|
Post by Kilo on Aug 1, 2017 10:57:56 GMT
I'm sure there is plenty of case law on the subject and all will invlove finding out if people knew what they were doing was wrong. Do you really think that when a contractor places an order for x amount of cladding, the supplier will say "What are you using it for?" I'll bet most people would guess what the response would be as most people selling the cladding will have very little knowledge of the building regulations.
If the contractor buying the cladding said "It's not what the architect specified but I can save myself a few quid and am gonna bung it up on that new high rise we're throwing up but don't tell anyone right" then it would still be the contractor who is reponsible and yes maybe then the supplier might have some culpability but I doubt that conversation has ever happened nor your comparison of a knife buyer telling the shop worker.
As you say, you don't know the facts of this case. I'm just off to get my hair cut, if the hairdresser asks me why, I shall tell her to knob off as I don't want her to get into any trouble.
|
|
|
Post by essexstokey on Aug 11, 2017 9:29:21 GMT
Grenfell fire dog Murphy hangs up his buster boots link
|
|
|
Post by essexstokey on Aug 11, 2017 10:12:12 GMT
Grenfell Tower fire money 'not reaching survivors' link
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Aug 25, 2017 21:04:02 GMT
Grenfell tenants to be rehoused at £637,500 per dwelling
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Aug 26, 2017 7:32:12 GMT
I'm sure there is plenty of case law on the subject and all will invlove finding out if people knew what they were doing was wrong. Do you really think that when a contractor places an order for x amount of cladding, the supplier will say "What are you using it for?" I'll bet most people would guess what the response would be as most people selling the cladding will have very little knowledge of the building regulations. If the contractor buying the cladding said "It's not what the architect specified but I can save myself a few quid and am gonna bung it up on that new high rise we're throwing up but don't tell anyone right" then it would still be the contractor who is reponsible and yes maybe then the supplier might have some culpability but I doubt that conversation has ever happened nor your comparison of a knife buyer telling the shop worker. As you say, you don't know the facts of this case. I'm just off to get my hair cut, if the hairdresser asks me why, I shall tell her to knob off as I don't want her to get into any trouble. I'd hope the architect, contractor and supplier would hold a workshop on stage E or F of the design period, when looking at joints, fixing co-ordination etc. where problems are ironed out.
|
|
|
Post by Kilo on Aug 26, 2017 12:10:37 GMT
I'm sure there is plenty of case law on the subject and all will invlove finding out if people knew what they were doing was wrong. Do you really think that when a contractor places an order for x amount of cladding, the supplier will say "What are you using it for?" I'll bet most people would guess what the response would be as most people selling the cladding will have very little knowledge of the building regulations. If the contractor buying the cladding said "It's not what the architect specified but I can save myself a few quid and am gonna bung it up on that new high rise we're throwing up but don't tell anyone right" then it would still be the contractor who is reponsible and yes maybe then the supplier might have some culpability but I doubt that conversation has ever happened nor your comparison of a knife buyer telling the shop worker. As you say, you don't know the facts of this case. I'm just off to get my hair cut, if the hairdresser asks me why, I shall tell her to knob off as I don't want her to get into any trouble. I'd hope the architect, contractor and supplier would hold a workshop on stage E or F of the design period, when looking at joints, fixing co-ordination etc. where problems are ironed out. I don't get why some people are trying to apportion some of the blame on the cladding supplier? It's the architects job to specify the materials, that's why they study at uni for seven years and get paid well for the job they do. They take the responsibility. If the architect wanted to use bricks that nobody made then I'd expect them to have a meeting with a brick supplier/manufacturer before specifying them. If the cladding supplier/manufacturer made cladding that didn't meet safety regulations, they'd never sell any. There would be regular site meetings with the architect and contractor during construction but rarely would a supplier be asked to turn up to them.
