High Rise Fire

[SirGalahad]

As usual, the threads been diverted; so getting back to it.

One of the local counsellors tried to blame central government by saying their funding had been cut back, but then went on to say that they aren't given a blank cheque, and they have to make decisions as to where they spend money.

But it seems as though the cladding is a result of Tony and Gordons obsession with cutting greenhouse gasses, and so the local authorities have to try and trim back emissions anywhere and everywhere. It would seem that the pursuance of a unobtainable (and highly questionable) target, may have overridden all other priorities.

Central government has cut funding to the tune of 20%. It is a fact and decisions are made which have consequences.

The cladding - they could have used a fire retardant version which cost about £2m psqm according to reports.

Now one of the reasons for cladding was thermal efficiency and the other was it made the towers less of an eyesore.

So cutting greenhouses gases should not be done. We should just pollute and not cut harmful emissions?

 

[Doggit]

Whichever figure you take the percentage of land we use for living on is small. Ergo we have enough land to continue building homes

Yes, we need more homes, but it's interesting that JohnD forgets that a great deal of the million homes that are uninhabited, are actually in the social housing sector.

The mantra of building more homes is to look at the problem from the wrong direction. Build more homes, need more immigrant workers to build them, Oh, need to build more homes. The wall building robot needs to be improved so that it can do corners, then we wouldn't need more workers.

Anyone seen the video of a house being built by a 3D printer (well of sorts). I was going to give the link, but it seems there are so many of them, just google it and see what they can do nowadays.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Again you dont think there is enough extra land to build homes on?

My point is that while there may be enough land for homes, you, presumably are not catering for all the extra infrastructure - e.g. lots of things you can think of for yourself.

It is quite a busy place already, isn't it? or don't you know any different?

Don't they say, by the figures, that we need another city the size of Hull every year. Where is it?

Another London built in East Anglia may be a good idea.
Maybe new cities called Chatsworth, Woburn, Blenheim etc. The land wouldn't cost anything; it could be confiscated from the families of the original thieves.

 

[EFLImpudence]

The cladding - they could have used a fire retardant version which cost about £2m psqm according to reports.

What's a millipound? or rather expensive.

It cost £2 more per sheet - 25 instead of 23 from what I read.

 

[SirGalahad]

My point is that while there may be enough land for homes, you, presumably are not catering for all the extra infrastructure - e.g. lots of things you can think of for yourself.

It is quite a busy place already, isn't it? or don't you know any different?

Don't they say, by the figures, that we need another city the size of Hull every year. Where is it?

Another London built in East Anglia may be a good idea.
Maybe new cities called Chatsworth, Woburn, Blenheim etc. The land wouldn't cost anything; it could be confiscated from the families of the original thieves.

There is enough land for homes and infrastructure, schools, hospitals etc.

So now you are arguing against extra building of homes because of it making it more busier? Lol thats expanding supply.

 

[securespark]

How about the missis(sic) when I send her down to the local lavoir

That would be a different kind of yelling...

Wahayyyyyyyyy!!!

Is that a picture of your missis in the Mississippi?

I'll get my coat, I mean swimming cossie......

 

[EFLImpudence]

There is enough land for homes and infrastructure, schools, hospitals etc.

You can say that. Everyone in Britain could stand on the Isle of Wight and have 7sq.m. each; it doesn't mean it's a good thing.
Where is a new Hull every year going to go?

Or shouldn't we build them first and then expand the population? Yeah, fat chance.

So now you are arguing against extra building of homes because of it making it more busier? Lol thats expanding supply.

There's busy as in relatively more work for relatively more people; that makes no difference.

Then there's busy in the place being clogged up, which it nearly is already.

 

[SirGalahad]

Then there's busy in the place being clogged up, which it nearly is already.

So if the place is clogged up, isnt building homes on land that does not have homes easing congestion in those areas by getting people to move to the new home builds?

So does demand create supply or does supply create demand.

 

[EFLImpudence]

I made a mistake in the size of Switzerland. It' about a third that of England.

Nobody noticed, though.

So if the place is clogged up, isnt building homes on land that does not have homes easing congestion in those areas by getting people to move to the new home builds?

Not if they are filled by extra people.

So does demand create supply or does supply create demand.

That's got nothing to do with it.

 

[Roger928]

I was shocked that any party can vote against a proposal that rented homes must be safe and fit for human habitation.

But it's true.

www.theguardian.com/society/2016/jan/12/tories-reject-move-to-ensure-rented-homes-fit-for-human-habitation

View attachment 121042

More propaganda drivel.

 

[HawkEye244]

Central government has cut funding to the tune of 20%. It is a fact and decisions are made which have consequences.

The cladding - they could have used a fire retardant version which cost about £2m psqm according to reports.

Now one of the reasons for cladding was thermal efficiency and the other was it made the towers less of an eyesore.

So cutting greenhouses gases should not be done. We should just pollute and not cut harmful emissions?

Show us.

 

[mikeyd]

Just caught up with the last 5 pages of this thread. On Wednesday morning, I searched for the plans of the building, who did the refurb etc. I came across a drawing (can't find it now) which specified the cladding type that was to be used. I'm sure it specified a Celotex product. The main contractor sub'd the cladding work out to a company that I then noticed had gone bust, laid off staff and started up again with a very similar name. I'm probably wrong, but my thought on Wednesday was that the cladding installed wasn't the cladding specified. If so I don't know who to start to blame. Who was watching/checking who and where will the buck stop? It's a bit unfair to say (not seen it said here but the media seem to be saying it) that it's all the Tories fault, or Labours. I think (just my opinion) that someone lower down the chain pulled a fast one. Time will tell.

 

[tony1851]

As above, it's stupid blaming everyone and anyone, and the rent-a-mob faction screaming at the PM achieves nothing.
We won't know for a while yet, but it would not be surprising if it was faulty design and installation of cavity barriers around windows,
or even missing them off altogether.
One thing it is not due to is omissions from the Building Regulations. One writer in the Graun today actually stated that Building Regulations have been "watered down"! Absolute nonsense; those of us familiar with Approved Document B are well aware that cavity barriers are mandatory in these situations.

 

[SirGalahad]

That's got nothing to do with it.

Show us.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-35633213

I was wrong its even more.

Councils are still facing cuts in central government funding of 6.7% between 2016 and 2020, which comes on top of an overall 30% reduction between 2010 and 2015.

 

[HawkEye244]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-35633213

I was wrong its even more.

Councils are still facing cuts in central government funding of 6.7% between 2016 and 2020, which comes on top of an overall 30% reduction between 2010 and 2015.

FACTS MOTHER FCKER! Not A BBC ARTICLE

..