the snap general election thread

Moby

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Possibly because:

• Between 1997 and 2010 there wasn't major refurbishment being done (an ideal time to carry out such work) to make it prettier for the posh neighbours.
  
• Between 1997 and 2010 it hadn't been wrapped in a type of cladding that both German and US regs prohibit on towers over about 20m height because of the known fire risk of PE cores.

Incidentally, in answer to earlier comments about "what value we put on human lives" - about £2 per square meter seems to be the going rate in Kensington. At least for council tenants anyway.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/16/experts-urge-ban-on-use-of-combustible-materials-in-tower-blocks

At least seven countries, namely Germany, Denmark, Croatia, Poland, Slovakia, Serbia and the Czech Republic have recently changed their building regulations to ensure that only non-combustible materials are used on the facades of buildings above certain heights, ranging from 12m to 25m. Fire Safe Europe, a body that campaigns for fire safety on the continent, said other countries must now follow suit.

British building regulations allow aluminium cladding with a plastic core to be used on tower blocks if they pass a test that shows fire cannot spread over its surface. But Phil Barry, managing director of CWB fire safety consultants in Gloucestershire, said the test is insufficient. “We need to do full scale tests to see how these materials perform in the real world. In a full scale test, the outside sheet fails, and it exposes the plastic core which then burns. That’s what causes the problem,” he said. “We should be saying no combustible materials on buildings above 18m.”

masterwilde

amazed no lawsuit has been filed with Kensington and Cheslea Council as of yet

GreatApe

steampowered wrote: »

I think you need to wait until the report comes out before concluding that the government weren't to blame. It is entirely possible that the government were to blame.

The government has cut local authority budgets by 40%. And also frozen rent for social tenants, reducing the amount of money in social housing budgets.

It is entirely possible that the incredible strain local authority budgets have been put under has caused a breakdown in maintenance (e.g. no working fire alarms in a massive tower block) and failure to pay attention to fire safety in social housing (e.g. using cheap, highly flammable cladding).

If that turns out to be the case, the government will be directly to blame. In the same way that you would blame the government if it cut NHS funding by 40% and that resulted in more hospital deaths. But we'll have to wait and see what the report says the exact causes were.

If the NHS budget was cut by 40% which lead to more deaths I would not blame the government, in the same way that if the budget was increased 40% saving more lives I would not credit the government. And by the government I mean the PM and the cabinet

Using your logic someone in government is to blame for virtually everything, because someone somewhere with some more money might have prevented a lost life or limb, that is such an infantile way to paint things you are either dim or trying to stir up hatred.

Even the NHS have NICE which decides on what a human life year is worth, and the number is not infinity.

Now there may be someone to blame in this particular accident. Maybe the regulations were not followed maybe the manufacturers of the panels did not manufacture them correctly or a thousand other things. But to cry wolf that the tories did not give an infinite amount of money to be spent on infinite safety is absurd infantile nonsense.

You personally do not counter all the possible risks you face in life, everything is a cost vs reward/harm trade off.

hallmark

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Possibly because:

[*]Between 1997 and 2010 there wasn't major refurbishment being done

OK lets just be clear.

You're saying the Labour Govt, throughout their entire 13-year 1997-2010 period in Government, carried out NO major refurbishment?

If I was Corbyn or Momentum scum I'd be calling that criminal negligence.

hallmark

steampowered wrote: »

You are prepared to throw around insults like "scumbag", "vile & spoilt", "champagne socialist", "evil", "pitiful & exceptionally ignorant little girl" at people.

And you are perfectly happy to write post after post after post trolling people and accusing people of flaming the tragedy.

Yet when someone points out that appear are politicising the tragedy more than anybody else, they deserve a ban? And you don't?

It is time for you to take a good, long hard look in the mirror.

As I've already said I stand by everything I've said and more.

And your desparate attempt to back-peddle fools nobody. Hopefully you'll soon be getting the ban you deserve.

steampowered

GreatApe wrote: »

If the NHS budget was cut by 40% which lead to more deaths I would not blame the government

I agree with you that there is sometimes a price to be put on human lives - as unsavoury as it sounds. It would always be possible to save more people by increasing spending on the NHS, road safety, suicide prevention, foreign aid and so on.

But that doesn't mean politicians shouldn't be held accountable. If the NHS budget was slashed by 40% and that caused additional deaths, then yes I would hold the government accountable for making that decision.

Similarly - if it turns out that the 40% cuts in local authority budgets have caused deaths - then I would expect the people responsible to be held accountable, and appropriate steps taken to resolve the situation - which may mean reversing some of the cuts made to local authority budgets.

However I emphasise again that any conclusions with regards to local authority budgets are very much subject to waiting and seeing the report to find out what the true causes of this fire were. Whether the problems were budgetary; or whether there was negligence on the part of the council or contractors; or whether this was simply a disaster that could not have been foreseen.

steampowered

hallmark wrote: »

As I've already said I stand by everything I've said and more.

And your desparate attempt to back-peddle fools nobody. Hopefully you'll soon be getting the ban you deserve.

Stand behind your abusive posts doesn't make them any less abusive hallmark.

Standing behind the dozens of posts you've made politicising the disaster also doesn't make them any less political.

hallmark

steampowered wrote: »

Stand behind your abusive posts doesn't make them any less abusive hallmark.

Standing behind the dozens of posts you've made politicising the disaster also doesn't make them any less political.

Nothing I've said has been abusive, unlike your own repulsive comments. Desperately trying to spread blame around won't help you or shield you from your own disgusting comments.

GreatApe

BobQ wrote: »

You cannot personally invest in a sprinkler if you live in a flat whether rented or owned.

R&D is not the issue. Its available today. The trade body estimated the costs were £200K.

From what I have seen and read it does not look like a common area sprinkler system would have helped in this situation. The outside of the building seems to have spread the fire the stairways etc were not on fire there was thick smoke which meant they were unusable and sprinklers would not have done much good against that.

More importantly just because something is available it does not mean it is worthwhile doing, I dont recall ever seeing a sprinkler system in a private home ever even though its available. The reason is people know that the price is too high vs the very small decrease in risk. So if people are unwilling to install it in their own homes how rich to be complaining that others be forced to install it in their homes and buildings. We do not have an infinite budget for safety which is why even the NHS caps what it is willing to pay to save 1 life year. And the NHS cap is actually lower than what a sprinkler system costs in a house which means its not worth it. Of course in hindsight it is worth it, just like buying £1 million life insurance for £900,000 is worthwhile if you know you are going to die tomorrow.

Also I used to live in a council estate as a child, if that estate is anything like the one I grew up in any sprinkler system would periodically be tripped by gangs and kids. So the cost is not the cost of installing it its the cost of maintaining it and also cleaning up the weekly floods set off by kids which could damage multiple flats and property too. I suspect if the government installs sprinklers in tower blocks communal areas they wont last long for this reason.

CKhalvashi

hallmark wrote: »

You're confusing being a scumbag like Corbyn & his followers.

Sorry, is this the same Jeremy Corbyn that tried to improve the safety of rental properties last year but couldn't get the legislation passed due to the Conservatives?

http://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/corbyn-tried-pass-law-make-homes-safe-last-year-conservatives-rejected/14/06/

One of my specialist interests is housing, and I followed this closely at the time.

Is this also the same Jeremy Corbyn who has gone to meet victims personally instead of arriving heavily armed and refusing to speak to anyone that was resident at the apartments?

This has shown once again that Jeremy Corbyn is a compassionate individual while Maybot has once again been on auto mode. Even if there was something urgent she needed to deal with after speaking to police and fire services she could at least have come back. Her reaction to this is shameful IMO.