Fire at Grenfell Tower, London. Not looking good.

[knock out johnny]

5 minutes ago, fru-gal said:

No but anyone who is a rentier will have a vested interest in not making things better for the have-nots, even if they don't say it publicly. (Lammy declared donations from property companies when he was a candidate for London Mayor). Watch what they do, rather than what they say;

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/mayor/revealed-labour-mayoral-hopefuls-accepting-tens-of-thousands-in-donations-from-property-tycoons-a2919631.html

Watch how they vote not what they own

 

Please tell who on the list below of MPs who derive more than £10k per year on residential rental property is labour - ta very much

 

Nigel Adams

Stuart Andrew

Victoria Atkins

Jake Berry

James Berry

Bob Blackman

Robert Buckland

Alun Cairns

David Cameron

Alex Chalk

James Cleverley

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown

Therese Coffey

Geoffrey Cox

Mims Davies

Philip Davies

Richard Drax

James Duddridge

Alan Duncan

Philip Dunne

Jane Ellison

George Eustice

Mike Freer

Richard Fuller

John Glen

Robert Goodwill

Chris Grayling

Dominic Grieve

Chris Heaton-Harris

Peter Heaton-Jones

George Hollingberry

Kevin Hollinrake

Philip Hollobone

Nick Hurd

Stewart Jackson

Margot James

Sajid Javid

Joseph Johnson

Simon Kirby (teller)

Greg Knight

Brandon Lewis

Julian Lewis

Craig Mackinlay

Tania Mathias

Karl McCartney

Anne Marie Morris

Sheryll Murray

Robert Neill

Sarah Newton (teller)

Jesse Norman

David Nuttall

Neil Parish

Owen Paterson

Rebecca Pow

Jeremy Quin

Jacob Rees-Mogg

Laurence Robertson

Julian Smith

Royston Smith

Mark Spencer

John Stevenson

Desmond Swayne

Derek Thomas

Anne-Marie Trevelyan

Andrew Turner

Shailesh Vara

Theresa Villiers

Ben Wallace

David Warburton

Craig Whittaker

John Whittingdale

Nadhim Zahawi

[Goat]

1 hour ago, MancTom said:

Really though it comes down to regulations - if the cheaper non-fire-resistant type can cause what we have just seen, why is it legal to use it?

Who said it is?

It strikes me the problem is enforcement, the implications (I presume) of non-compliance with building regulations are that the council can force you to comply (in this case tear it all down and do it again properly) but there are two problems:

1. the council must be aware of the non-compliance;
2. in the case of council owned properties there is a conflict of interest, in that enforcing compliance entails a substantial cost to the same body that is charged with enforcement.

So in an ideal world a buildings inspector would view the works being done in real time, declare it non-compliant and enforce the remedial works.  In the real world I suspect the inspector would only visit on a handful of occasions and I guess that it is childs play to make it appear that the works are compliant whilst at the same time using substandard materials with the results that we have seen.  Even if the inspector knows or suspects that the works are sub-standard the pressure is on him to turn a blind eye for fear of landing his bosses with a multi-milliion pound bill.

I suspect what happened here is that the designers specified a completely fire safe system that if installed properly would've given us a small fire in someone's kitchen that might have merited one paragraph in the local paper, the job was then contracted out to the lowest bidder who used cheaper flamable materials and conned the inspector one way or another into thinking it was built to spec

[LC1]

13 minutes ago, Goat said:

I suspect what happened here is that the designers specified a completely fire safe system that if installed properly would've given us a small fire in someone's kitchen that might have merited one paragraph in the local paper, the job was then contracted out to the lowest bidder who used cheaper flamable materials and conned the inspector one way or another into thinking it was built to spec

I suspect you're right. If so, the person responsible for signing that off needs to go to prison for a very long time.

[copydude]

41 minutes ago, crashmonitor said:

Meanwhile the principal criminals here are the social engineers of the 1970s that created these uneconomic monstrosities.

Have you ever been East?

 

Here's a picture of a rayon in Kiev, where nearly all blocks are 25 - 35 stories. These places allow families to live affordably 15 -20 minutes from the city centre and close to their jobs.

Why aren't they ghettoes or towering infernos? Because they are not dumping grounds for immigrants and the unemployed. Architects can't be blamed for political attitudes. These places are full of checks . . . last time the elevator was checked is signed off in public view, for example. In Russia or Ukraine, the London block owners would be in jail now.