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Aug 26, 2017 16:59:51 GMT
I'm sure there is plenty of case law on the subject and all will invlove finding out if people knew what they were doing was wrong. Do you really think that when a contractor places an order for x amount of cladding, the supplier will say "What are you using it for?" I'll bet most people would guess what the response would be as most people selling the cladding will have very little knowledge of the building regulations. If the contractor buying the cladding said "It's not what the architect specified but I can save myself a few quid and am gonna bung it up on that new high rise we're throwing up but don't tell anyone right" then it would still be the contractor who is reponsible and yes maybe then the supplier might have some culpability but I doubt that conversation has ever happened nor your comparison of a knife buyer telling the shop worker. As you say, you don't know the facts of this case. I'm just off to get my hair cut, if the hairdresser asks me why, I shall tell her to knob off as I don't want her to get into any trouble. I'd hope the architect, contractor and supplier would hold a workshop on stage E or F of the design period, when looking at joints, fixing co-ordination etc. where problems are ironed out. I don't get why some people are trying to apportion some of the blame on the cladding supplier? It's the architects job to specify the materials, that's why they study at uni for seven years and get paid well for the job they do. They take the responsibility. If the architect wanted to use bricks that nobody made then I'd expect them to have a meeting with a brick supplier/manufacturer before specifying them. If the cladding supplier/manufacturer made cladding that didn't meet safety regulations, they'd never sell any. There would be regular site meetings with the architect and contractor during construction but rarely would a supplier be asked to turn up to them. rarely yes, but on some occasions they are invited to a workshop
|
|
|
Post by supersimonstainrod on Aug 26, 2017 17:30:33 GMT
I'm sure there is plenty of case law on the subject and all will invlove finding out if people knew what they were doing was wrong. Do you really think that when a contractor places an order for x amount of cladding, the supplier will say "What are you using it for?" I'll bet most people would guess what the response would be as most people selling the cladding will have very little knowledge of the building regulations. If the contractor buying the cladding said "It's not what the architect specified but I can save myself a few quid and am gonna bung it up on that new high rise we're throwing up but don't tell anyone right" then it would still be the contractor who is reponsible and yes maybe then the supplier might have some culpability but I doubt that conversation has ever happened nor your comparison of a knife buyer telling the shop worker. As you say, you don't know the facts of this case. I'm just off to get my hair cut, if the hairdresser asks me why, I shall tell her to knob off as I don't want her to get into any trouble. I'd hope the architect, contractor and supplier would hold a workshop on stage E or F of the design period, when looking at joints, fixing co-ordination etc. where problems are ironed out. I don't get why some people are trying to apportion some of the blame on the cladding supplier? It's the architects job to specify the materials, that's why they study at uni for seven years and get paid well for the job they do. They take the responsibility. If the architect wanted to use bricks that nobody made then I'd expect them to have a meeting with a brick supplier/manufacturer before specifying them. If the cladding supplier/manufacturer made cladding that didn't meet safety regulations, they'd never sell any. There would be regular site meetings with the architect and contractor during construction but rarely would a supplier be asked to turn up to them. All of the above should be established by the enquiry.The type of cladding initially requested will be in the job specification,if regulations have been followed.If the architect has a change of heart regarding the materials during the project then he has to issue a Variation Order stipulating the new materials to be used etc and no contractor can suddenly change materials on a whim as it were.Furthermore I can't envisage any experienced/trustworthy contractor,be it soul trader or a large company would want to change the cladding type without receiving such an order,given the legal and finacial ramifications that such an act can carry,but that is speculation. Hopefully there will be a clear paper trail to help the investigation make progress.
|
|
|
Post by Kilo on Sept 19, 2017 11:10:42 GMT
Are you for real? You claimed over 3,000 "souls at risk" after earlier quoting that a newspaper said that a member of the public said that a Fire Officer said there were over 500 deaths and you stated 516 bedrooms even though you clearly had no idea. RJisGod then informed you of the correct number being 227 bedrooms and you then repeated your claim but reducing your guess to 480 bedrooms and you tell me to read the thread? And just where exactly have I insulted you? I remember vividly the initial reports asserting that the tower contained 5 x 4 bedroom apartments over 24 floors . That' s 24 x 5 x 4 = 480 . ive just fact-checked and this number and it is incorrect . Floorplans clearly show that there were indeed 227 bedrooms as Roger said . Now , it's not uncommon for unscrupulous tenants to sub-let up to 6 people per bedroom sleeping over two or three shifts . This is the reality of inner city London So, even a conservative 227 rooms x 4 people on average gives 908 souls. And with maybe 70% occupancy at 1.00am gives a figure of 636 people in the tower . So the death toll could potentially still reach the mooted 500 figure as mentioned in the Guardian The point that you're missing here is that these sort of shameful conditions exist at all within the richest borough in the richest city in the world I remember vividly the initial reports asserting that the tower contained 5 x 4 bedroom apartments over 24 floors . That' s 24 x 5 x 4 = 480 . ive just fact-checked and this number and it is incorrect . Floorplans clearly show that there were indeed 227 bedrooms as Roger said . Now , it's not uncommon for unscrupulous tenants to sub-let up to 6 people per bedroom sleeping over two or three shifts . This is the reality of inner city London So, even a conservative 227 rooms x 4 people on average gives 908 souls. And with maybe 70% occupancy at 1.00am gives a figure of 636 people in the tower . So the death toll could potentially still reach the mooted 500 figure as mentioned in the Guardian The point that you're missing here is that these sort of shameful conditions exist at all within the richest borough in the richest city in the world So it's not "the godawful state of social housing brought about by years of disgraceful Tory policies" as you first said it's now "unscrupulous tenants" How is a "conservative" estimate 4 people per bedroom, every bedroom?? I wonder if Rat still thinks the total will reach his (revised) 500 after BBC News are now stating that the revised figure is likely to be less than the 80 predicted. I thought it only fair to post the latest news as I'm sure he and Essex will ignore as it doesn't suit their political agenda's.
