she is a little annoyed.
User avatar
Sefton
Posts: 16222
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by Sefton »

Covfefe wrote:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 06026.html

I can understand why she is a little annoyed.
What a c**t.
User avatar
Covfefe
Posts: 119
Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2017 7:48 am

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by Covfefe »

How would you feel if it happened to you. She might have put her life savings into it. 15k a year management fees too.

It will be worth much less now. The average price was at least 10 times what the government paid.

I'd be surprised if they don't go down the legal route.
Silver
Posts: 9980
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by Silver »

Anonymous. wrote:
Flockwitt wrote:
Anonymous. wrote:
Flockwitt wrote: ‘So far the cladding from 34 high-rise buildings, in 17 local authority areas, has failed the combustibility test.’
http://metro.co.uk/2017/06/24/governmen ... z4kzrx1h8J
That's, um, strange. How did the materials get certified in the first instance if they fail a combustibility test? There are combustibility tests just to make kids toys, let alone a building that people are going to live in. That's either a different test or the cladding was never tested, which doesn't make sense.
The government has already said the cladding is banned on high rise buildings in the UK but I don't think many people believe they are telling the truth. However banned or not it does not seem right that a building can be signed off as safe with this cladding. Plus if it is not already banned in this country it will be soon which considering the government has had many many warnings about this type of cladding in the past from safety experts it really should have been banned years ago.
Link.

Hammond said he understood (guessed without having a clue?) it has been banned but my understanding is that this has now been corrected.

And the UK Govt can not ban this cladding. This would have to be done by the EU as the EU has competency regarding cladding. So until we officially leave the EU and the single market as well its up to the EU not the UK.

There is the option of the UK asking for a change to stds but it must be approved by the EU. Otherwsie the UK could be fined for unfairly introducing non tariff trade restrictions
Last edited by Silver on Sun Jun 25, 2017 11:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Sefton
Posts: 16222
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by Sefton »

Covfefe wrote:How would you feel if it happened to you. She might have put her life savings into it. 15k a year management fees too.

It will be worth much less now. The average price was at least 10 times what the government paid.

I'd be surprised if they don't go down the legal route.
I'd have some sympathy for the poor bastards who had lost everything they own and given that I'd have to be bloody affluent to afford such a home consider it a small sacrifice.
User avatar
Duff Paddy
Posts: 39887
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by Duff Paddy »

Sefton wrote:
Covfefe wrote:How would you feel if it happened to you. She might have put her life savings into it. 15k a year management fees too.

It will be worth much less now. The average price was at least 10 times what the government paid.

I'd be surprised if they don't go down the legal route.
I'd have some sympathy for the poor bastards who had lost everything they own and given that I'd have to be bloody affluent to afford such a home consider it a small sacrifice.
They do have sympathy for the poor bastards. But at the same time, the government has probably just wiped out their life savings/work. If I was in their position, I'd feel the same.
User avatar
Flockwitt
Posts: 6814
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by Flockwitt »

Anonymous. wrote:
Flockwitt wrote:
Anonymous. wrote:
Flockwitt wrote: ‘So far the cladding from 34 high-rise buildings, in 17 local authority areas, has failed the combustibility test.’
http://metro.co.uk/2017/06/24/governmen ... z4kzrx1h8J
That's, um, strange. How did the materials get certified in the first instance if they fail a combustibility test? There are combustibility tests just to make kids toys, let alone a building that people are going to live in. That's either a different test or the cladding was never tested, which doesn't make sense.
The government has already said the cladding is banned on high rise buildings in the UK but I don't think many people believe they are telling the truth. However banned or not it does not seem right that a building can be signed off as safe with this cladding. Plus if it is not already banned in this country it will be soon which considering the government has had many many warnings about this type of cladding in the past from safety experts it really should have been banned years ago.
That should be easy to check as it will be a matter of record and known in the industry. My guess would be that it wasn't banned. Too many people signing off on that. Remarkably few actual facts here though.
armchair pundit
Posts: 919
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 4:09 pm

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by armchair pundit »

Duff Paddy wrote:
Sefton wrote:
Covfefe wrote:How would you feel if it happened to you. She might have put her life savings into it. 15k a year management fees too.