[knock out johnny]

17 minutes ago, fru-gal said:

I was talking about rentiers in general. Plenty of rentiers in all parties. Both parties to blame. Lots of this has been building up since NuLabour and the Tories just took the baton and ran with it and made things even worse. Agree that these Tory MPs should have not voted against the Bill but that is what Tories tend to do, so no surprises there.

That wwas the point I was originally making, bizarrely defending Lily Allen who was calling out the tory mPs on C4 News last night

[jonb2]

7 minutes ago, copydude said:

Have you ever been East?

I've been east quite a lot CD. I know the blocks are not liked by many, especially by the 'captured' older countries. But they are fit for purpose and many Slavs make them into very cosy and warm places to live. They are maintained as the societal structure to do so is still in place. Not really any profiteering except in places like Moscow, where a favour might lead to entitlement. But even that is better than Soviet times.

It is deeply emblematic of the state of this country that our social housing is so f*cked. Whether occupied by immigrants or not - which is another woeful story entirely.

[Liquid Goldfish]

2 hours ago, MancTom said:

That depends - there is more than one type. The more expensive type is fire resistant, and that was apparently not used here. What is used for the buildings for rich people?

Really though it comes down to regulations - if the cheaper non-fire-resistant type can cause what we have just seen, why is it legal to use it?

The UK doesn't seem to have thought it was a risk. It's not legal on high rise in some countries according to various news reports (including Poland, France and Germany).

It looks like there are three types of Reynobond - standard polythene, flame retardant polythene and mineral fibre

In America they can only use the mineral fibre version on high rise.

[Errol]

42 minutes ago, copydude said:

Have you ever been East?

 

Here's a picture of a rayon in Kiev, where nearly all blocks are 25 - 35 stories. These places allow families to live affordably 15 -20 minutes from the city centre and close to their jobs.

Why aren't they ghettoes or towering infernos? Because they are not dumping grounds for immigrants and the unemployed. Architects can't be blamed for political attitudes. These places are full of checks . . . last time the elevator was checked is signed off in public view, for example. In Russia or Ukraine, the London block owners would be in jail now.

Good post. Yes, Ukraine, Russia and other similar nations all have much more stringent controls over tower blocks.

[Goat]

12 minutes ago, LC1 said:

I suspect you're right. If so, the person responsible for signing that off needs to go to prison for a very long time.

I suspect the buck-passing is going to be epic:

• the council/TMO will say that it was designed to standard and appropriately signed off by a qualified inspector as such;
• the builidng inspector will (by now) have a perfect file to prove that appropriate checks were made, evidence and assurances were obtained such that he reasonably believed that the work was being performed to standard
• the contractor will say that appropriate materials were supplied and instructions were given to a sub-contractor and that as far as he was aware the works were perfored to standard, building inspections confirming this.  If instructions were not followed and sub-standard materials used then "OMG I must have been ripped off, the subbie must've sold the good stuff on the black market etc......."
• the subbie will say "Nie mówię po angielsku"

It's going to be a question of what evidence can be found to prove wrongdoing, 1 and 2 are probably smart enough to have covered their backs with the appropriate paperwork but if notes or correspondence can be found that contradict this they may be in trouble.  4 presumably will be untraceable and if found will deny everything and just say he did what he was told to do.

The contractor is likely to be the one facing (manslaughter?) charges but even then it could be difficult to prove 

We know that the company was liquidated so it's uncertain if the business records still exist, without them it might be very hard to prove anything  Assuming that they do still exist then it should'nt be too hard to establish what materials were supplied and hence whether the contractor knew what was being done  In the end it may come down to who was on site, if the contractor spent most of his time there then he'll have a hard time explaining anything else away.

All of this is of course speculation, it is possible that everything was done by the book and the rules are simply garbage, I am however surprised that old bill hasn't already kicked down doors and carted away anything that might be evidence relevant to the investigation.

[Errol]

There is now a protest taking place at Kensington & Chelsea town hall.

[knock out johnny]

25 minutes ago, Errol said:

There is now a protest taking place at Kensington & Chelsea town hall.

focal point

being ignored by officials

Friday night

warm weather

collective anger

 

 

[Errol]

Town hall now been stormed.

[casual_squash]

8 minutes ago, Errol said:

Town hall now been stormed.

Momentum will whip this up. No doubts at all. They want the Tories ....OUT

I think we're on the verge of a black swan and a very polarised country now. The capital versus the country. 

