Barry Fish

General News Discussion

27,647 posts in this topic

20 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

For the record, I don't think the UK economy and the Greek one should be mentioned in the same breath. Apples and oranges.

Apples are resources and oranges are resources. If you eat all the apples and oranges you have no (apples and oranges) resources.

Greece is what happens when a country uses more resources than it has. It gets poorer.

Now, what do you think is going on in a UK where 7% of our currency leaves the UK each year?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, feral chile said:

if it's illegal in the UK it didn't pass regulations. The clue is in the meaning of the words. :D

I'm not sure Hammond is correct, tho, as he's the first to come out and say this. I'd have expected fire services and architects to be saying the same before he did if it were true.

It might be the case that Hammond is right if you read around the various regs in a particular way, but it doesn't appear to be 'clearly' the case else others would have said the same before him.

 

8 hours ago, ThomThomDrum said:

If true someone is in a shit load of trouble. 

just out of interest, are the same cladding panels illegal in Ireland?

I'm seeing lots of peeps claiming the UK has lagged behind other countries with this, but at-least some of what is being said is porkies or a stretching of the truth. For example, I've seen it said they've been banned for decades in Germany, yet I can find more-recent reports of fires in Germany thought to have involved flammable cladding - which at best is suggesting there was no requirement to replace any that had been installed before banning.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

if it's illegal in the UK it didn't pass regulations. The clue is in the meaning of the words. :D

I'm not sure Hammond is correct, tho, as he's the first to come out and say this. I'd have expected fire services and architects to be saying the same before he did if it were true.

It might be the case that Hammond is right if you read around the various regs in a particular way, but it doesn't appear to be 'clearly' the case else others would have said the same before him.

 

just out of interest, are the same cladding panels illegal in Ireland?

I'm seeing lots of peeps claiming the UK has lagged behind other countries with this, but at-least some of what is being said is porkies or a stretching of the truth. For example, I've seen it said they've been banned for decades in Germany, yet I can find more-recent reports of fires in Germany thought to have involved flammable cladding - which at best is suggesting there was no requirement to replace any that had been installed before banning.

I have read they are banned in Germany in buildings over a certain height. No idea if that is true.

We seem to suddenly have a great many experts in cladding. I am not one of them.

And as you point out, Hammond's claim looks unlikely. Journalism may not be what it used to be, but you would assume someone would actually have got hold of the relevant building regs & read them, so if the panels were illegal, we should know by now.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, LJS said:

I have read they are banned in Germany in buildings over a certain height. No idea if that is true.

I've read that too - tho I've also read reports of fires in recent years where flammible cladding has been blamed for something about the fire, too - so it looks like they might still be in place on buildings even if new fitting of them is banned.

I've also see claims of them banned in Aus, but i've also seen an Aus civil engineer say they're not.

 

16 minutes ago, LJS said:

We seem to suddenly have a great many experts in cladding. I am not one of them.

And as you point out, Hammond's claim looks unlikely. Journalism may not be what it used to be, but you would assume someone would actually have got hold of the relevant building regs & read them, so if the panels were illegal, we should know by now.

It wouldn't need a journo to get hold of the regs, there's be plenty within the industry (architects, builders, etc) who'd be flagging it up (even if others in the industry didn't know). 

It's clearly a big error with them being used, and there's quite possibly opportunities to tighten things up been missed, but from everything that's been said so far it's looking more like a tragic cock-up that we learn a lesson from rather than something everyone should have been already aware of.

Even if the reports I've read about a 2009 flats fire and recommendations made from that* about banning flammable cladding had been implemented at the earliest opportunity, that earliest opportunity would have been 2016 - which would still most-likely have the same cladding been used at Grenfell.

(* tho many of the recommendations from that were specific to the layout of those flats, and wouldn't apply to Grenfell - which is supposedly the case with sprinklers)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

 

just out of interest, are the same cladding panels illegal in Ireland?