It will be worth much less now. The average price was at least 10 times what the government paid.

I'd be surprised if they don't go down the legal route.
I'd have some sympathy for the poor bastards who had lost everything they own and given that I'd have to be bloody affluent to afford such a home consider it a small sacrifice.
They do have sympathy for the poor bastards. But at the same time, the government has probably just wiped out their life savings/work. If I was in their position, I'd feel the same.
Tend to agree.

Expressing dissapointment at seeing your life's work going up in puff, does not make someone a plum. Imo.

Don't know the details hough obvs, but if anything that would tend to make me be less likely to make an adverse judgement.
Silver
Posts: 9980
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by Silver »

Covfefe wrote:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 06026.html

I can understand why she is a little annoyed.
Its a good point to consider. where the basis of our capitalist system is questioned. should the less fortunate be allowed to live with the better off as a temporary measure due to a tragedy like this. Or even after this terrible fire should the boundaries be retained

My view is this woman has lost her soul. And it will do her good to mix with what she sees as low lives for a spell.
User avatar
Gavin Duffy
Posts: 17023
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by Gavin Duffy »

Beta-rat still lying away I see. Or maybe he's too stupid to be capable of telling a lie on grounds of limited mental capacity.
User avatar
Anonymous 1
Posts: 41995
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Location: Planet Rock

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by Anonymous 1 »

Silver wrote:
Covfefe wrote:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 06026.html

I can understand why she is a little annoyed.
Its a good point to consider. where the basis of our capitalist system is questioned. should the less fortunate be allowed to live with the better off as a temporary measure due to a tragedy like this. Or even after this terrible fire should the boundaries be retained

My view is this woman has lost her soul. And it will do her good to mix with what she sees as low lives for a spell.
My view is the woman is talking shite. the flats that have been bought were ones that were always going to be used for social housing and not ones in her block.
Silver
Posts: 9980
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by Silver »

Gavin Duffy wrote:Beta-rat still lying away I see. Or maybe he's too stupid to be capable of telling a lie on grounds of limited mental capacity.
You're like a mother who refuses to see any bad in her criminal son.
User avatar
Anonymous 1
Posts: 41995
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Location: Planet Rock

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by Anonymous 1 »

Silver wrote:
Anonymous. wrote:
Flockwitt wrote:
Anonymous. wrote:
Flockwitt wrote: ‘So far the cladding from 34 high-rise buildings, in 17 local authority areas, has failed the combustibility test.’
http://metro.co.uk/2017/06/24/governmen ... z4kzrx1h8J
That's, um, strange. How did the materials get certified in the first instance if they fail a combustibility test? There are combustibility tests just to make kids toys, let alone a building that people are going to live in. That's either a different test or the cladding was never tested, which doesn't make sense.
The government has already said the cladding is banned on high rise buildings in the UK but I don't think many people believe they are telling the truth. However banned or not it does not seem right that a building can be signed off as safe with this cladding. Plus if it is not already banned in this country it will be soon which considering the government has had many many warnings about this type of cladding in the past from safety experts it really should have been banned years ago.
Link.

Hammond said he understood (guessed without having a clue?) it has been banned but my understanding is that this has now been corrected.
Hammond said it was banned in the UK and it was corrected to banned on high rise buildings in the UK. Something which you already know so unless it's your understanding there has been a further correction to the one you already know about why don't you fuck off
Although Hammond said that the material used in the Grenfell Tower refurbishment, containing flammable polyethylene, was “banned” in the UK, a Treasury spokesman said later that what he meant was that it was banned for buildings of a certain height.

Hammond was referring to a statement issued by the department for communities at the end of last week when it was asked to clarify the legal position. It said: “Cladding using a composite aluminium panel with a polyethylene core would be non-compliant with current Building Regulations guidance. This material should not be used as cladding on buildings over 18m in height.”
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... ip-hammond
User avatar
The Man Without Fear
Posts: 11126
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: The centre of The Horrendous Space Kablooie!

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by The Man Without Fear »

armchair pundit wrote:
Duff Paddy wrote:
Sefton wrote:
Covfefe wrote:How would you feel if it happened to you. She might have put her life savings into it. 15k a year management fees too.