|
|
|
Post by essexstokey on Sept 27, 2017 21:43:57 GMT
I'm disgusted with this information just on the news down here tonight out of the people effected by this disaster only 6 have been permanently rehoused lets not forget this is the conservative run council with the backing of the conservative government and all they can rehouse in all this time since the disaster is 6. I hope that when the may local elections come round that these incompetent councillors get voted out and even the rich in the borough vote against them.
|
|
|
Post by Boothen on Sept 27, 2017 21:53:42 GMT
Lets not forgot that more than a few were offered homes (both temporary and permanent) but then refused them because they didn't like the area. They're acting like fucking scousers, i.e., professional victims.
|
|
|
Post by manmarking on Sept 27, 2017 23:08:20 GMT
Lets not forgot that more than a few were offered homes (both temporary and permanent) but then refused them because they didn't like the area. They're acting like fucking scousers, i.e., professional victims. Let's also not forget that maybe the housing being offered was unsuitable for work/school/family/whatever. And let's not forget too that you have no idea what those people went through or what their motivations are. Nor have you shown any sympathy for them on here at any point. Nice agenda you have there
|
|
|
Post by spiler on Sept 27, 2017 23:23:27 GMT
Lets not forgot that more than a few were offered homes (both temporary and permanent) but then refused them because they didn't like the area. They're acting like fucking scousers, i.e., professional victims. I was going to respond to this remark but I think the post speaks for itself, particularly after 18 children perished in the fire. Those who were living now are dead Those who were breathing are from the living earth fled. If you want to see how the poor die, come see Grenfell Tower. See the tower, and let a world-changing dream flower. Residents of the area call it the crematorium. It has revealed the undercurrents of our age. The poor who thought voting for the rich would save them. The poor who believed all that the papers said. The poor who listened with their fears. The poor who live in their rooms and dream for their kids. The poor are you and I, you in your garden of flowers, In your house of books, who gaze from afar At a destiny that draws near with another name. Sometimes it takes an image to wake up a nation From its secret shame. And here it is every name Of someone burnt to death, on the stairs or in their room, Who had no idea what they died for, or how they were betrayed. They did not die when they died; their deaths happened long Before. It happened in the minds of people who never saw Them. It happened in the profit margins. It happened In the laws. They died because money could be saved and made. Ben Okri
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Sept 28, 2017 19:45:13 GMT
20 families have been rehoused and another 52 have accepted in principle.
All the other 428 ;-) bereaved families are living free in a West London hotels until their 650 thousand pound social housing flat has been built.
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Oct 12, 2017 13:03:52 GMT
|
|
|
Post by crapslinger on Oct 12, 2017 13:46:48 GMT
What is the point of having any laws in this country as they appear to only appertain to legal members of society, these people are breaking our laws they need shipping out to make a statement of intent, how in Gods name have they been paying the rent to their illegal landlords when they are not allowed to work ship the lot out and lock up the sub letting scum.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Oct 12, 2017 17:32:21 GMT
I think there will come a point when people start to lose sympathy with the way some of the survivors appear to be milking it. And the guy whose fridge mysteriously caught fire has not been seen since has he ?
