Sprinklers were just one example of several useful fire safety measures.
Sprinklers were just one example of several useful fire safety measures.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
The flats had just been refurbished at the cost of £120,000 each - more than enough to pay for other forms of cladding and then some. This was a state-paid refurbishment not private sector.
Hearing that the cladding may have been chosen due to climate change regulations as the lower carbon rather than lower cost option.
Oh and these weren't cheap flats for the poor. Not with rent of £1712 per month and nobody on benefits allowed to apply. http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-...ll-description
This 2 bedroom, 1 bathroom Flat is available to move in from 06 May, 2017.
The rent is £1,711.67 per month (£395.00 per week).
Property comes furnishedDeposit / Bond is £2,370.00Minimum tenancy is 12 MonthsMaximum number of tenants is 3
More details available upon enquiry.
Summary & Exclusions:
-*No DSS / Housing Benefit Applicants
- No Students
- No Pets, sorry
- No Smokers
- Not Suitable for Families / Children
- Bills not included
- No Parking Available
- No Garden Access
I'm not sure about that. They might delay things but the problem with sprinklers stopping the spread of a fire that is outside is that the sprinklers only cover open-air areas and the surfaces directly beneath those areas. The fire can and will still intrude and it will do so in ways that damage the operation of the sprinklers. Of course, delay may well have been good enough to save lives though I don't think it would have made things much easier for the firefighters. But their best use is keeping the fire contained to the first unit and I can't begin to understand not having them at all.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Unclear whether that applied to people on benefits who were given social housing years ago. The link in question describes a recent refurbished flat that isn't already being rented.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
As you pointed out yourself, Rand, THIS one had JUST BEEN refurbished extensively. And it's the one that saw 30+ deaths. If you want to talk about every high rise everywhere, than i get to raise the number of wrongful death suits too. By an equivalent margin. So, say the total number of high rises "everywhere" is 3,000 (I expect this is an overestimate). That means the comparison is to 300,000+ wrongful death suits. Is retrofitting them all more expensive than THAT?
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Sorry but your maths is flawed. You don't get to raise the number of wrongful deaths by an equivalent margin since not all high rises will turn into an inferno if they aren't retrofitted. You're more like talking 3,000 high rises vs 30+ deaths.
Your logic is like saying a car failure caused 4 wrongful fatalities, there are 263 million vehicles in America so the comparison is to 1 billion fatalities.
If you don't want the math expanded like that, maybe you shouldn't make fallacious expansions of your own? You tried to declare that the risk was just the losses from this one fire, for all high rises everywhere. In what way do you think that's different? It's not. I did the EXACT thing you did, to illustrate what you were doing.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
New York does not require sprinklers in many residential buildings either, though they must be of "fireproof" construction. Which is technically a misnomer, but not totally nonsense considering most buildings are made of steel and stone.
Yes, I think the only conclusion one should take here is this fire would have been averted if Labour were governing the UK. When government policies fail or aren't properly enforced, the clear solution is more government. We should cosset ourselves in government and be thankful for every rule, regulation and intrusion visited upon us. Because, hey, the USSR never had fires, amirite.
I already regret clicking on the "View Post" button. Yes, Dread, this is a direct result of the "Let the market take care of it" type of thinking which led to less regulation and also less enforcement of the existing regulations.
Once again you have proven yourself to be the moron you turned into.
The fun part is that the same kind of humans like you are salivating over the prospect of Brexit because it enables them to get rid of even more regulations. Which will inevitably lead to more disasters of this type.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
There was a combination of council flats and high price apartments. Mostly the former.
Hope is the denial of reality
You're right, clearly the only way to prevent this sort of tragedy is to lower taxes and fire schoolteachers
While a Labour government may not have averted this particular event, it's undeniable that the UK's conservative government has for many years taken a generally hostile approach to regulation in matters that include fire safety, at best encouraging "self-regulation" aka. "no regulation", at worst actively opposing regulation and neglecting necessary updates to existing regulation.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
*shrug* You're entitled to your incorrect opinions. The matter of political opposition to strengthening or even maintaining fire safety regulations has been touched on by articles provided in the first page of the thread. But that doesn't interest me as much as your claims about the rents paid by Grenfell tenants living in council flats.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Ouch.In March 2014, the parliamentary group wrote: "Surely… when you already have credible evidence to justify updating… the guidance… which will lead to saving of lives, you don't need to wait another three years in addition to the two already spent since the research findings were updated, in order to take action?
"As there are estimated to be another 4,000 older tower blocks in the UK, without automatic sprinkler protection, can we really afford to wait for another tragedy to occur before we amend this weakness?"
After further correspondence, Liberal Democrat MP Steven Williams - who was then a minister in the department - replied: "I have neither seen nor heard anything that would suggest that consideration of these specific potential changes is urgent and I am not willing to disrupt the work of this department by asking that these matters are brought forward."
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-40330789
Hope is the denial of reality
https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/...uk-grant-visas
Unsurprisingly, and disgracefully, you may have to involve the media if you want to be allowed to attend a relative's funeral. We tried that when we wanted my relatives to visit Sweden to attend our wedding but it didn't work, their mismanagement of the case wasn't shameful enough.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Last edited by BluntHorse; 05-18-2021 at 10:52 PM.
Moral of the story: both parties have contempt for the poor, though one pretends to care about them during election time.Promising to cut “red tape,” business-friendly politicians evidently judged that cost concerns outweighed the risks of allowing flammable materials to be used in facades. Builders in Britain were allowed to wrap residential apartment towers — perhaps several hundred of them — from top to bottom in highly flammable materials, a practice forbidden in the United States and many European countries...
No aluminum cladding made with pure polyethylene — the type used at Grenfell Tower — has ever passed the test, experts in the United States say. The aluminum sandwiching always failed in the heat of a fire, exposing the flammable filling. And the air gap between the cladding and the insulation could act as a chimney, intensifying the fire and sucking flames up the side of a building. Attempts to install nonflammable barriers at vertical and horizontal intervals were ineffective in practice.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/24/w...ndon-fire.html
Hope is the denial of reality
Y'all are the ones who seem to be rushing to heap the blame for this on the Conservative Party/Capitalism/Whatever Else Fits Your Blinders.
It was only three days ago we found out what even caused the fire. You don't seem to realize that your attitude is the problem. People need to stop trying to score points whenever the wind blows.
Not to mention that while the Tories (along with the Lib Dem for 5 years) have indeed been cutting unnecessary regulation, the have been zero (0, nada, nil) cuts to regulations on fire safety that would have affected this case. It is a rather morbid and twisted sickness that leads one to try and score party political points from a tragedy that is still ongoing.
Incidentally changes to regulations to require sprinklers and to ban cladding like this were both considered and rejected by the Labour government while in power too following a less serious but still significant fire in the late 90s. So this really isn't party political.