When designing structures you add something called superload to take account of things like snow. With our changing climate it needs someone to decide if the required superload is now adequate. It came to light that the building regulations had not been upgraded when they should have been. The allowances that engineers make for safety will always be tested as costs become more into the picture. Something that came about over a period of time was known as a stressed skin, where cladding could be regarded as something adding to the strength of a building, rather than something hanging off it. In theory fine, until the unexpected happens such as a lorry backing into the side of a building.
Thanks, ofh. But isn’t something like a vehicle impact, or lightning strike, or heatwave, the sort of things that have to be expected? What I mean specifically is ‘unexpected’ should not include things that I would have thought would be included in a proper risk assessment. Should a tall building fall down if a lorry backs into it? No, because that’s possible. Not an everyday expectation, but it could happen - a dustcart, an HGV driver’s first day in that vehicle...
You are correct andy. The problem is that if your dustcart backs into a building clad with crinkly tin it will probably not fall down, but depending on just how it has been designed it maybe weakened. The owner sees something that looks unsightly, and resolves to do something about it when he has some spare cash. I have seen buildings like that for years. Building regulations need to be constantly under review as more materials become available. It has been admitted that government had not carried out a review for four years at the time of Grenfell. This is negligence on their behalf, yet it is all subject to an inquiry that will not report until goodness knows when. I could go on about passing the buck to private companies to do the research, but I am trying not to get political on this forum.
I might add that I haven't designed a building of this type for twenty years so could be out of date, but the basic concepts I believe still apply.
Our friend Bassini is back in court today arguing that the former owner of Bolton had already signed an agreement for him to buy the club. The previous owner, another dodgy one seemingly, had said that he had not sold it to Baz as he couldn't provide proof of funds. Baz says that he had verbal approval from the Football league that he was approved, but the administrators have a written document from the Football league to say that Baz was not a fit and proper person to run the club and couldn't provide proof of funds. The judge is due to reach a decision in the next hour, but could adjourn the case for further evidence. That is the last thing that the club needs as without the sale agreement going through with the consortium they cannot bring in players, and the youngsters they are having to play are not really good enough.
It is not often that a judge comes up with a decision that leaves everyone happy, but the one in Manchester did. The sale of the club can go ahead, pleasing everyone except Baz. His injunction has been amended so that this can happen. Baz says he is happy, although it is looking like a lot more money down the drain for him. He says he will now sue the administrators. Good luck to that one.
Just seen an article on Bury They are in an even worse position than Bolton and make what happened to Luton look like a blessing in disguise (for Luton supporters. I am probably in a minority that is pleased Luton eventually recovered) Portsmouth survived their total crash and burn, we can only hope for the same for Burnley and Bolton This demonstrates that the current ownership of the top six/eight clubs in the Premiership is akin to the Mafia gangs that ruled crime in America in the fifties to the eighties and they are only interested in making themselves even richer and to hell with the EFL If money is not more evenly distributed then we will end up with the elite Premier league, a second class Championship and then the rest as non league clubs just about surviving I do not include our owners in this because they are genuine football people and although we will never be able to compete with Man City etc we has earned our position in the Premier League rather than just bought it
I found the whole L*t*n saga distasteful in the extreme. Doesn't matter who they are, they we dealt a real bad hand by the authorities. I think Bury either pushed the boat out too far or got their sums wrong.. Sad.
I also thought Luton were unfairly treated at the time. I welcome their return to the EFL, as long as they remain a couple of divisions lower than us. I applaud Luton's excellent stand against gambling sponsorship, something I wish our club's management team would follow. Irresponsible gambling wrecks lives, it is all far too easy for addicts and their families to lose everything. C'mon UK government, add gambling to the tobacco ban in sport.
I agree on a ban on gambling ads in sport, and, despite being a smoker myself, also with the ban on tobacco advertizing. But why stop there ? Alcohol also destroys many young lives, so should alcohol firms also be banned from the sports field ? Where does the list end ? We know that fast food chains may well have a relationship to the numbers of obese teenagers flopping around - should we ban McDonalds and Burger King from the sports field as well ? Personally I would add weapons manufacturers to that list together with those firms testing on animals, or those criminals producing pesticides dangerous for bees. So my list is longer than yours SH. but everyone's list will be different.
Did anybody see Ross Kemp's programme 'living with online gambling addiction' last night.? I think a sports ban on gambling adverts would be a good start. There is an interesting debate to be had on freedom of choice v the nanny state or partial government control.
Referring to your last sentence - this leads us a little bit away from the theme of football, and could become political I guess by 'freedom of choice' a smoker can say 'if I want to take the risk of messing up my lungs then it's only my concern' - but, society may have to pick up the bill for that. As long as we have an NHS health system where society picks up the bill, then the government has a right to be concerned about our health. You could say that half of all illnesses and accidents are self inflicted - the smoker chose to smoke, the drinker to drink, the gambler to gamble, the skier to ski (and is, therefore, responsible for his broken leg) the obese or the inactive are also responsible for their heart attacks, the people who choose to drive are responsible for any accident which happens whilst doing so. Where do you stop ? In the end nearly all of us have engaged in some activity, or habit, which could have destroyed, or prematurely ended, our lives. Is the state right in trying to regulate this by telling us what is good for us ? Should I be allowed to ride my Harley without a helmet because 'it is my choice' ? My rights end where they infringe upon the right of others.
The enormous amount of potential complications you highlight is why I would suggest only very limited and targeted action for the public good.
Limiting this just to football ie. sponsoring and advertizing. Do football clubs really bother to delve into the moral standing of their sponsors ? Luton should be applauded for making a stand in this way, because most clubs just take the money and close their minds to where it comes from. If we are to have sponsoring in football then we should, at least, start by excluding smoking, gambling and alcohol.
As vehemently anti-smoking as I am I rather take the Alf Garnett "it's patriotic to smoke, innit?" view. You pays your money and takes your choice given the incredible amount of duty charged. The authorities need to clamp down on illegal tobacco with an absolute iron fist. I am no fan of vaping either. I am all in favour of maintaining the smoking ban too... not to do with health so much as not coming home from the pub or place of work reeking of stale tobacco smoke. But, having paid a lot of tax on the product, I do not have a problem with people getting first medical attention through the NHS... once they've been told to give up though (and then they don't), that's a different matter. I enjoy alcohol. Quite a lot. I don't drink as much as I'd like to (both from a personal discipline pov and also because I know it isn't good for the body to overdo it) but, unlike tobacco, there are advantages to drinking in conservative moderation. Interesting regarding the crash helmet scenario as, being a bit of a biker (currently sans bike) I think it ought to be the riders choice. Personally I'd always wear one and a pillion should always wear one. However when I see the "organ donors" riding by (sandals, shorts, t-shirt, unclipped lid) I do get a bit annoyed. Finally I agree with SH about the gambling sites. I don't like who we're sponsored by because sport is always open to corruption and that is almost exclusively linked to gambling. I do do the occasional scratch card, the lottery (regularly) and the Grand National plus an annual football sweepstake among friends. More than some, totally in control.
