"appear to show "
the definition of the above is what ??????????????
World's largest shroud covers Britain's shame
- Thread starter JohnD
- Start date
the definition of the above is what ??????????????
Sponsored Links
It says, the cladding was downgraded.
Where does it say the council authorised use or insisted upon use of non compliant material?
It seems you are pretending to not understand your own reference.
You mean you are refusing to read my post? And you refuse to click on the links it contains? Even https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/keep-costs-of-cladding-down-grenfell-tower-experts-told-6qrhmwzxv
so you haven't read "Fireproof cladding planned for Grenfell Tower was downgraded to save £293,000 as housing officials demanded “good costs” to satisfy a council boss, leaked emails reveal."
I suppose if you won't read it, you'll carry on with your nonsense.
so you haven't read "Fireproof cladding planned for Grenfell Tower was downgraded to save £293,000 as housing officials demanded “good costs” to satisfy a council boss, leaked emails reveal."
I suppose if you won't read it, you'll carry on with your nonsense.
It seems you cant read or understand your own post
your post says:
I said
Downgraded is not the same as non compliant. If you have proof that the council made the contractors change the material to a non compliant material and with the knowledge it was non compliant, you should be contacting the Grenfell enquiry team to let them know
Do you know who changed the specification of the cladding, was it the council? All your link states is that housing officials pushed for a saving on the price.
What it actually means is that the council put pressure on the contractors to reduce the price. That is not the same as the council saying 'weve changed the cladding and are now saving £300k'
I cant help it if you are forced to continue spouting nonsense in order to support your narrative!
Sponsored Links
So what are you implying? That the fire was caused because the insulation was "downgraded"?
Are you on the investigation panel, or just quoting the press that you normally slate people for believing?
Either way, I'm still not feeling the shame.
There is an inquiry into this disaster .
Afaik JD is not part of that inquiry ? he is not on the panel ? and is not being called to give any expert evidence ?
Mind U I suppose he could ask the inquiry if he can give evidence . he could wander in with his ref material , a copy of the daily wail , or some waffle he found on face ache or ****ter. Way har bee could turn up as well to give his op on the subject , blimey the panel will be well impressed
Afaik JD is not part of that inquiry ? he is not on the panel ? and is not being called to give any expert evidence ?
Mind U I suppose he could ask the inquiry if he can give evidence . he could wander in with his ref material , a copy of the daily wail , or some waffle he found on face ache or ****ter. Way har bee could turn up as well to give his op on the subject , blimey the panel will be well impressed
Last edited:
You're quoting a news article in the OP, and making an inference regarding the content of the article (ie saving money on cladding type) and then asking another poster to read it.
So that seems to me like you have said something and are trying to say something. Help me out.
You are.
You are then moaning about the inference you have constructed from your own imagination.
Really!
You specifically quoted the folowing to emphasize you point:
What different interpretation would expect me to make?
Its interesting how you post a quote from a newspaper article, with a clear inference, yet you dont want to discuss that.
On another thread, you said: 'A selected fact can give a misleading impression'.............apparently that only applies when it suits you
Attack to deflect
Please explain
I suppose what you mean is: 'youve failed to agree wth me'
I said earlier:
Your inference is that there are no grounds for criticising a council whose sympathies (and generous spending) lie with its more prosperous residents, and not with those most in need.
Perhaps you favour tax cuts for the rich, and free doughnuts for the obese.
Your inference is that there are no grounds for criticising a council whose sympathies (and generous spending) lie with its more prosperous residents, and not with those most in need.
Perhaps you favour tax cuts for the rich, and free doughnuts for the obese.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 63160
Do you need to edit something cos it looks like you're talking to yourself? No offence intended.
Sponsored Links