It will be worth much less now. The average price was at least 10 times what the government paid.

I'd be surprised if they don't go down the legal route.
I'd have some sympathy for the poor bastards who had lost everything they own and given that I'd have to be bloody affluent to afford such a home consider it a small sacrifice.
They do have sympathy for the poor bastards. But at the same time, the government has probably just wiped out their life savings/work. If I was in their position, I'd feel the same.
Tend to agree.

Expressing dissapointment at seeing your life's work going up in puff, does not make someone a plum. Imo.

Don't know the details hough obvs, but if anything that would tend to make me be less likely to make an adverse judgement.
There's a time and a place to whine about it, though, and live on London radio shortly after scores of people have died is not it.
armchair pundit
Posts: 919
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 4:09 pm

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by armchair pundit »

The Man Without Fear wrote:
armchair pundit wrote:
Duff Paddy wrote:
Sefton wrote:
Covfefe wrote:How would you feel if it happened to you. She might have put her life savings into it. 15k a year management fees too.

It will be worth much less now. The average price was at least 10 times what the government paid.

I'd be surprised if they don't go down the legal route.
I'd have some sympathy for the poor bastards who had lost everything they own and given that I'd have to be bloody affluent to afford such a home consider it a small sacrifice.
They do have sympathy for the poor bastards. But at the same time, the government has probably just wiped out their life savings/work. If I was in their position, I'd feel the same.
Tend to agree.

Expressing dissapointment at seeing your life's work going up in puff, does not make someone a plum. Imo.

Don't know the details hough obvs, but if anything that would tend to make me be less likely to make an adverse judgement.
There's a time and a place to whine about it, though, and live on London radio shortly after scores of people have died is not it.
I doubt she drove down to the radio station and knocked on the door.

Unfortunately our press/media are a disease on our society.
User avatar
Covfefe
Posts: 119
Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2017 7:48 am

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by Covfefe »

I'm really starting to worry about the direction the uk is going. It can be compared to 1917 Russia or 1936 Germany. The successful are now the target.
We have a violent left wing who are trying to destroy free speech and are building a Stalin like personality cult around Corbyn.

The something for nothing brigade is now in the ascendancy and it's frightening to watch.
bimboman
Posts: 70523
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by bimboman »

Sefton wrote:
Covfefe wrote:How would you feel if it happened to you. She might have put her life savings into it. 15k a year management fees too.

It will be worth much less now. The average price was at least 10 times what the government paid.

I'd be surprised if they don't go down the legal route.
I'd have some sympathy for the poor bastards who had lost everything they own and given that I'd have to be bloody affluent to afford such a home consider it a small sacrifice.

Posted from leafy suburb.
Silver
Posts: 9980
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by Silver »

Anonymous. wrote:
Although Hammond said that the material used in the Grenfell Tower refurbishment, containing flammable polyethylene, was “banned” in the UK, a Treasury spokesman said later that what he meant was that it was banned for buildings of a certain height.

Hammond was referring to a statement issued by the department for communities at the end of last week when it was asked to clarify the legal position. It said: “Cladding using a composite aluminium panel with a polyethylene core would be non-compliant with current Building Regulations guidance. This material should not be used as cladding on buildings over 18m in height.”
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... ip-hammond
But HAMMOND is wrong. It isn't banned for high rise buildings

But carry on with the misinformation because it doesn't suit whatever agenda you're trying to push

You can check it out yourself

Image

and here's a comment on this

is

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... ip-hammond
So much ill founded comment here. The cladding panels fire certification and the appropriateness of its use on this building are compliant with UK building regs. It has a Class 0 fire certification, fire test dated 9.5.1997, which means it can be used full height under the UK regs.. The brochure page above is 12/2016, so did that brochure exist at the time of refurbishment? Its a general statement in that diagram, which would be interpreted in each country to the national regulations. Until very recently, general awareness of its problems in other countries was not widely known here. Therefore 1) are our regulations and tests, which all designers rely on, comprehensive enough. Apparently not. and 2) are those in higher Authority who were made aware of the similar fires in eg Australia culpable in not acting on this sooner. But don't blame the contractors and designers for this aspect.
Last edited by Silver on Sun Jun 25, 2017 12:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Anonymous 1
Posts: 41995
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Location: Planet Rock

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by Anonymous 1 »

Silver wrote:
Anonymous. wrote:
The government has already said the cladding is banned on high rise buildings in the UK but I don't think many people believe they are telling the truth
Although Hammond said that the material used in the Grenfell Tower refurbishment, containing flammable polyethylene, was “banned” in the UK, a Treasury spokesman said later that what he meant was that it was banned for buildings of a certain height.

Hammond was referring to a statement issued by the department for communities at the end of last week when it was asked to clarify the legal position. It said: “Cladding using a composite aluminium panel with a polyethylene core would be non-compliant with current Building Regulations guidance. This material should not be used as cladding on buildings over 18m in height.”
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... ip-hammond
But HAMMOND is wrong. It isn't banned for high rise buildings

But carry on with the misinformation because it doesn't suit whatever agenda you're trying to push

You can check it out yourself
What misinformation should I carry on with ?

I already said I don't think many people believe the government are telling the truth. Either you believe the government has made a further correction or you are the one with the misinformation.
User avatar
Anonymous 1
Posts: 41995
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Location: Planet Rock

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by Anonymous 1 »

Seneca of the Night wrote:
Covfefe wrote:I'm really starting to worry about the direction the uk is going. It can be compared to 1917 Russia or 1936 Germany. The successful are now the target.
We have a violent left wing who are trying to destroy free speech and are building a Stalin like personality cult around Corbyn.

The something for nothing brigade is now in the ascendancy and it's frightening to watch.
Okay, who is this?
It's that Typo bloke
User avatar
Sefton
Posts: 16222
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by Sefton »

armchair pundit wrote:
Duff Paddy wrote:
Sefton wrote:
Covfefe wrote:How would you feel if it happened to you. She might have put her life savings into it. 15k a year management fees too.

It will be worth much less now. The average price was at least 10 times what the government paid.

I'd be surprised if they don't go down the legal route.
I'd have some sympathy for the poor bastards who had lost everything they own and given that I'd have to be bloody affluent to afford such a home consider it a small sacrifice.
They do have sympathy for the poor bastards. But at the same time, the government has probably just wiped out their life savings/work. If I was in their position, I'd feel the same.
Tend to agree.

Expressing dissapointment at seeing your life's work going up in puff, does not make someone a plum. Imo.

Don't know the details hough obvs, but if anything that would tend to make me be less likely to make an adverse judgement.
:lol: :lol: :lol: That's even beyond hyperbole.
armchair pundit
Posts: 919
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 4:09 pm

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by armchair pundit »

Sefton wrote:
armchair pundit wrote:
Duff Paddy wrote:
Sefton wrote:
Covfefe wrote:How would you feel if it happened to you. She might have put her life savings into it. 15k a year management fees too.

It will be worth much less now. The average price was at least 10 times what the government paid.

I'd be surprised if they don't go down the legal route.
I'd have some sympathy for the poor bastards who had lost everything they own and given that I'd have to be bloody affluent to afford such a home consider it a small sacrifice.
They do have sympathy for the poor bastards. But at the same time, the government has probably just wiped out their life savings/work. If I was in their position, I'd feel the same.
Tend to agree.

Expressing dissapointment at seeing your life's work going up in puff, does not make someone a plum. Imo.

Don't know the details hough obvs, but if anything that would tend to make me be less likely to make an adverse judgement.
:lol: :lol: :lol: That's even beyond hyperbole.
Yeah, maybe. As i say, i dont know the details. She seemed to say though at she and her husband had worked their whole, life to get to live there. It might be insensitive, but it doesnt make her a bad person imo. Look, i dont really care tbh. It's too easy to judge and casgiate people in general though,
ID2
Posts: 3253
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 3:47 pm

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by ID2 »

I thought those kensington apartments were set aside for social housing anyway?
User avatar
Covfefe
Posts: 119
Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2017 7:48 am

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by Covfefe »

Link?
User avatar
Covfefe
Posts: 119
Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2017 7:48 am

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by Covfefe »

I'd be sectioned if I seen my life's work gone over night after paying couple million on an apartment. Inconsolable.

Surely the prime real estate could have been all sold privately and built much more dwellings else where.
Post Reply