|
Post by essexstokey on Jul 19, 2017 6:52:09 GMT
Grenfell cladding '14 times combustibility limit' link
|
|
|
Post by essexstokey on Jul 20, 2017 18:18:01 GMT
If anyone watched channel 4 news tonight the company that is testing the cladding etc also owns one of the materials used and is not testing this product with the others. the cover up continues. you have to give channel 4 credit they are not letting this become chip paper.
|
|
|
Post by stillgame4it on Jul 20, 2017 22:32:05 GMT
old news now, boring
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2017 22:45:54 GMT
Boring at least 80 people dead! A figure that will definitely rise. Caused by a known hazardous building material. Known to be hazardous since 1996. It maybe a bit boring but it is very important:- 1 for the families of the people that died 2 to stop it from ever happening again.
|
|
|
Post by samba :) on Jul 20, 2017 22:50:53 GMT
i thought i was pushing the line about some rich blokes leg being broken
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Jul 20, 2017 22:51:24 GMT
|
|
|
Post by spitthedog on Jul 21, 2017 0:44:59 GMT
what keeps you excited then? 500 dead in a fire?
|
|
|
Post by rat on Jul 21, 2017 3:08:41 GMT
This one aint going anywhere you fickle toad. Suck it up.
|
|
|
Post by essexstokey on Jul 25, 2017 9:17:47 GMT
Grenfell Tower fire: Cladding supplier distances itself from disaster as profits rise link
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Jul 25, 2017 10:51:13 GMT
Grenfell Tower fire: Cladding supplier distances itself from disaster as profits rise linkNowt to do with them.
|
|
|
Post by samba :) on Jul 25, 2017 12:13:26 GMT
Grenfell Tower fire: Cladding supplier distances itself from disaster as profits rise linkNowt to do with them. agree, they just did what they were told
|
|
|
Post by rat on Jul 25, 2017 23:42:07 GMT
Grenfell Tower fire: Cladding supplier distances itself from disaster as profits rise linkNowt to do with them. Quite correct. It was all your Tory mates on the council. The ones that scarpered like Cameron after the damage was done.
|
|
|
Post by tuum on Jul 26, 2017 5:32:55 GMT
agree, they just did what they were told Not quite as simple as that. As a Supplier they still have a duty of care to ensure that their materials are used appropriately. If they knew that their panels were going to be used on a multi-storey building for which they were not suitable they have an obligation to warn the Architect/Building Owners of this fact. The obligation varies depending on the circumstances but if there is a danger to health and safety then the duty may extend to more than just a warning it may extend to the contractor/vendor refusing to proceed. Where there are multiple layers of professionals within the procurement-design process then the extent of this obligation may be lessened somewhat. It all depends on the facts. The supplier is certainly not off the hook but the building owners-architects-structural engineers - contractors and subbies may well be in the queue before him.
|
|
|
Post by essexstokey on Jul 26, 2017 6:34:16 GMT
On local news today
In 2010 the council were warned not to build a primary secondary school at the base of the tower as it would restrict fire access to the tower what did they do ignored this advice. Fire brigade have said that there access was limited due to this and parked cars.
|
|
|
Post by rat on Jul 26, 2017 6:41:45 GMT
|
|
|
Post by essexstokey on Jul 26, 2017 7:14:29 GMT
Latest the judge in charge of the enquiry cant compel witnesses to turn up and give evidence
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Jul 26, 2017 11:33:12 GMT
agree, they just did what they were told Not quite as simple as that. As a Supplier they still have a duty of care to ensure that their materials are used appropriately. If they knew that their panels were going to be used on a multi-storey building for which they were not suitable they have an obligation to warn the Architect/Building Owners of this fact. The obligation varies depending on the circumstances but if there is a danger to health and safety then the duty may extend to more than just a warning it may extend to the contractor/vendor refusing to proceed. Where there are multiple layers of professionals within the procurement-design process then the extent of this obligation may be lessened somewhat. It all depends on the facts. The supplier is certainly not off the hook but the building owners-architects-structural engineers - contractors and subbies may well be in the queue before him. Agreed, I assume that the inquiry will be looking long and hard into the design risk management of all the parties involved.
