Chat Forum
It is currently Tue Jul 07, 2020 3:46 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1873 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Jul 01, 2017 11:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 4:09 pm
Posts: 919
Flockwitt wrote:
armchair pundit wrote:
Anonymous. wrote:
Gavin Duffy wrote:
Is the problem not that the building regulations weren't followed rather than being too lenient or whatever.

If they are not allowed to use the flammable core at all then they were not followed but if they are allowed to use the plastic core as long as they can somehow show the overall package is safe (as long as they do it perfectly) then they still may not have followed regs but that in my layman's opinion is to lenient.

I still find it difficult to swallow that 3 Hammersmith & Fulham tower blocks within a couple of 100 metres of Grenfell Tower had cladding put on at the same time and they are fine because they used rock wool. Yet so many people down the road are dead because they had plastic
.


Agree completely.

at the end of the day, this stuff should have been outlawed.

with a completely non-political hat on, to me that's the question that needs to be answered. not about cuts, or austerity, or whatever.

quite simply, why was the use of this material not illegal
?

and tbf, I suppose that does come back to your point about just who it is who was advising the relevant government/public bodies on this, so maybe my cynicism about your ref to the advisors on the regulations/standards was misplaced.

tbh, you have to wonder why the stuff is even produced. on the face of it, it seems like it should be as illegal as heroin, unlicensed guns, and whatever else.

Yes. It clearly seems to be a failure of standards application in some manner. The fact that the plastic cored product was not supposed to be used on a building of that height but still was and signed off on by somebody. The fact that the plastic cored product was not questioned by a fire inspector when it's a no brainer that it's always going to be more dangerous than rock wool (not blaming them directly now, just need to know why it was deemed acceptable so no repeats happen)



why allow it even on smaller building though ?

the logic seems to be :

over 18m high - cladding will cause destruction of the building, and people wont be able to get out
under 18m high - cladding will cause destruction of the building, but people will be able to get out


wtf ???? it can destroy the f**king building no matter how high it is.

ban the f**king stuff so people who don't know how dangerous it is end up using it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 02, 2017 1:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 38987
armchair pundit wrote:
Anonymous. wrote:
Gavin Duffy wrote:
Is the problem not that the building regulations weren't followed rather than being too lenient or whatever.

If they are not allowed to use the flammable core at all then they were not followed but if they are allowed to use the plastic core as long as they can somehow show the overall package is safe (as long as they do it perfectly) then they still may not have followed regs but that in my layman's opinion is to lenient.

I still find it difficult to swallow that 3 Hammersmith & Fulham tower blocks within a couple of 100 metres of Grenfell Tower had cladding put on at the same time and they are fine because they used rock wool. Yet so many people down the road are dead because they had plastic
.


Agree completely.

at the end of the day, this stuff should have been outlawed.

with a completely non-political hat on, to me that's the question that needs to be answered. not about cuts, or austerity, or whatever.

quite simply, why was the use of this material not illegal ?

and tbf, I suppose that does come back to your point about just who it is who was advising the relevant government/public bodies on this, so maybe my cynicism about your ref to the advisors on the regulations/standards was misplaced.

tbh, you have to wonder why the stuff is even produced.
on the face of it, it seems like it should be as illegal as heroin, unlicensed guns, and whatever else.

Probably originally produced to make single story sheds and retail parks look a little bit sexier than they actually are.