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Oct 12, 2017 18:11:17 GMT
I think there will come a point when people start to lose sympathy with the way some of the survivors appear to be milking it. And the guy whose fridge mysteriously caught fire has not been seen since has he ? Nor have there been any Hotpoint product recalls.
|
|
|
Post by essexstokey on Nov 11, 2017 22:19:10 GMT
link what price safety ? sprinklers to stop another Grenfell are to be fitted in towers in two neighbouring councils. One are threatening residents with court action etc if they don't pay $4000 each for the fitting of the sprinklers, one is doing it for free guess which is which politically controlled by!! so what price safety?
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Nov 11, 2017 22:38:39 GMT
link what price safety ? sprinklers to stop another Grenfell are to be fitted in towers in two neighbouring councils. One are threatening residents with court action etc if they don't pay $4000 each for the fitting of the sprinklers, one is doing it for free guess which is which politically controlled by!! so what price safety? Did you read the article why should the council pay for sprinklers to be fitted to private flats that surely is the responsibilty of the flat owner.
|
|
|
Post by felonious on Nov 12, 2017 8:32:33 GMT
link what price safety ? sprinklers to stop another Grenfell are to be fitted in towers in two neighbouring councils. One are threatening residents with court action etc if they don't pay $4000 each for the fitting of the sprinklers, one is doing it for free guess which is which politically controlled by!! so what price safety? Did you read the article why should the council pay for sprinklers to be fitted to private flats that surely is the responsibilty of the flat owner. Come on mate it's only Dollars
|
|
|
Post by essexstokey on Nov 12, 2017 9:21:45 GMT
Did you read the article why should the council pay for sprinklers to be fitted to private flats that surely is the responsibilty of the flat owner. Come on mate it's only Dollars What cost the price of life? threatening legal action on people who may not be able to pay the £4000 is below the belt and seams a lot of money ie say 80+ flats at 4000 that's 320000 to fit sprinklers + does it really cost that much to fit them just in common areas ? figures for Grenfell show it would have cost £200000 lets not also forget that a lot of these blocks the freeholder may be the council or a landlord it then makes them liable for the buildings safety. After Grenfell the government made promises to the survivors/ residents and people effected in other tower blocks and it was said by them that the money would be made available this has been soon forgotten by them. This is in addition to the we will find you housing in the area within 2 months most are still waiting.
|
|
|
Post by felonious on Nov 12, 2017 9:40:31 GMT
Come on mate it's only Dollars What cost the price of life? threatening legal action on people who may not be able to pay the £4000 is below the belt and seams a lot of money ie say 80+ flats at 4000 that's 320000 to fit sprinklers + does it really cost that much to fit them just in common areas ? figures for Grenfell show it would have cost £200000 lets not also forget that a lot of these blocks the freeholder may be the council or a landlord it then makes them liable for the buildings safety. After Grenfell the government made promises to the survivors/ residents and people effected in other tower blocks and it was said by them that the money would be made available this has been soon forgotten by them. This is in addition to the we will find you housing in the area within 2 months most are still waiting. Too much politics is making Essexstokie a very dull boy
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Nov 13, 2017 14:27:38 GMT
New Labour MP for Kensington. She sounds lovely....
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2017 14:58:00 GMT
The caring party
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Nov 13, 2017 15:40:11 GMT
First question on the survey. Top of the agenda. You're right they do care.
|
|
|
Post by crapslinger on Nov 13, 2017 17:58:01 GMT
New Labour MP for Kensington. She sounds lovely.... Racist bitch nice to see they have moved on from Jews.
|
|
|
Post by manmarking on Nov 13, 2017 18:28:47 GMT
New Labour MP for Kensington. She sounds lovely.... Racist bitch nice to see they have moved on from Jews. Holy smokes, what a zinger! The Post Truth collective subtly shift gears to take aim at - you guessed it - racism itself. Simply fabulous stuff, this, and sure to be an instant favourite with fans of all surrealist art, from Bunuel to Beefheart to Magritte Utilising their wicked sense of irony, the collective deploys the ever-dependable "carps" to make the point that literally any old idiot can call something racist. Even a massive racist! (What actually is racist? Well, that's seemingly another question for another day sadly ) The genius of this post is the knowing wink provided by the very identity of the messenger himself. Simply put, it's existentialism gone mad And it's sure to leave all fans suitably jaw-dropped and appetite-whetted for the next instalment Carps diem, dear reader, carps diem
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Nov 14, 2017 22:24:44 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2017 23:59:20 GMT
|
|