|
|
|
Post by rat on Jul 26, 2017 13:14:47 GMT
Not quite as simple as that. As a Supplier they still have a duty of care to ensure that their materials are used appropriately. If they knew that their panels were going to be used on a multi-storey building for which they were not suitable they have an obligation to warn the Architect/Building Owners of this fact. The obligation varies depending on the circumstances but if there is a danger to health and safety then the duty may extend to more than just a warning it may extend to the contractor/vendor refusing to proceed. Where there are multiple layers of professionals within the procurement-design process then the extent of this obligation may be lessened somewhat. It all depends on the facts. The supplier is certainly not off the hook but the building owners-architects-structural engineers - contractors and subbies may well be in the queue before him. Agreed, I assume that the inquiry will be looking long and hard into the design risk management of all the parties involved. Bollocks. When the deputy head of the council is asking for money off, what are you supposed to do? You haven't got an effing clue Northy.
|
|
|
Post by essexstokey on Jul 27, 2017 12:36:31 GMT
Building will be demolished by the end of next year also it will be covered up with wrap and scaffolding to help forensics recover bodies(remains etc)
|
|
|
Post by essexstokey on Jul 27, 2017 18:01:50 GMT
Police say there is sufficient evidence to investigate further corporate manslaughter charges "After an initial assessment of that information, the officer leading the investigation has today notified the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea and the Kensington and Chelsea Tenancy Management Organisation that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that each organisation may have committed the offence of corporate manslaughter under the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007," link
|
|
|
Post by essexstokey on Jul 28, 2017 8:13:54 GMT
at least 60 tower blocks has failed a new fire safety test, link
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Jul 28, 2017 9:00:16 GMT
at least 60 tower blocks has failed a new fire safety test, linkBuildings all over the country. 9 social housing blocks in Manchester under Labour councils. Some built in the 60's and some even passed Fire Service safety standards. So nowt to do with Theresa May and the "Tories".
|
|
|
Post by essexstokey on Jul 28, 2017 9:13:41 GMT
at least 60 tower blocks has failed a new fire safety test, linkBuildings all over the country. 9 social housing blocks in Manchester under Labour councils. Some built in the 60's and some even passed Fire Service safety standards. So nowt to do with Theresa May and the "Tories". Look roger I did not make this one political just stating the facts but if you want to make this political there is only one council being investigated for corporate homicide manslaughter and guess what is the one in Kensington and Chelsea a tory run council when they were found inept at dealing with the crises and also with the help of an inept tory government who promised the resident various things then didn't deliver who did they turn to sort out there incompetent mess the CEO of a labour controlled borough that a Labour borough Rodger because your lot put cutting fire standards and profits before peoples lives. what a caring party you are roger. As long as your all right Jack ! The Conservatives putting themselves first and S@@@@ the rest of us. Ps roger I would have not posted this and most of my posts if it wasn't for your manipulation of the truth to suet your own ends. If you are going to quote facts and figures at any time quote them all or shut the f@@@ up!
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Jul 28, 2017 9:34:28 GMT
Buildings all over the country. 9 social housing blocks in Manchester under Labour councils. Some built in the 60's and some even passed Fire Service safety standards. So nowt to do with Theresa May and the "Tories". Look roger I did not make this one political just stating the facts but if you want to make this political there is only one council being investigated for corporate homicide manslaughter and guess what is the one in Kensington and Chelsea a tory run council when they were found inept at dealing with the crises and also with the help of an inept tory government who promised the resident various things then didn't deliver who did they turn to sort out there incompetent mess the CEO of a labour controlled borough that a Labour borough Rodger because your lot put cutting fire standards and profits before peoples lives. what a caring party you are roger. As long as your all right Jack ! The Conservatives putting themselves first and S@@@@ the rest of us. Ps roger I would have not posted this and most of my posts if it wasn't for your manipulation of the truth to suet your own ends. If you are going to quote facts and figures at any time quote them all or shut the f@@@ up! Eee, I love a good pudding and peas me. Didn't you come onto this forum with that 'outraged from Milton Keynes' bollocks asking Admin to do a better job policing the bad language and nastiness. Shut the fuck up indeed. How very dare you!