It's use on high rise resi is the problem.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 02, 2017 1:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Posts: 37051
Location: Planet Rock
I know this is from a report commissioned by the UK rock wool association so they have a vested interest but its from the year 2000. Its fucking crazy
Quote:
Combustible-cored sandwich panels are today being used in building envelopes other than
those for low life risk warehousing and temperature-controlled environments. Schools,
hospitals, prisons, retail outlets and other public buildings make use of this type of
construction without appropriate regulation or guidance.
http://www.cookeonfire.com/pdfs/eurisolgreenreport.pdf


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 02, 2017 2:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6261
Anonymous. wrote:
I know this is from a report commissioned by the UK rock wool association so they have a vested interest but its from the year 2000. Its fucking crazy
Quote:
Combustible-cored sandwich panels are today being used in building envelopes other than
those for low life risk warehousing and temperature-controlled environments. Schools,
hospitals, prisons, retail outlets and other public buildings make use of this type of
construction without appropriate regulation or guidance.
http://www.cookeonfire.com/pdfs/eurisolgreenreport.pdf

They may have a vested interest but then if they didn't this would never have done, and that makes for some reading. Nothing combustible using an aluminium facing to protect it should ever be used for starters.

Clearly a failure of standards by the UK building industry here. That kind of cladding should have been banned, end of.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 02, 2017 2:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Posts: 37051
Location: Planet Rock
bimboman wrote:
Not one Tory on Oxford city council.

I wasn't having a go at Oxford council. That was just one of many (as I said). It's been going on since the decent homes work started. The leaseholders were encouraged to buy their council flats at a discount. hen when the decent homes money was allocated to councils it was for council owned flats only so the leaseholders have to foot their share of the bill. Here is one from 2005

Quote:
Simon Hobbs bought a one-bed ex-council flat in Rotherhithe, south-east London five years ago for £55,000. Now he faces a service charge this year of £26,000, as the council wants to replace windows and the roof of the block.

Over in leafy Kensington & Chelsea, ex-council owners face even more staggering bills. One ex-council flat owner we spoke to - she wanted to remain anonymous - has been billed £90,000 as the council wants to install new elevators. Many more stories of huge service charges are likely to emerge over the next few months.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 10, 2017 2:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Posts: 37051
Location: Planet Rock
Tories just being Tories

Quote:
A Tory councillor has been forced to apologise after criticising Grenfell Tower survivors, saying ‘they actually came out of it alive’.
Nadia Cenci, leader of the Conservative opposition group on Ipswich Council in Suffolk, closed down her Twitter account after one of her tweets attracted a huge backlash.
Another user tweeted that public sympathy for the disaster victims was fast running out, to which she replied in agreement.
Malcolm Wood tweeted: ‘Support for Grenfell residents is fading. They have been offered money, food, clothing, housing and full support, yet they still complain.’
Cenci then replied: ‘Not forgetting that they actually came out of it alive. Afraid I feel you might be right.’
She then replied to another tweet saying that her sympathy was ‘diminishing’.

http://metro.co.uk/2017/07/09/tory-coun ... z4mO2aBfnX


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 10, 2017 7:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11126
Location: The centre of The Horrendous Space Kablooie!
bimboman wrote:
Not one Tory on Oxford city council.


Do you have a precedent bank for this stuff?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 10, 2017 9:49 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21421
Anonymous. wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Not one Tory on Oxford city council.

I wasn't having a go at Oxford council. That was just one of many (as I said). It's been going on since the decent homes work started. The leaseholders were encouraged to buy their council flats at a discount. hen when the decent homes money was allocated to councils it was for council owned flats only so the leaseholders have to foot their share of the bill. Here is one from 2005

Quote:
Simon Hobbs bought a one-bed ex-council flat in Rotherhithe, south-east London five years ago for £55,000. Now he faces a service charge this year of £26,000, as the council wants to replace windows and the roof of the block.

Over in leafy Kensington & Chelsea, ex-council owners face even more staggering bills. One ex-council flat owner we spoke to - she wanted to remain anonymous - has been billed £90,000 as the council wants to install new elevators. Many more stories of huge service charges are likely to emerge over the next few months.


What is wrong about them paying for upkeep ? That guy got a discount of at least 200k (to what a similar property in private hands would have cost in he area) when he bought that flat in rotherhyth, and even after paying 26k extra he has a very cheap subsided flat.

