Fire in North Kensington.

[Tangled up in Blue]

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-40632705

More evidence of "social murder."

 

[Gremlin]

Fire chiefs seek extra funding after £10m budget underspend.

Damn those nasty Tories and their cuts.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...funding-after-10m-budget-underspend-2g23s2sf0

 

[OldBlueLady]

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-40632705

More evidence of "social murder."

Is that the Tories' fault too?

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Is that the Tories' fault too?

I'm perfectly willing to accept that social housing has been a "cinderella service" for at least the last 40 years,which obviously includes the Blair/Brown governments but I don't think there's any denying that since 2010, the cuts brought in by successive Tory led governments (including 40% cuts in local council budgets) hell-bent on austerity, as a deliberate policy choice, have exacerbated the situation.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Fire chiefs seek extra funding after £10m budget underspend.

Damn those nasty Tories and their cuts.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...funding-after-10m-budget-underspend-2g23s2sf0

You do know The Times is behind a pay-wall,right? :unsure:

 

[Gremlin]

You do know The Times is behind a pay-wall,right? :unsure:

I do. I'm sure that you can corroborate the story by checking it in your preferred read. That is of course unless they've chosen not to report the story because it doesn't fit their narrative.

 

[Gremlin]

I'm perfectly willing to accept that social housing has been a "cinderella service" for at least the last 40 years,which obviously includes the Blair/Brown governments but I don't think there's any denying that since 2010, the cuts brought in by successive Tory led governments (including 40% cuts in local council budgets) hell-bent on austerity, as a deliberate policy choice, have exacerbated the situation.

The local council in question had "stockpiled £274m of usable reserves following years of chronic underspending", according to the Independent. But hey, people didn't like the election result so......nasty Tories, cuts, austerity etc.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...274m-despite-warnings-residents-a7795411.html

 

[MK Shrimper]

The local council in question had "stockpiled £274m of usable reserves following years of chronic underspending", according to the Independent. But hey, people didn't like the election result so......nasty Tories, cuts, austerity etc.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...274m-despite-warnings-residents-a7795411.html

You realise that the local council is a Tory one, right? It sort of makes Barna's point more salient that they'd rather stockpile money (and give back £100 bonus I believe to residents - but not to those on benefits or living in social housing) than spend money on those who needed help the most....so yes, nasty Tories.

 

[Gremlin]

You realise that the local council is a Tory one, right? It sort of makes Barna's point more salient that they'd rather stockpile money (and give back £100 bonus I believe to residents - but not to those on benefits or living in social housing) than spend money on those who needed help the most....so yes, nasty Tories.

I do, yes. You can see for yourself that the point he made was "the cuts brought in by successive Tory led governments (including 40% cuts in local council budgets)" and that is the one I was responding to.

 

[rigsby]

You realise that the local council is a Tory one, right? It sort of makes Barna's point more salient that they'd rather stockpile money (and give back £100 bonus I believe to residents - but not to those on benefits or living in social housing) than spend money on those who needed help the most....so yes, nasty Tories.

Money isn't this issue, they spent £10m on Grenfell house. The problem was they used fire lighter material rather than non combustible.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Money isn't this issue, they spent £10m on Grenfell house. The problem was they used fire lighter material rather than non combustible.

Oh yes it is.The material used in the cladding was considerably cheaper than non-combustible material.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...ified-by-architects-only-used-on-ground-floor

"Documents emerged last week showing that contractors, supposedly under pressure, slashed cladding costs by almost £300,000."

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...ng-control-warned-about-refit-insulation-plan

"Grenfell Tower: insulation was not certified for use with flammable cladding."

"Certificate for Celotex insulation in tower block said it should only be used with non-combustible cladding."

" the insulation chosen for the £10m tower refit was acceptable for use on tall buildings only if used with fibre cement panels, which do not burn."


"Since the fire, the Celotex insulation and the Reynobond PE aluminium cladding have been withdrawn from sale. Both products, which were used on Grenfell Tower, were considerably cheaper than the non-combustible alternatives, according to industry sources.

Celotex is said to be 30% to 50% cheaper than non-combustible mineral fibre insulation.

 

[rigsby]

Oh yes it is.The material used in the cladding was considerably cheaper than non-combustible material.

