Stop trying to make this political it's pathetic.
It is political though, the residents want answers. and rightly so.
You must log in or register to see media
Stop trying to make this political it's pathetic.
How do you or anyone else know the cause was political , it could be corruption , looking the other way , using substandard materials that were incorrectly installed , lack of controls , incompetent contractors even more incompetent building inspectors . Let the authorities do their job to discover why and how this happened then everyone get on with their point scoring. But one thing you can bet your house on , someone somewhere will say "lessons will be learnt" repeatedlyIt is political though, the residents want answers. and rightly so.
You must log in or register to see media
How do you or anyone else know the cause was political , it could be corruption , looking the other way , using substandard materials that were incorrectly installed , lack of controls , incompetent contractors even more incompetent building inspectors . Let the authorities do their job to discover why and how this happened then everyone get on with their point scoring
Because who decides building regulation standards. The problem is if the cladding meets the lax building standards then it would be extremely difficult to prosecute the contractor.
There are other political questions that need to be raised as well, why was their concerns ignored, funding for emergency services and the reason why the cladding was put up in the first place.
I'm pissed off with this petty points scoring, you could swear that Teressa May built the bloody building. Nobody knows who to blame yet until the fire service do their investigations.There we are - the pathetic political point scoring begins. No one has suggested funding for emergency services had any effect on this. If you want to play point scoring perhaps you could consider the last Labour governments awful record on building new social housing to replace old deathtrap tower blocks.
Cladding is being put up to reduce the buildings carbon footprint. This is part to reduce our carbon omissions to meet our UK obligations as part of the Koyoto agreement.Because who decides building regulation standards. The problem is if the cladding meets the lax building standards then it would be extremely difficult to prosecute the contractor.
There are other political questions that need to be raised as well, why was their concerns ignored, funding for emergency services and the reason why the cladding was put up in the first place.
Cladding is being put up to reduce the buildings carbon footprint. This is part to reduce our carbon omissions to meet our UK obligations as part of the Koyoto agreement.
No the cladding is put up to reduce running costs. Same as me snd you putting in double glazing and cavity wall insulation, to save running costs.Or going by reports, to make the skyline more aesthetically pleasing.
No the cladding is put up to reduce running costs. Same as me snd you putting in double glazing and cavity wall insulation, to save running costs.
Being pedantic now aren't we. Cladding does two jobs.That's not the only reason, cladding – a low-cost way of improving the front of the building – was chosen in part so that the tower would look better when seen from the conservation areas and luxury flats that surround north Kensington, according to planning documents, as well as to insulate it.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/grenfell-tower-cladding-fire-cause-improve-kensington-block-flats-appearance-blaze-24-storey-west-a7789951.html?amp

Being pedantic now aren't we. Cladding does two jobs.![]()
Stop trying to make this political it's pathetic.
It's not being pedantic, it's stating what's in the planning documents. Do you honestly believe that the council acted solely because of carbon reduction measures. They've scrapped nearly all carbon reduction methods such as green deal.
I totally agree with James o'Brien on this matter.
You must log in or register to see media