Same story with Kensington - they are choosing to live very centrally in an expensive city.
Whatever is provided by the state, will never be enough for some people.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 10:23 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20332
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40568640

At least one survivor of the Grenfell Tower fire was diagnosed with cyanide poisoning, BBC Newsnight has learned.
Medical discharge papers show a 12-year-old was treated for the effects of the highly toxic gas, which may have been released by burning of insulation or plastics during the fire.


My first thought was "Jaysus - what the feck was in these materials?"
Turns out, it's disturbingly normal...


"The BBC's environment correspondent Roger Harrabin said cyanide poisoning is relatively common following house fires as it is used in the manufacture of many plastics and is released when those plastics are burned.
"It sounds dramatic because cyanide is known is popular culture as the poisoner's weapon," he said. "But cyanides are also produced by some bacteria, fungi and algae."
Cyanide also occurs naturally in some seeds and fruit stones, eg those of apricots, apples and peaches.
Victims of cyanide are effectively choked by the toxic gas. Symptoms include headaches, dizziness, confusion, vomiting and convulsions. At high concentrations it can cause rapid death."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2017 8:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2013 11:54 am
Posts: 40609
Location: Joint No. 3 to Cyprus
Obviously it's impossible for a major public tragedy to occur without some tinfoil hatted dickhead deciding it was all a false flag operation

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2017 9:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Posts: 37051
Location: Planet Rock
backrow wrote:
Anonymous. wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Not one Tory on Oxford city council.

I wasn't having a go at Oxford council. That was just one of many (as I said). It's been going on since the decent homes work started. The leaseholders were encouraged to buy their council flats at a discount. hen when the decent homes money was allocated to councils it was for council owned flats only so the leaseholders have to foot their share of the bill. Here is one from 2005

Quote:
Simon Hobbs bought a one-bed ex-council flat in Rotherhithe, south-east London five years ago for £55,000. Now he faces a service charge this year of £26,000, as the council wants to replace windows and the roof of the block.

Over in leafy Kensington & Chelsea, ex-council owners face even more staggering bills. One ex-council flat owner we spoke to - she wanted to remain anonymous - has been billed £90,000 as the council wants to install new elevators. Many more stories of huge service charges are likely to emerge over the next few months.


What is wrong about them paying for upkeep ? That guy got a discount of at least 200k (to what a similar property in private hands would have cost in he area) when he bought that flat in rotherhyth, and even after paying 26k extra he has a very cheap subsided flat.

Same story with Kensington - they are choosing to live very centrally in an expensive city.
Whatever is provided by the state, will never be enough for some people.

You've got this all wrong. The guy bought and ex council flat at market rate for the year 2000. It was a rundown shithole which he spent £15k on making it decent by putting in central heating, floorboards, a new kitchen and bathroom. He did this because the council hadn't updated anything in the decades since the property had been built and neither had the person who used right to buy to take it off their hands. Plucking a £200k discount out of your arse is typical Yeeb.

The council then got the decent homes money to replace windows and the roof of the block and that is where the £26k went. I don't really think that counts as "upkeep" but it's not a big issue. I'd bet since then he has received another larger bill for putting in central heating, floorboards, kitchens and bathrooms to the entire block. I don't really see that as upkeep but it's not a big issue for me so fark it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2017 9:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Posts: 37051
Location: Planet Rock
Chuckles1188 wrote:
Obviously it's impossible for a major public tragedy to occur without some tinfoil hatted dickhead deciding it was all a false flag operation

Image



Looks like a faulty fridge may not have been the prmary cause of the fire. Doubt they will ever know for sure.

Quote:
Dozens of residents of Grenfell Tower suffered electricity power surges so strong their appliances malfunctioned, overheated and emitted smoke a few years before the fire, it has emerged.
Documents seen by the BBC reveal how 25 residents claimed compensation from the council following the surges in 2013.
Some say electricity problems persisted into the months before June's fire.
Police say the blaze, in which at least 80 are thought to have died, started in a fridge freezer on the fourth floor.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40632705


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2017 10:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 13023
I thought they knew it was started by a fridge in that flat because the chap that lived there said the fire started in his kitchen.

