Off Topic Politics Thread

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Its the definition of inflammable I'm confused with, are they just saying they want to ban B rated cladding and make minimum A rated?

There was a mix of E rated and C rated cladding on Grenfell which are both below regulations and the issue came about because they were mislabel as B rated.

I wish they would just say combustible if that's what they mean though. for me, inflammable means highly combustible and b rated is very limited combustibility so i would never call it inflammable.
 
SaintinSerbia said:
Grenfell Tower:

Me: I saw the tower burn with my own eyes and it was the inflammable cladding that spread the fire killing 72 people. Ban inflammable cladding.

Government: hold umpteen reviews costing millions of pounds over the next few years, do absolutely nothing. Some learned official even said "banning something doesn't ensure that someone won't use it anyway"
Click to expand...

The problem is the modern world. If the government went and banned it straight away they would end up with a multitude of lawsuits against them by companies that make the stuff as well as any other unlinked product that ended up falling under the restriction.

As someone said on Question time last night. Wood covers so many buildings these days as it is fashionable. Long gone are the days where the government can just do whatever they please!!!! They are constantly in a battle in the courts to change anything like this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OddRiverOakWizards
I think it's ok if you cover your house in wood or build it entirely out of wood, a fire has nowhere to spread but if you covered a block of flats in wood it's the people above the original fire that die?
 
SaintinSerbia said:
I think it's ok if you cover your house in wood or build it entirely out of wood, a fire has nowhere to spread but if you covered a block of flats in wood it's the people above the original fire that die?
Click to expand...

And that restriction was already in place. They ignored the regulation (unless I have not seen something that countered the original statements.)

I remember hearing very early on that this cladding was not approved for higher than 18 floors or something like that yet it was used. So already a regulation was ignored. We are talking about banning this type of cladding yet they already shouldn't have been using it.

Last night's news was a joke with multitudes of politicians and media acting as if they were surprised and angered with statements that "the building industry have been cutting corners and cutting costs." Who knew, eh? What a surprise this was. Truly shocked, not! As usual something that was a "no **** sherlock" conclusion is treated as a surprise when someone gets caught. Have they had their eyes and ears closed for the past 2 decades with home owners complaining about cracks is walls, subsidence and other "house falling apart" of houses that are relatively new?

At the end of the day they are ignoring the real conclusion. That being that this stuff was not put there in the first place for the benefit of the inhabitants and was installed for people who did not live there. To pretty it up. If it had been done for the benefit of the inhabitants and done properly then those with a vested interest would have shifted them all out and found excuses not to return them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BobbyD
ImpSaint said:
And that restriction was already in place. They ignored the regulation (unless I have not seen something that countered the original statements.)

I remember hearing very early on that this cladding was not approved for higher than 18 floors or something like that yet it was used. So already a regulation was ignored. We are talking about banning this type of cladding yet they already shouldn't have been using it.

Last night's news was a joke with multitudes of politicians and media acting as if they were surprised and angered with statements that "the building industry have been cutting corners and cutting costs." Who knew, eh? What a surprise this was. Truly shocked, not! As usual something that was a "no **** sherlock" conclusion is treated as a surprise when someone gets caught. Have they had their eyes and ears closed for the past 2 decades with home owners complaining about cracks is walls, subsidence and other "house falling apart" of houses that are relatively new?

At the end of the day they are ignoring the real conclusion. That being that this stuff was not put there in the first place for the benefit of the inhabitants and was installed for people who did not live there. To pretty it up. If it had been done for the benefit of the inhabitants and done properly then those with a vested interest would have shifted them all out and found excuses not to return them.
Click to expand...
IIRC it was class b originally which is legal on tower blocks, but it was downgraded ,i think before it was installed, to C which is below regulations. But the management company installing it were given the original rating. in addition, while most of it was C rated, some parts were actually rated E which is inflammable.

Personally i would introduce a regulation that you have to test a sample independently before installing it on tower blocks. that would create jobs and be more effective than simply banning B rated cladding, at least to stop what happened at Grenfell.
 
SaintinSerbia said:
I think it's ok if you cover your house in wood or build it entirely out of wood, a fire has nowhere to spread but if you covered a block of flats in wood it's the people above the original fire that die?
Click to expand...
Thats how it works yeah, its above 18m which is the amount the fire service say they can reach with their ladders. The only block of ours that failed the fire tests following Grenfell, failed because an uninhabited bit on the top of the block took it above 18m. i think it contains the mechanics for the lift.
 
VocalMinority said:
IIRC it was class b originally which is legal on tower blocks, but it was downgraded ,i think before it was installed, to C which is below regulations. But the management company installing it were given the original rating. in addition, while most of it was C rated, some parts were actually rated E which is inflammable.

Personally i would introduce a regulation that you have to test a sample independently before installing it on tower blocks. that would create jobs and be more effective than simply banning B rated cladding, at least to stop what happened at Grenfell.
Click to expand...

My point is not what category all the stuff was or what it should have been or was "labelled" as.

It isn't just a council cheaping out here. Building contractors should know the regulations. Project managers should know them. Whoever signs off the work should know them. Nowhere along the line did any person in the chain say "hang on, this stuff shouldn't be used in this scenario."

And the way the modern world works (money is the only thing that is ever considered) you are assuming that the "samples you get" are going to be of the actual product used?
 