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jul 28, 2017 9:57:24 GMT
The problem as outlined on the news is that fire service are stretched because of the cuts to there numbers and this work has been not done as much (fire tests) Perhaps rather than hearing the bits on the news that you think you can twist to your political agenda, you should read up on some facts. 'If' it is correct that there were missing fire doors, then it is not because 'nobody knew' or that the owners didn't carry out fire tests. The Building Regulations are a set of strict documents that have to be adhered to. It's a pain for architects/builders to 'remember' them all and sometimes, the regs don't suit the design of the building - but they have to be adhered to. The ultimate responsibility for this lies with the council (or independent inspector) who have to 'approve' the building regulation application. If they approve something that doesn't meet the regs, they leave themselves open to prosecution. They only issue the certificate after the work is completed. If the contractor goes back after receiving the certificate and removes all the fire doors, then the contractor is the one who gets prosecuted. I suspect this didn't happen at Grenfell as there would be very little saving on a £9M project. 'If' this tower block was issued with a building regs certificate when it didn't comply then it's the building regulation inspector that is going to have to answer some very difficult questions - and the 'cuts' have got fuck all to do with it! Building Regulations - Part BPlus If the tenants are submerging, it may be that they hold sime responsibility for some of the deaths. As an aside , as the "suthiloritues" are now OPENLY aware of the sub letting issue, which is replicated all over the country, they should have the responsibility to deal with it..it may prevent some further deaths and , if I was living legitimately in such a block, I would like to think that someone had some responsibility and oversight on what is going on above and below me. ( Of course, the main consideration is the awful deaths inflicted upon the poor victims)
|
|
|
Post by rat on Jul 28, 2017 9:58:57 GMT
Look roger I did not make this one political just stating the facts but if you want to make this political there is only one council being investigated for corporate homicide manslaughter and guess what is the one in Kensington and Chelsea a tory run council when they were found inept at dealing with the crises and also with the help of an inept tory government who promised the resident various things then didn't deliver who did they turn to sort out there incompetent mess the CEO of a labour controlled borough that a Labour borough Rodger because your lot put cutting fire standards and profits before peoples lives. what a caring party you are roger. As long as your all right Jack ! The Conservatives putting themselves first and S@@@@ the rest of us. Ps roger I would have not posted this and most of my posts if it wasn't for your manipulation of the truth to suet your own ends. If you are going to quote facts and figures at any time quote them all or shut the f@@@ up! Eee, I love a good pudding and peas me. Didn't you come onto this forum with that 'outraged from Milton Keynes' bollocks asking Admin to do a better job policing the bad language and nastiness. Shut the fuck up indeed. How very dare you! Quite right this Sexy boy is a rate nuisance. Everyone is being horrible to me today.
|
|
|
Post by essexstokey on Jul 28, 2017 21:39:35 GMT
test of cladding system on tower that should have delayed fire for 40 minutes only lasted 9 min so failing the design and standards for tall buildings , questions are being asked as to how these plans got signed off. (newsnight tonight)
|
|
|
Post by rat on Jul 28, 2017 21:51:04 GMT
test of cladding system on tower that should have delayed fire for 40 minutes only lasted 9 min so failing the design and standards for tall buildings , questions are being asked as to how these plans got signed off. (newsnight tonight) Where do you think the blame lies? My view is squarely with the Tory Council. Specifically; Rock Feilding-Mellen. He requested cladding costs be reduced. It's a very sad story but this is what happens when you have a fucking property developer overseeing matters of public health & safety. Apparently he's already been hounded out of his London home.