 

I have no idea TBH. All I know is that the minister responsible for housing here in the wake of Grenfell has ordered a fire safety review of all high rise (we actually dont have much) and social housing in the country, so there maybe a fear that this sort of stuff has been used, but I cant 100% tell. 

What I had read recently before Hammond spoke out was this sort of cladding was banned in the US, Scotland and a couple of other countries. When the Mrs mentioned Hammonds comments to me I replied to her saying I think he may be mistaken in that the cladding may be banned from parts of the UK, but not England. We will soon see/find out, but if it does materialize that the cladding used was illegal then some folk are gonna be in the thick of it. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, ThomThomDrum said:

I think he may be mistaken in that the cladding may be banned from parts of the UK, but not England.

That might be correct. I've seen a suggestion that Scotland has different regs to the rest of the UK, and that could be right as Scottish law is distinctly different to England & Wales law (tho normally, despite being distinctly different, it ends up as much the same in its effect).

I've also heard that in 1896 there was a 'rationalisation' of UK building/fire regs, and that until that point London had stricter regs than England for some reason, but that at the point of that (perhaps driven by EU regs or laws) rationalisation, the lowest level of regs were made the nationwide ones.

(going with the lowest standards might not have been the wisest idea from a safety point of view, but it does make sense from a rationalisation point of view).

It looks like everything has ended up in a place which wasn't good enough from a regulatory point of view, tho that still doesn't get to mean that there'll be an individual who can be blamed as the one who caused it all go horribly wrong. So far it's looking more like the cumulative effect of many different things than a single "it's his fault" decision.

I'm pretty sure the stuff that's flying around about a £5k difference in the cost of the cladding will end up as just about nothing to do with anything, as it's extremely likely the cladding was chosen firstly because it was regarded as suitable for the job rather than because of its price. My experiences of the building game is that people might go for the cheapest within what is suitable, but they don't go for the unsuitable (tho there are cowboy exceptions, of course).

Edited by eFestivals
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, eFestivals said:

if it's illegal in the UK it didn't pass regulations. The clue is in the meaning of the words. :D

 

oy sarky twp.

 

This cladding must pass building regulations to be used.

This cladding has been used.

Therefore.....

If the conclusion is 'this cladding has NOT passed building regulations'......

?

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, feral chile said:

oy sarky twp.

 

This cladding must pass building regulations to be used.

This cladding has been used.

Therefore.....

If the conclusion is 'this cladding has NOT passed building regulations'......

?

then someone has fucked up.

but almost no one is suggesting that the panels are banned, and I'm sure the noise from architects and engineers and builders would be loud if it was banned. Not every architect or builder would necessarily know the score, but plenty would do.

A large-scale refurb like that is likely to have been overseen by an architect, who'd have spec'd the materials for the builder (so unlikely to be the builders choice of materials), and the architect would have selected the cladding panels from a list of (supposedly) suitable materials - so unlikely to be the architect.

To me, it always comes back to the regs which allowed these panels - and while it's clear today (if the panels are allowed within the regs) those regs are very badly flawed, it doesn't necessarily follow that it was obvious before the fire last week (even tho a number of concerns had been raised about them).

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, eFestivals said:

then someone has fucked up.

but almost no one is suggesting that the panels are banned, and I'm sure the noise from architects and engineers and builders would be loud if it was banned. Not every architect or builder would necessarily know the score, but plenty would do.

A large-scale refurb like that is likely to have been overseen by an architect, who'd have spec'd the materials for the builder (so unlikely to be the builders choice of materials), and the architect would have selected the cladding panels from a list of (supposedly) suitable materials - so unlikely to be the architect.

To me, it always comes back to the regs which allowed these panels - and while it's clear today (if the panels are allowed within the regs) those regs are very badly flawed, it doesn't necessarily follow that it was obvious before the fire last week (even tho a number of concerns had been raised about them).

Part 12.7 of part B2 of the building regs says that in a building with a story 18 metres or more above ground level any insulation product, filler material used in external wall construction should be of limited combustibility. 

See Page 94

See Ronnie King, ex chief fire officer and now group secretariat for the all party parliamentary fire safety and rescue group. 