 

[crashmonitor]

21 minutes ago, casual_squash said:

Momentum will whip this up. No doubts at all. They want the Tories ....OUT

I think we're on the verge of a black swan and a very polarised country now. The capital versus the country. 

 

The media and Jeremy Corbyn have a lot to answer for with the rhetoric they have used. Also this idea that May could have shown up is ridiculous. It could have been a lynching..not just a proverbial one.

 

[MancTom]

3 hours ago, crashmonitor said:

If every housing unit was given an 80k make over by the State that would more than double the National debt and cost two trillion pounds, the country would be bankrupt, there would be no NHS and millions of refugees would be trying to reach Europe in boats because it would be game over.

It's not about which cladding was used, it's asking why we build buildings that cost 80k per unit just to insulate and why the money was not better used in the first place...like fire safety inside.

Meanwhile the principal criminals here are the social engineers of the 1970s that created these uneconomic monstrosities.

But thats missing my point - given they did do it, why was it not a legal requirement to do so in a safe way?

Even if you argue they should not spend this money on social housing at all, what about non-social housing in high rises. Does it all use the fire resistant material or not? If not, should there not be a legal requirement to do so?

[reddog]

One of the rioters demands is to continue to pay the welfare of victims!we are truly at the point where welfare is your job!

[MancTom]

37 minutes ago, Errol said:

Town hall now been stormed.

This man's very angry:

 

 

[MancTom]

13 minutes ago, crashmonitor said:

The media and Jeremy Corbyn have a lot to answer for with the rhetoric they have used. Also this idea that May could have shown up is ridiculous. It could have been a lynching..not just a proverbial one.

 

I've long been convinced Corbyn and McDonnell have only ever been interested in violent revolution to achieve their aims. McDonnell seems to say as much in the usual left wing fringe newspapers in recent months.

[nnails]

just out of interest as any one seen any colored fire fighter talking the blaze

[knock out johnny]

Just now, nnails said:

just out of interest as any one seen any colored fire fighter talking the blaze

I saw photos of with some in them - and also women firefighters 

just out of interest. Why?

[thisisthisitmaybe]

Looks like a summer of riots ahead of us. If ever we needed a typical british summer its now...but with the temp at 30 i imagine police leave is suspended and the army are on standby.

Media love it and Corbyn will exploit it. An outlandish prediction is we could see some kind of martial rule. 

[reddog]

14 minutes ago, thisisthisitmaybe said:

Looks like a summer of riots ahead of us. If ever we needed a typical british summer its now...but with the temp at 30 i imagine police leave is suspended and the army are on standby.

Media love it and Corbyn will exploit it. An outlandish prediction is we could see some kind of martial rule. 

Martial law would be a bit unlikely.

 

Admittedly I am not in the UK right now, but I get the feeling something similar to the 2011 riots wouldnt be a total surprise, though this time the police will be told to go in hard to stop anything getting too out of control.

 

Social media could be a factor.  Already I am seeing plenty of stirring, funnily enough by people who would have no chance of living in Kensington!!

[BristolBuyer]

57 minutes ago, thisisthisitmaybe said:

Looks like a summer of riots ahead of us. If ever we needed a typical british summer its now...but with the temp at 30 i imagine police leave is suspended and the army are on standby.

Media love it and Corbyn will exploit it. An outlandish prediction is we could see some kind of martial rule. 

Riots tend to be associated with people setting fire to buildings though, which would be a bit ironic.

I think the main lesson to be learned here is "don't fit flammable cladding to tall buildings". Although the human cost of learning this lesson has been high, it seems likely to me that the cost of using non-flammable cladding instead on future projects is not going to be excessive. Even replacing already-fitted flammable cladding is likely to be cheaper than demolition. I see this as an architectural issue rather than a political one.

[Toast]

2 hours ago, Goat said:

We know that the company was liquidated

Excuse me? I hadn't heard that detail. That must have been a pretty sharpish liquidation if the cladding ws done last year.

As I was reading through your post, I admit that I was imagining ahead in my cynical way, that "contractor was put into administration before the fire" was going to crop up. In fact, I was expecting "...and the assets of the company were sold to the brother of the building inspector", so it wasn't quite as bad as I feared. Nevertheless it's always a shock to have one's cynicism backed up by real life.

[subspace]

Live stream of the protest in Kensington: