Nice People Thread No. 15, a Cyber Summer

PasturesNew

Pyxis wrote: »

:eek: :eek: :eek:

Compared to the Blitz in WW2, I refer you to the Knights of Ni.

Pyxis

PasturesNew wrote: »

Compared to the Blitz in WW2, I refer you to the Knights of Ni.

Eh?

Was there a shrubbery involved?

Confused. com

PasturesNew

Pyxis wrote: »

Eh?

Was there a shrubbery involved?

Confused. com

Youtube Knights of Ni

Pyxis

PasturesNew wrote: »

Youtube Knights of Ni

Not available on iPad.

CKhalvashi

Pyxis wrote: »

Just heard on the news that several local councils are now carrying out inspections and reviews of their own highrise housing. However, if, as has been said, all existing regulations had been adhered to in the Grenfell Tower situation, it begs the question whether such inspections would produce any meaningful outcomes, especially where councils are cash-strapped.

Depends on who legally owns the properties.

In my council area, they were sold to HAs before my time, where in others they're owned by the councils.

Without going into specifics (it's too early for that) a council can't let a property they know to be in a dangerous condition.

I'd like to see retrofitting done to all social housing properties to keep them up to recent-ish standard, however appreciate with the Tories !!!!ing around with social housing policies as they have, there's unlikely to be the money for any social housing provider to do that.

Pyxis

CKhalvashi wrote: »

Depends on who legally owns the properties.

In my council area, they were sold to HAs before my time, where in others they're owned by the councils.

Without going into specifics (it's too early for that) a council can't let a property they know to be in a dangerous condition.

I'd like to see retrofitting done to all social housing properties to keep them up to recent-ish standard, however appreciate with the Tories !!!!ing around with social housing policies as they have, there's unlikely to be the money for any social housing provider to do that.

Well, that's the problem, IMO.
Although, retro-fitting with materials which might cause more of a problem, (as has been suggested might be the case here), might not be the answer?

chris_m

PasturesNew wrote: »

Compared to the Blitz in WW2, I refer you to the Knights of Ni.

Hehe, we are the knights who say "Ni"

Personally I preferred "It's only a flesh wound" and "I f*rt in your general direction"

Although the best of the films IMO was the one which gave us "He's not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy" and "Nobody is to stone anybody until I say, even if they do say Jehovah"

CKhalvashi

Pyxis wrote: »

Well, that's the problem, IMO.

Mhm.

Met for late lunch (at about 5pm) with a District Cllr yesterday who agrees with us on that matter (who is also very pro-social housing), however as she correctly points out, the council can't dictate what people must do in properties the council doesn't own.

I will catch up (and update on goings on) later on, need a coffee and bacon sandwich before I can think, and after I've started getting through the pile of paperwork that reached the stage I don't know where to start about 6 weeks ago and hasn't been done due to family/other commitments

GDB2222

It's all very well to blame the government, because the building regulations have a massive hole in them concerning this cladding and there's great pressure to save money. But nobody forced the council to specify flammable cladding. Given the history of these blocks catching fire, it was an insane decision. If they could not afford the good stuff they should have left the job undone.

I speak with authority on this matter, as I have 20/20 hindsight.

Pyxis

I'm so suggestible!

Now I fancy a coffee and a bacon sarnie, even though I won't eat pork products due to being almost (but not quite yet) a vegetarian and having given up pork some time ago, due to pigs being quite intelligent.

I could have a rare coffee, though, and raid the fridge for a bacon sarnie substitute!