The inquiry needs to ascertain whether the core of the Grenfell tower had a combustible material - as this could have meant the type of cladding used was banned. 

The regs are confusing and haven't been amended (I don't think) since the lawyers agreed as much during the aftermath of the Lakanal House fire. 

It's a mess for sure - let's hope the positive is changes are made for the good to prevent similar in future. 

Edited by TheGayTent
Added link to building regs
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

STRONG AND STABLE

Edited by zahidf
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

Edited by feral chile
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://metro.co.uk/2017/06/19/finsbury-park-suspect-named-as-father-of-four-darren-osborne-6720145/

From Wales. Originally from Weston Super Mare.

Quote

One neighbour, who did not wish to be named, told the Metro: “He had lived on the estate for a few years. He’s always been a complete c*** but this is really surprising.”

Been thrown out of the local pub for racist crap.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/grenfell-tower-firefighters-put-out-fridge-blaze-and-were-just-leaving-when-flats-erupted-in-flames/ar-BBCWLIn?li=AAmiR2Z&ocid=spartanntp

the fridge fire had been brought under control when firefighters realised flames had erupted over the side of the building. 1970's tower blocks should have contained the fire to one storey.

Edited by feral chile
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

looks like a good solution has been found to rehouse the victims locally:

Sixty-eight flats in £2bn luxury block to be given to families whose lives were devastated in Grenfell blaze

Quote

Residents evacuated from Grenfell Tower are set to move into a £2 billion luxury complex in the heart of Kensington, the Standard can reveal.

Plans are pressing ahead for some of the families made homeless from the devastating fire to be housed in one of London’s most desirable addresses.

The Standard can reveal that new flats in a Kensington High Street development — where penthouses go for up to £13 million — will be used to provide accommodation for families following the huge blaze that destroyed the tower block last week.

Sixty-eight flats in the Kensington Row scheme have been acquired, at a cost of tens of millions of pounds, to permanently house families from Grenfell Tower, which is just a couple of miles away.

The new accommodation, in one of the most sought-after postcodes in the capital, features a gym, swimming pool and 24-hour concierge service.

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, lost said:

looks like a good solution has been found to rehouse the victims locally:

Sixty-eight flats in £2bn luxury block to be given to families whose lives were devastated in Grenfell blaze

 

I hope all the survivors of this dreadful disaster are rehoused adequately. Hindsight's a wonderful thing, but I hope when public sector savings are made, the real costs are taken into account, both human and economic, when cutting costs. Both here and the NHS, and other areas where the public saving ends up costing more in the long run and the human cost is immeasurable.

it's never an easy choice to make - we just don't have the funds to prepare adequately for the future, and end up trapped in short term, reactive 'fixes'.

I have mixed feelings about the generosity of the developer here:

From the above article:
 

Quote

 

Two bedroom flats are currently being advertised for up to £2.4 million, but it is understood the City of London Corporation paid around £10 million for the flats thanks to an “extraordinary gesture” of goodwill by developer St Edward in selling the properties at their cost price.

A property source said: “They are being sold to the corporation at cost. It is a huge gesture by them. It just goes to is show what kind of mark-up there is.”

 

This is why I call Neil simplistic when he goes on about free money. And businesses not being in it for the profit.

Not that I would like to think up a solution to the way capitalism operates at the moment.

because you just end up with a new set of problems.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, feral chile said:

 

I have mixed feelings about the generosity of the developer here:

From the above article:
 

This is why I call Neil simplistic when he goes on about free money. And businesses not being in it for the profit.

Not that I would like to think up a solution to the way capitalism operates at the moment.

because you just end up with a new set of problems.

I think that statement is saving face for the developer personally.

There are far too many of these developments coming online in London and with the new stamp duty and taxes on landlords, sales are well down. Foxtons sales are down 40% on 2015.

Buying so many units in bulk with the developer ready to move onto the next project plus some free advertising and I still think they will be onto a winner.

Edited by lost
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.