Fridge fires are not that rare. Particularly with old models. The elements at the back can get pretty hot and if there is dust and stuff down the back then it can easily ignite.

Now how it then spread so rapidly and was not contained in the flat is another thing altogether.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2017 10:55 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 3:07 pm
Posts: 7291
theo wrote:
I thought they knew it was started by a fridge in that flat because the chap that lived there said the fire started in his kitchen.

Fridge fires are not that rare. Particularly with old models. The elements at the back can get pretty hot and if there is dust and stuff down the back then it can easily ignite.

Now how it then spread so rapidly and was not contained in the flat is another thing altogether.


The article there is saying the power surges are what may having caused it to blow so maybe not a faulty fridge as I don't think there is any doubt about where it started. That's a matter Hotpoint will be chasing down as a keen matter of interest.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2017 11:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 14129
i thought there was a recall notice out for the fridge?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2017 11:02 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 3:07 pm
Posts: 7291
Gavin Duffy wrote:
i thought there was a recall notice out for the fridge?


No recall. Just advice to check the fridge.

Like that is going to be of any help.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2017 1:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 04, 2017 8:43 pm
Posts: 50
Rumham wrote:
theo wrote:
I thought they knew it was started by a fridge in that flat because the chap that lived there said the fire started in his kitchen.

Fridge fires are not that rare. Particularly with old models. The elements at the back can get pretty hot and if there is dust and stuff down the back then it can easily ignite.

Now how it then spread so rapidly and was not contained in the flat is another thing altogether.


The article there is saying the power surges are what may having caused it to blow so maybe not a faulty fridge as I don't think there is any doubt about where it started. That's a matter Hotpoint will be chasing down as a keen matter of interest.

Well on this point there has been little news coverage or response. Also the person whose flat where the fire started not a lot of focus.

Yesterday MP David Lammy again on TV claims that the number of deaths is higher than police are saying or claimed without providing any evidence himself. Plus also claiming that many residents jumped from the building which again is unsubstantiated. He is not helping the investigation that is on-going nor the general feeling in the area.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2017 1:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Posts: 37051
Location: Planet Rock
Rumham wrote:
Gavin Duffy wrote:
i thought there was a recall notice out for the fridge?


No recall. Just advice to check the fridge.

Like that is going to be of any help.

No known fault. Give sound if obvious advice and hope they prove conclusively it was someone elses fault.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2017 2:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Posts: 37051
Location: Planet Rock
Rumham wrote:
theo wrote:
I thought they knew it was started by a fridge in that flat because the chap that lived there said the fire started in his kitchen.

Fridge fires are not that rare. Particularly with old models. The elements at the back can get pretty hot and if there is dust and stuff down the back then it can easily ignite.

Now how it then spread so rapidly and was not contained in the flat is another thing altogether.


The article there is saying the power surges are what may having caused it to blow so maybe not a faulty fridge as I don't think there is any doubt about where it started. That's a matter Hotpoint will be chasing down as a keen matter of interest.

:lol: :lol:

The brass neck of these twunts

Quote:
The letter was sent to Judith Blakeman, the local Labour councillor.
Cllr Blakeman, who is also a board member for the TMO, said the surge affected many electrical appliances including fridges and computers.
She believes the electricity problem was never satisfactorily solved, saying: "One of the things they tried to suggest was that the smoke that people had seen was actually steam.
"Now, that didn't go down well with residents, because they can tell the difference between smoke and steam."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2017 2:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 38987
As, Theo I think, noted above, any fire within a flat,should have been contained within that flat.

So the first question is how did an internal fire spread to the external cladding.

