Britain's shame.

[motorbiking]

Ray Bailey, director of Harley Facades, said the firm relied on architects and building control officers to make sure designs were safe.

Not unreasonable, would you agree?

 

[Ihavenojob]

Are they putting in to law prosecution of the illegals, freeloaders and 5-star hotel lodgers who have actually profited from Grenfell whilst feigning the victim?

They have started
https://news.sky.com/story/the-fraudsters-who-took-advantage-of-grenfell-11559444

 

[^woody^]

Not unreasonable, would you agree?

That's right, but the headline wont be so dramatic for Johnny boy and the victim mindset.

The whole point, of having a Building Regulation regime, is to check building work, ensure it complies with the required standards and provide assurance of compliance. Nothing else, just that. It's a very simple concept - check submitted plans, check the work on site.

The whole point of employing specialist advisors is to provide specialist knowledge that you lack and that you can rely on. Not question, not employ other advisors to check the advisors, and advisors to check the other advisors etc. That too is a simple concept.

Installers are not experts in building regulations. They are experts in installing. This is why the specialist design and specification is passed to other specialists, and that is then checked by other specialists.

 

[JohnD]

As you say, the regime assumed that somebody, somewhere, was doing their job properly.

A rash assumption.

If a builder was told to pour foundations in porridge, to save money, no doubt he would.

 

[Brigadier]

Hiding shonky foundations is a sight easier than hiding 20-odd floors of shiny external cladding.

 

[^woody^]

A rash assumption.

Why is is rash to assume that the building inspector would do his job and check the building work that has been notified, applied for and paid to be inspected?

In your fluffy world who else should be inspecting for statutory compliance, if not a government officer or approved inspector?

 

[motorbiking]

As you say, the regime assumed that somebody, somewhere, was doing their job properly.

A rash assumption.

If a builder was told to pour foundations in porridge, to save money, no doubt he would.

I think you are in danger of creating a straw man argument (or at least the common definition of straw man, according to DIYNOT forum users, it means something different to me).

Prior to grenfell the backdrop was a general acceptance that cladding encased in aluminium (e.g. Celotex RS5000) was not considered a significant fire risk. We cannot judge these people with the benefit of hind sight.

 

[JohnD]

general acceptance... hind sight.

I wonder if there had been any comparable fires

I wonder if Housing Ministers had repeatedly urged to update the Building Regulations

I wonder if the composite had ever been tested in a sample wall.

Hello, what's this?

A block of flats in 2005?

 

[JohnD]

Hello, what's this?

Would you be surprised to know that four Housing Ministers were advised of the danger from wrapping blocks of flats in flammable materials? And did nothing about it?

How many of them do you think should have been elevated to the House of Lords after their dereliction became known?

What do you think about this one, for example?

https://www.insidehousing.co.uk/new...months-before-grenfell-new-letters-show-61883

"Gavin Barwell, who was housing minister in 2016 and 2017, received seven letters from the group of MPs responsible for scrutinising fire safety rules between September 2016 and May 2017 – with the last landing just 26 days before the fire at Grenfell Tower.


The letters warned of the risk of a deadly fire and called for a promised review of building regulations and fire safety to be carried out to prevent it.


But Mr Barwell sent just three short replies during this period and became so bad at replying that the group resorted to sending their letters by recorded delivery."

 

[JohnD]

Hello, what's this?

1999?

Fatal fire in Scotland, 1999.
See any resemblance?

1999 – Fire tears through uPVC window panels at Garnock Court, a tower block in Irvine, Scotland. Pensioner William Linton is killed.

2000 – Following the fires at Garnock Court and Knowsley Heights, a select committee of MPs investigates the dangers of cladding fires. It recommends tougher guidance to ensure that cladding products are ‘entirely non-combustible’ rather than the existing standard of ‘Class 0’. This recommendation is ignored by ministers in favour of the introduction of ‘large-scale testing’ as a route to compliance for cladding systems. Many of these tests will be carried out by the BRE.

July 2009. Another fatal fire.
Can you see a pattern developing?

July 2009 – A fire at Lakanal House spreads via its window panels and through the inside of the building because of flawed compartmentation. Six residents die, including three children, after they were advised to ‘stay put’ by the emergency services.

December 2010 – Industry and fire sector bodies issue warnings about fire safety during a public consultation on Approved Document B – including making calls for sprinklers in high-rise buildings. These are ignored, with the minister responsible later saying there was “a lot of pressure to reduce regulations”.

January 2012 – David Cameron announces plans to “kill health and safety culture” and introduces a ‘one in, two out’ rule for new regulations, where double the financial burden has to be removed by cutting regulations before any new regulation is introduced.

 

[JohnD]

"Grenfell Tower: Official fire safety warnings served in 2016, documents reveal"

...but nothing was done

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...l-fire-safety-warnings-served-2016-documents/

hind sight.

Hindsight my asre.

 

[Notch7]

The whole point, of having a Building Regulation regime

who sets the building regulation regime....it wouldnt be the government would it

were they given advice about Lakenhall to reviww building regulations?

"Speaking in parliament yesterday Steve Reed, MP for Croydon North, said that a string of housing ministers had failed to act on advice given by the coroner following the Lakanal House fire, which called for a review of building regulations.
Mr Reed said Grenfell happened after Lakanal because ministers didn’t act on the guidance and instructions they were given by the coroner.
He added that if housing ministers had belonged to a private company and failed to act in the same way, they would now “potentially be in the dock for corporate manslaughter”

 

[Mottie]

Things ain’t changed much with regards to high rise social housing. I lived a couple of hundred yards from Ronan Point when it collapsed in 1968.

Our house.

 

[^woody^]

were they given advice about Lakenhall to reviww building regulations?

Refresh me, did that fire involve cladding?

 

[Brigadier]

who sets the building regulation regime....it wouldnt be the government would it

were they given advice about Lakenhall to reviww building regulations?

"Speaking in parliament yesterday Steve Reed, MP for Croydon North, said that a string of housing ministers had failed to act on advice given by the coroner following the Lakanal House fire, which called for a review of building regulations.
Mr Reed said Grenfell happened after Lakanal because ministers didn’t act on the guidance and instructions they were given by the coroner.
He added that if housing ministers had belonged to a private company and failed to act in the same way, they would now “potentially be in the dock for corporate manslaughter”

(This is a Black Country accent thang)...

I used to, on occasion, work with some blokes from Tipton.

One of the blokes had the nickname of (what sounded to me, anyway), "Two nails".

I asked how this came about.

Baz told me that, when they used to go fishing, "Two nails" would shuffle up really close to him, trying to get in on his fish.

In a very broad Black Country accent, Baz told me that J got his nickname "because he was so far up my a rze, all you could see woz his too nails" (toe nails).

Notchy's going for "too nails" status, up JD's wrong 'un, himself