Well if you buy the cheaper car on the forecourt you still expect it to be road worthy.

You'll have to ask how this material past so called 'professional' tests when its banned in other countries and people have died in previous fires that spread because of the cladding.

It would seem the obsession with all things green and energy saving created a corrupt testing culture that overruled safety and alarming concerns by the ordinary Jo's of Britain.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Well if you buy the cheaper car on the forecourt you still expect it to be road worthy.

You'll have to ask how this material past so called 'professional' tests when its banned in other countries and people have died in previous fires that spread because of the cladding.

It would seem the obsession with all things green and energy saving created a corrupt testing culture that overruled safety and alarming concerns by the ordinary Jo's of Britain.

I would expect this to come out in the public enquiry into the Grenfell fire.Unless, of course,that is the complete whitewash that many of the residents and survivors expect it to be.

I'm also interested to know why cheaper combustible materials were used in the mix instead of 100% non-combustible ones? It seems to me, that either or both the contractors concerned and the KC council were culpable, the former for seeking to cut costs at the risk of public safety, the latter for allowing them to do so.

 

[rigsby]

I would expect this to come out in the public enquiry into the Grenfell fire.Unless, of course,that is the complete whitewash that many of the residents and survivors expect it to be.

I'm also interested to know why cheaper combustible materials were used in the mix instead of 100% non-combustible ones? It seems to me, that either or both the contractors concerned and the KC council were culpable, the former for seeking to cut costs at the risk of public safety, the latter for allowing them to do so.

See first line of post 212.

I chose to clad the outside of my building with Siberian larch wood. Had I gone for a cheaper man made product I would not expect it to act as an accelerant in a fire or give off cyanide gas. Regardless of cost.

I've seen the videos and spoke to people who were there. Even the jets from the ALP were struggling to make any effect on the flames. Almost unheard of in a fire situation unless its a chemical or metal etc. Certainly not any domestic fire.

I'll wager when the tests are completed that material has the same properties as a fire-lighter. Regardless of who is the builder, council or in government that should have never remotely passed any tests that allowed this product to be used.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

See first line of post 212.

I chose to clad the outside of my building with Siberian larch wood. Had I gone for a cheaper man made product I would not expect it to act as an accelerant in a fire or give off cyanide gas. Regardless of cost.

I've seen the videos and spoke to people who were there. Even the jets from the ALP were struggling to make any effect on the flames. Almost unheard of in a fire situation unless its a chemical or metal etc. Certainly not any domestic fire.

I'll wager when the tests are completed that material has the same properties as a fire-lighter. Regardless of who is the builder, council or in government that should have never remotely passed any tests that allowed this product to be used.

Seem to rember something on C4 news last week or (possibly) Newsnight to the effect that one of the contractors concerned also owns the company which runs (some of) the tests.Poor show.

 

[OldBlueLady]

Seem to rember something on C4 news last week or (possibly) Newsnight to the effect that one of the contractors concerned also owns the company which runs (some of) the tests.Poor show.

Really? No conflict of interest there at all then!

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Really? No conflict of interest there at all then!

That was my point I think.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

See first line of post 212.

I chose to clad the outside of my building with Siberian larch wood. Had I gone for a cheaper man made product I would not expect it to act as an accelerant in a fire or give off cyanide gas. Regardless of cost.

I've seen the videos and spoke to people who were there. Even the jets from the ALP were struggling to make any effect on the flames. Almost unheard of in a fire situation unless its a chemical or metal etc. Certainly not any domestic fire.

I'll wager when the tests are completed that material has the same properties as a fire-lighter. Regardless of who is the builder, council or in government that should have never remotely passed any tests that allowed this product to be used.

http://www.echo-news.co.uk/news/15431086.Grenfell_fire_prompts_new_safety_measures/

Trust your "building" isn't affected? :unsure::winking:

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...scribe-their-battle-with-grenfell-tower-blaze

Thought this was moving.The 3 part ITV programme looks like a good but difficult watch.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-40747241

Thank God.But the punishment for corporate manslaughter is only a fine.As David Lammy says: "Gross negligence manslaughter carries a punishment of prison time." Which sounds more appropriate to me.