The second question, that is how it spread once it reached the cladding, is rather easier to explain, as it would appear that the aluminium cladding sandwich went up like petrol once a relatively low trigger temperature was reached. How that cladding came to be speced, and how it was shown that it was in compliance with fire regs will be the matters of interest. Especially if that was based on the first principle, ie. an internal fire staying internal.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2017 2:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Posts: 37051
Location: Planet Rock
camroc1 wrote:
As, Theo I think, noted above, any fire within a flat,should have been contained within that flat.

So the first question is how did an internal fire spread to the external cladding.

The second question, that is how it spread once it reached the cladding, is rather easier to explain, as it would appear that the aluminium cladding sandwich went up like petrol once a relatively low trigger temperature was reached. How that cladding came to be speced, and how it was shown that it was in compliance with fire regs will be the matters of interest. Especially if that was based on the first principle, ie. an internal fire staying internal.

It's not so much that the fire should be contained within the flat. More a case of it should not spread to other flats. As you know fire needs oxygen and that is going to be in plentiful supply right outside the window It's common to see external scorch marks where fire has lapped out of windows and not had a combustible material to carry it to another flat. Even if the windows are closed the heat rises the glass breaks and you get the backdraft effect. The second point is the issue


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2017 2:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 13023
Anonymous. wrote:
Rumham wrote:
theo wrote:
I thought they knew it was started by a fridge in that flat because the chap that lived there said the fire started in his kitchen.

Fridge fires are not that rare. Particularly with old models. The elements at the back can get pretty hot and if there is dust and stuff down the back then it can easily ignite.

Now how it then spread so rapidly and was not contained in the flat is another thing altogether.


The article there is saying the power surges are what may having caused it to blow so maybe not a faulty fridge as I don't think there is any doubt about where it started. That's a matter Hotpoint will be chasing down as a keen matter of interest.

:lol: :lol:

The brass neck of these twunts

Quote:
The letter was sent to Judith Blakeman, the local Labour councillor.
Cllr Blakeman, who is also a board member for the TMO, said the surge affected many electrical appliances including fridges and computers.
She believes the electricity problem was never satisfactorily solved, saying: "One of the things they tried to suggest was that the smoke that people had seen was actually steam.
"Now, that didn't go down well with residents, because they can tell the difference between smoke and steam."


Who is "they"? She was on the Board. Shouldn't it be "we".


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2017 2:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 64074
theo wrote:
Anonymous. wrote:
Rumham wrote:
theo wrote:
I thought they knew it was started by a fridge in that flat because the chap that lived there said the fire started in his kitchen.

Fridge fires are not that rare. Particularly with old models. The elements at the back can get pretty hot and if there is dust and stuff down the back then it can easily ignite.

Now how it then spread so rapidly and was not contained in the flat is another thing altogether.


The article there is saying the power surges are what may having caused it to blow so maybe not a faulty fridge as I don't think there is any doubt about where it started. That's a matter Hotpoint will be chasing down as a keen matter of interest.

:lol: :lol:

The brass neck of these twunts

Quote:
The letter was sent to Judith Blakeman, the local Labour councillor.
Cllr Blakeman, who is also a board member for the TMO, said the surge affected many electrical appliances including fridges and computers.
She believes the electricity problem was never satisfactorily solved, saying: "One of the things they tried to suggest was that the smoke that people had seen was actually steam.
"Now, that didn't go down well with residents, because they can tell the difference between smoke and steam."


Who is "they"? She was on the Board. Shouldn't it be "we".



Not when there's posh (er) people to blame.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2017 2:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 13023
Would appear that she didn't take her responsibility of being on the Board particularly seriously.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2017 2:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 13097
Location: Melbourne
I was actually involved in a comical UK accident once. An immigrant guy flew off the road in his car, and smashed into a brick wall. Nothing moved, including a few builders at the nearby property. I jogged to the scene and saw the guy was struggling so called the emergency number (Kiwi, had to ask my UK mate for the emergency number). They ambo turned up in a station wagon. A tory landowner fuckwit turned up in a tweet blazer asking about insurance details with the audacity to ask the paramedic who couldnt have given less of a fudge. Both me and my mate had to give statements to the cops a few weeks later. Mine was worth less of course as the Kiwi about to fly out. Builders asked us if everything was alright as we walked away and we said yeah, no thanks to you from my mate. Weird situation.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2017 2:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 13023
What?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2017 3:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 13097
Location: Melbourne
theo wrote:
What?