  • Like
Reactions: OddRiverOakWizards and San Tejón
ImpSaint said:
My point is not what category all the stuff was or what it should have been or was "labelled" as.

It isn't just a council cheaping out here. Building contractors should know the regulations. Project managers should know them. Whoever signs off the work should know them. Nowhere along the line did any person in the chain say "hang on, this stuff shouldn't be used in this scenario."

And the way the modern world works (money is the only thing that is ever considered) you are assuming that the "samples you get" are going to be of the actual product used?
Click to expand...
Just because you know the regulations (which we do) doesnt mean you can work out the composition of the chemicals used just by looking it.

You have a far better chance of noticing it's been switched if it's not the same thing you've tested than assuming that the actually product you receive is the same as one as the company making the cladding has tested....

If you want to be that cynical (money isn't the only thing that matters) then what's to stop the company putting an A rating onto the same material?

Fire inspectors rely on the rating given to them of the material and that's given by a rating agency in the uk who judge that by material specifications given by the manufacturer.

You're saying asking for independent tests is worse than that system?
 
when a toddler decides he hates broccoli and swede and would like them eradicated from the earth, he may change his mind after 20 years when he realises that they just taste a bit different and are actually pretty similar to the vegetables that he likes
 
Last edited:
This infuriates me to a level where I just cannot find the words to express my disgust at the deliberately unfair system being used.
That the minister involved states that “the system is working” when a decision is appealed successfully, just adds to my anger.
If the system was working properly, those who are clearly entitled to the support wouldn’t need to go to an appeal.
:emoticon-0169-dance:emoticon-0170-ninja:headbang::headbang::headbang::emoticon-0121-angry:emoticon-0121-angry:emoticon-0121-angry

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/ministers-slammed-unfit-purpose-benefits-12574952
 
  • Like
Reactions: VocalMinority, ChilcoSaint and tiggermaster
St Badger said:
This infuriates me to a level where I just cannot find the words to express my disgust at the deliberately unfair system being used.
That the minister involved states that “the system is working” when a decision is appealed successfully, just adds to my anger.
If the system was working properly, those who are clearly entitled to the support wouldn’t need to go to an appeal.
:emoticon-0169-dance:emoticon-0170-ninja:headbang::headbang::headbang::emoticon-0121-angry:emoticon-0121-angry:emoticon-0121-angry

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/ministers-slammed-unfit-purpose-benefits-12574952
Click to expand...
In February Frank Field MP disclosed that the DWP had spent £108 million since October 2015 just on the staffing costs for appeals against ESA and PIP decisions. You couldn’t make it up, it’s like some sort of tragicomic fantasy land we live in nowadays.
 
ChilcoSaint said:
In February Frank Field MP disclosed that the DWP had spent £108 million since October 2015 just on the staffing costs for appeals against ESA and PIP decisions. You couldn’t make it up, it’s like some sort of tragicomic fantasy land we live in nowadays.
Click to expand...

I am guessing that the money spent on defending the indefensible outweighs,or would have covered much of the amount that would have been paid out in the first place, to the successful claimants.
So much of this is done so that the media can portray those in dire need of support are portrayed as spongers, bleeding the country dry, when they should be putting more effort into highlighting and reducing tax avoidance.
I recently had sleepless nights because the time had arrived when my wife had to reapply for ESA and PIP.
Why anyone who has been diagnosed with a terminal illness is forced to go through this, beggars belief.
I take care of my wife’s correspondence, simply because her attention to detail isn’t what it once was, and I did write on her form, where they asked for information about her, that “she is STILL terminally ill”.
The wait for the letter confirming that the application had been accepted is extremely worrying, as was the worry that my wife might have to attend a face to face interview, simply because she can, for short periods of time, present as being quite switched on.
Seriously, the written confirmation from medical specialists should be good enough.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ChilcoSaint
St Badger said:
I am guessing that the money spent on defending the indefensible outweighs,or would have covered much of the amount that would have been paid out in the first place, to the successful claimants.
So much of this is done so that the media can portray those in dire need of support are portrayed as spongers, bleeding the country dry, when they should be putting more effort into highlighting and reducing tax avoidance.
I recently had sleepless nights because the time had arrived when my wife had to reapply for ESA and PIP.
Why anyone who has been diagnosed with a terminal illness is forced to go through this, beggars belief.
I take care of my wife’s correspondence, simply because her attention to detail isn’t what it once was, and I did write on her form, where they asked for information about her, that “she is STILL terminally ill”.
The wait for the letter confirming that the application had been accepted is extremely worrying, as was the worry that my wife might have to attend a face to face interview, simply because she can, for short periods of time, present as being quite switched on.
Seriously, the written confirmation from medical specialists should be good enough.
Click to expand...
Absolutely, the money lost to the country through tax evasion and avoidance dwarfs what the DWP pay out! The fact that most appeals are won anyway begs the question: why not just give people what they are entitled to and save all the hassle and angst of the appeals process. Just in your case, the last thing your wife and you need is this continuing battle with bureaucracy, and this is echoed thousands and thousands of times all over the country.
 
  • Like
Reactions: davecg69 and San Tejón
If the system was actually working we wouldn't have to employ so many 'welfare benefit officers' to advise our residents on what benefits they should get and how to appeal decisions and generally fight their corner.

(so they can actually pay our rent and not end up homeless)
 
  • Like
Reactions: San Tejón
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back