|
|
|
Post by Kilo on Jul 31, 2017 17:12:43 GMT
agree, they just did what they were told Not quite as simple as that. As a Supplier they still have a duty of care to ensure that their materials are used appropriately.If they knew that their panels were going to be used on a multi-storey building for which they were not suitable they have an obligation to warn the Architect/Building Owners of this fact. The obligation varies depending on the circumstances but if there is a danger to health and safety then the duty may extend to more than just a warning it may extend to the contractor/vendor refusing to proceed. Where there are multiple layers of professionals within the procurement-design process then the extent of this obligation may be lessened somewhat. It all depends on the facts. The supplier is certainly not off the hook but the building owners-architects-structural engineers - contractors and subbies may well be in the queue before him. What utter rubbish. That's the same as saying a cookery shop owner should be prosecuted if somebody uses one of his knives to stab someone. That's why it's seven years at university for an architect and no qualifications at all to sell stuff in a shop. If the client or builder overides what the architect has specified to something that doesn't meet safety requirements, then they are responsible otherwise the architect takes the rap. Contractors & subbies may well be in the queue but only if they have failed to fit the cladding as specified by the architect.
|
|
|
Post by tuum on Aug 1, 2017 3:07:20 GMT
Not quite as simple as that. As a Supplier they still have a duty of care to ensure that their materials are used appropriately.If they knew that their panels were going to be used on a multi-storey building for which they were not suitable they have an obligation to warn the Architect/Building Owners of this fact. The obligation varies depending on the circumstances but if there is a danger to health and safety then the duty may extend to more than just a warning it may extend to the contractor/vendor refusing to proceed. Where there are multiple layers of professionals within the procurement-design process then the extent of this obligation may be lessened somewhat. It all depends on the facts. The supplier is certainly not off the hook but the building owners-architects-structural engineers - contractors and subbies may well be in the queue before him. What utter rubbish. That's the same as saying a cookery shop owner should be prosecuted if somebody uses one of his knives to stab someone. That's why it's seven years at university for an architect and no qualifications at all to sell stuff in a shop. If the client or builder overides what the architect has specified to something that doesn't meet safety requirements, then they are responsible otherwise the architect takes the rap. Contractors & subbies may well be in the queue but only if they have failed to fit the cladding as specified by the architect. In an attempt to make sure I got the right knife for my purpose if the seller asked "what do you want the knife for?" and I replied "to kill someone" then the seller may be liable if they still choose to sell me the knife & I subsequently went on to kill someone. It's too remote to hold the manufacturer liable in that scenario. In the discussions above there may need to be a distinction between manufacturer and retailer. Similarly, if the supplier of the cladding asks what do you want this cladding for and the A replies "I plan to build a 30 storey tower" then the supplier (manufacturer) may have a duty to inform the A that this cladding is not suitable for such an application because it does not satisfy UK code in this regard. That is probably the maximum extent of his obligation. As a matter of law it is not correct to say that you can sell something to someone without any responsibility whatsoever for its subsequent use. If you know the product is planned to be used wrongly then you have a duty to inform/act. In the Grenfell case I would be surprised if the supplier/retailer was held liable, perhaps less so the manufacturer. I cannot see how the manufacturers product datasheet would not contain the fire safety information and a disclaimer as to liability for use in a 'designed system' (for want of a better phrase)where the product is used in conjunction with other products to produce a fire resistant/design. The manufacturer may still be liable though for the fact that his product gives off poisonous fumes when burning (if this is a true statement) and in the event of a fire it was foreseeable that people could be hurt by these fumes. However, this is all speculation. I do not know the facts of the case. My original post was of a general nature. Your last point re. contractors and subbies is not correct. Even if the contractor follows the design to the letter he may still be liable if the design is wrong. He is under a similar duty as the supplier (probably greater given his relevant skills and knowledge of the actual situation). If a contractor installs a design that he knows is wrong, or ought to have known, then he may be held liable in the event of damage. The same applies to the subbie, especially if he is considered to be a specialist. It all depends on the facts of the case. A contractor installed a pipeline knowing that the gradient was wrong. He went ahead anyway. When the design mistake was eventually found the contractor claimed for doing the work again. He lost his case. The judge found that he should have informed the Engineer as soon as he became aware of the design error. This was 30 yrs ago so I cannot recall the exact case details. More recently, a contractor expressed concern about the design of a wall. He expressed concern on more than one occasion. The consulting engineer and the Owner's engineer (I think it was Ford)told him it was ok. The contractor built the wall and it subsequently fell down. The contractor was found liable (can't recall whether he was partly or fully liable). He should have done more to warn the Owner, including, if necessary, refusing to carry out the work. There is plenty of case law on this subject.
|
|