Weird situation. Fortunately I am here to provide tips on how to avoid it.

Do not drive at speed into walls.

You are welcome


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2017 3:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 23038
jdogscoop wrote:
I was actually involved in a comical UK accident once. An immigrant guy flew off the road in his car, and smashed into a brick wall. Nothing moved, including a few builders at the nearby property. I jogged to the scene and saw the guy was struggling so called the emergency number (Kiwi, had to ask my UK mate for the emergency number). They ambo turned up in a station wagon. A tory landowner fuckwit turned up in a tweet blazer asking about insurance details with the audacity to ask the paramedic who couldnt have given less of a fudge. Both me and my mate had to give statements to the cops a few weeks later. Mine was worth less of course as the Kiwi about to fly out. Builders asked us if everything was alright as we walked away and we said yeah, no thanks to you from my mate. Weird situation.

Had a good Friday night have we.?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2017 3:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 13097
Location: Melbourne
happyhooker wrote:
jdogscoop wrote:
I was actually involved in a comical UK accident once. An immigrant guy flew off the road in his car, and smashed into a brick wall. Nothing moved, including a few builders at the nearby property. I jogged to the scene and saw the guy was struggling so called the emergency number (Kiwi, had to ask my UK mate for the emergency number). They ambo turned up in a station wagon. A tory landowner fuckwit turned up in a tweet blazer asking about insurance details with the audacity to ask the paramedic who couldnt have given less of a fudge. Both me and my mate had to give statements to the cops a few weeks later. Mine was worth less of course as the Kiwi about to fly out. Builders asked us if everything was alright as we walked away and we said yeah, no thanks to you from my mate. Weird situation.

Had a good Friday night have we.?


I didnt think that was so f**ked up, apart from being spelled out in some detail. This happened in St Albans, believe it or not.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2017 3:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Posts: 37051
Location: Planet Rock
theo wrote:
jdogscoop wrote:
I was actually involved in a comical UK accident once. An immigrant guy flew off the road in his car, and smashed into a brick wall. Nothing moved, including a few builders at the nearby property. I jogged to the scene and saw the guy was struggling so called the emergency number (Kiwi, had to ask my UK mate for the emergency number). They ambo turned up in a station wagon. A tory landowner fuckwit turned up in a tweet blazer asking about insurance details with the audacity to ask the paramedic who couldnt have given less of a fudge. Both me and my mate had to give statements to the cops a few weeks later. Mine was worth less of course as the Kiwi about to fly out. Builders asked us if everything was alright as we walked away and we said yeah, no thanks to you from my mate. Weird situation.

What?


:lol:
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2017 4:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 04, 2017 8:43 pm
Posts: 50
camroc1 wrote:
As, Theo I think, noted above, any fire within a flat,should have been contained within that flat.

So the first question is how did an internal fire spread to the external cladding.

The second question, that is how it spread once it reached the cladding, is rather easier to explain, as it would appear that the aluminium cladding sandwich went up like petrol once a relatively low trigger temperature was reached. How that cladding came to be speced, and how it was shown that it was in compliance with fire regs will be the matters of interest. Especially if that was based on the first principle, ie. an internal fire staying internal.

The question is premature as this is what forensics are trying to ascertain. Given there is 15 tons of rubbish & rubble to clear from each floor getting to the answer will take time.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2017 6:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Posts: 37051
Location: Planet Rock
theo wrote:
Would appear that she didn't take her responsibility of being on the Board particularly seriously.

I sent her an email a couple of hours ago asking if she actually did anything to try and resolve the electrical issues. I think she must be getting a bit pissed off. She replied YES :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 15, 2017 1:01 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 17076
For those that are interested, some insight into spread of flame, wall assemblies, rain screens and insulation, the Grenfell tower fire from a North American perspective, by Building Science Corp's, Joseph Lstiburek.

You don't have to be a fire or facade engineer to get most of this. It's pretty basic stuff, which makes it all the more surprising that it happened at all. There seems to be a serious disconnect within the UK building professions, standards setters and regulators.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 15, 2017 11:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 24456
jdogscoop wrote:
I was actually involved in a comical UK accident once. An immigrant guy flew off the road in his car, and smashed into a brick wall. Nothing moved, including a few builders at the nearby property. I jogged to the scene and saw the guy was struggling so called the emergency number (Kiwi, had to ask my UK mate for the emergency number). They ambo turned up in a station wagon. A tory landowner fuckwit turned up in a tweet blazer asking about insurance details with the audacity to ask the paramedic who couldnt have given less of a fudge. Both me and my mate had to give statements to the cops a few weeks later. Mine was worth less of course as the Kiwi about to fly out. Builders asked us if everything was alright as we walked away and we said yeah, no thanks to you from my mate. Weird situation.



If some twat had piled off the road into my wall I would be interested in getting insurance details too.

I love it, just because someone owns a house that are a Tory :? or was he wearing a rosette??


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 15, 2017 11:24 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 64074
jdogscoop wrote:
happyhooker wrote:
jdogscoop wrote:
I was actually involved in a comical UK accident once. An immigrant guy flew off the road in his car, and smashed into a brick wall. Nothing moved, including a few builders at the nearby property. I jogged to the scene and saw the guy was struggling so called the emergency number (Kiwi, had to ask my UK mate for the emergency number). They ambo turned up in a station wagon. A tory landowner fuckwit turned up in a tweet blazer asking about insurance details with the audacity to ask the paramedic who couldnt have given less of a fudge. Both me and my mate had to give statements to the cops a few weeks later. Mine was worth less of course as the Kiwi about to fly out. Builders asked us if everything was alright as we walked away and we said yeah, no thanks to you from my mate. Weird situation.

Had a good Friday night have we.?


I didnt think that was so f**ked up, apart from being spelled out in some detail. This happened in St Albans, believe it or not.




I'm struggling to believe you couldn't remember 999, and that you think it unreasonable that the owner of the wall wanted insurance details from someone who potentially damaged his property.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 15, 2017 11:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 23038
bimboman wrote:
jdogscoop wrote:
happyhooker wrote:
jdogscoop wrote:
I was actually involved in a comical UK accident once. An immigrant guy flew off the road in his car, and smashed into a brick wall. Nothing moved, including a few builders at the nearby property. I jogged to the scene and saw the guy was struggling so called the emergency number (Kiwi, had to ask my UK mate for the emergency number). They ambo turned up in a station wagon. A tory landowner fuckwit turned up in a tweet blazer asking about insurance details with the audacity to ask the paramedic who couldnt have given less of a fudge. Both me and my mate had to give statements to the cops a few weeks later. Mine was worth less of course as the Kiwi about to fly out. Builders asked us if everything was alright as we walked away and we said yeah, no thanks to you from my mate. Weird situation.

Had a good Friday night have we.?


I didnt think that was so f**ked up, apart from being spelled out in some detail. This happened in St Albans, believe it or not.




I'm struggling to believe you couldn't remember 999, and that you think it unreasonable that the owner of the wall wanted insurance details from someone who potentially damaged his property.

And what the fûck it had to do with a tower block fire.

That was a nonsequitor at globusesque levels


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 15, 2017 11:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21769
Location: Middle East
bimboman wrote:
jdogscoop wrote:
happyhooker wrote:
jdogscoop wrote:
I was actually involved in a comical UK accident once. An immigrant guy flew off the road in his car, and smashed into a brick wall. Nothing moved, including a few builders at the nearby property. I jogged to the scene and saw the guy was struggling so called the emergency number (Kiwi, had to ask my UK mate for the emergency number). They ambo turned up in a station wagon. A tory landowner fuckwit turned up in a tweet blazer asking about insurance details with the audacity to ask the paramedic who couldnt have given less of a fudge. Both me and my mate had to give statements to the cops a few weeks later. Mine was worth less of course as the Kiwi about to fly out. Builders asked us if everything was alright as we walked away and we said yeah, no thanks to you from my mate. Weird situation.

Had a good Friday night have we.?


I didnt think that was so f**ked up, apart from being spelled out in some detail. This happened in St Albans, believe it or not.




I'm struggling to believe you couldn't remember 999, and that you think it unreasonable that the owner of the wall wanted insurance details from someone who potentially damaged his property.



Different countries have different emergency numbers.
111, 000, 911, 998, etc...

Many countries now automatically re-reroute any of these numbers to their actual emergency line as it's gotten so bad.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 15, 2017 12:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21572
Openside wrote:
jdogscoop wrote:
I was actually involved in a comical UK accident once. An immigrant guy flew off the road in his car, and smashed into a brick wall. Nothing moved, including a few builders at the nearby property. I jogged to the scene and saw the guy was struggling so called the emergency number (Kiwi, had to ask my UK mate for the emergency number). They ambo turned up in a station wagon. A tory landowner fuckwit turned up in a tweet blazer asking about insurance details with the audacity to ask the paramedic who couldnt have given less of a fudge. Both me and my mate had to give statements to the cops a few weeks later. Mine was worth less of course as the Kiwi about to fly out. Builders asked us if everything was alright as we walked away and we said yeah, no thanks to you from my mate. Weird situation.



If some twat had piled off the road into my wall I would be interested in getting insurance details too.

I love it, just because someone owns a house that are a Tory :? or was he wearing a rosette??


Good point. Good question.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 15, 2017 12:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 38987
Ted. wrote:
For those that are interested, some insight into spread of flame, wall assemblies, rain screens and insulation, the Grenfell tower fire from a North American perspective, by Building Science Corp's, Joseph Lstiburek.

You don't have to be a fire or facade engineer to get most of this. It's pretty basic stuff, which makes it all the more surprising that it happened at all. There seems to be a serious disconnect within the UK building professions, standards setters and regulators.

Interesting read, and basically points to the use of the combustible outer panel as the culprit, combined to some extent with moving the window outwards, although I'd not be surprised at the cladding fire breaking back in through originally placed windows.

FWIW, since the Grenfell fire, Dublin Fire Brigade investigated any multistorey (3 floors and up) building in Dublin either fitted or retrofitted with a similar cladding style, and found no examples of a combustible outer cladding having been used.

I still find it unbelievable that it was in frequent use in the UK.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 15, 2017 12:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 12682
Location: Coalfalls
camroc1 wrote:
Ted. wrote:
For those that are interested, some insight into spread of flame, wall assemblies, rain screens and insulation, the Grenfell tower fire from a North American perspective, by Building Science Corp's, Joseph Lstiburek.

You don't have to be a fire or facade engineer to get most of this. It's pretty basic stuff, which makes it all the more surprising that it happened at all. There seems to be a serious disconnect within the UK building professions, standards setters and regulators.

Interesting read, and basically points to the use of the combustible outer panel as the culprit, combined to some extent with moving the window outwards, although I'd not be surprised at the cladding fire breaking back in through originally placed windows.

FWIW, since the Grenfell fire, Dublin Fire Brigade investigated any multistorey (3 floors and up) building in Dublin either fitted or retrofitted with a similar cladding style, and found no examples of a combustible outer cladding having been used.

I still find it unbelievable that it was in frequent use in the UK.

Pehaps the Irish aren't quite so convinced that folk with meagre bank accounts and unfashionable accents are disposable?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1873 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot], HouseOfPane, jambanja, Mr Mike, Muttonbirds, wamberal and 23 guests


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