Cladding

[johnroe]

What obvious truth is that? That we should bulldoze everything more than 30 years old and more than 3 stories high and ship people miles from their homes in the name of progress? Doesn't sound that "obvious" to me.

You can call it a miserable brutalist estate and try to amp up the emotion, but the fact remains that the people there didn't want their building pulled down and them all moved miles away. They just wanted some basic maintenance and proper fire proofing.

You're not some sort of expert are you?

No I'm not saying that. I think some blocks may still have their structural integrity. Many more are now being found to fail modern fire safety standards. This country has known it's had a housing problem for decades. Most of the people living in the towers are recent immigrants. They are just waiting to be housed. I talk to these families, I know what they want.

I know they wouldn't want to be 'shipped' as you put it(not amping up the emotion are we!) to distant places. What they would like is new build groups of houses for their community that they came here with, and still know locally. The young people of this country, are in the same situation.

From what I've read, they were offered rehousing and a new block, but the Left are claiming it's social cleansing and gentrification, so they urge the tenants to stay. They also have fears that if they move out, they will lose their housing rights. People will put up with what they've got, but that doesn't mean they aren't desperate to move, and to get a better quality of life, for particularly their children.

[Ttaskmaster]

People will put up with what they've got, but that doesn't mean they aren't desperate to move, and to get a better quality of life, for particularly their children.

Then they can do what dozens of my own immigrant friends did and work harder to afford their own place.

[ik9000]

You're not some sort of expert are you?

...I know they wouldn't want to be 'shipped' as you put it(not amping up the emotion are we!) to distant places.

and just when you think he's taking a more reasonable stance, and maybe you were hasty to block him, he switches back to the snide mockery. Mock people for getting facts wrong by all means, but that really is an unpleasant streak you have there. Back on the blocklist you go.

[Corky34]

Look I don't really feel like I'm able to talk to such a Master Debater.

I guess that sort of retort should be expected from someone whose dug himself a hole that he doesn't know how to get out of, metaphor or not I'd watch the ad hominem attacks if i were you.

if you claim you are some expert

Citation please, when did i ever say I'm an expert?

you are basically saying, nothing anyone else is saying can possibly have any value(or in this case because of the way I'm saying it). I've been reading the Grenfell Action groups blog; they have a long list of complaints about the building, the state of repairs, the cladding. But 'experts' told them it was safe, 'experts' told them to wait in their flats, 'experts' are now having to admit that many of the blocks have been structurally unsafe for years, and people are rightly being evacuated and compensated. The council threatened to prosecute them for expressing their views and naming certain 'experts'.

I'm not basically saying anything and your constant use of logical fallacies only goes to show your clutching at straws, in this instance you're using a strawman by claiming i said i was an expert because you think it's easier to attack.

What other people say always has value, another thing i never said but you've decided to attribute to me, the real question is what that value contributes to and in your case you've contributed next to nothing of value towards the issue being discussed but plenty of value to the formation of my opinion of you.

I'll disregard you rant about 'experts' as it's yet another use of a logical fallacy, in this case gish gallop.

I feel like you and I could communicate(I appreciate your intelligence), but you'll have to drop this superior attitude. This is just a forum, with a few guys chatting. Sorry I'm not good with rules(as peterb knows). With what you're claiming about our so called expert. I actually went with the lead architect's description of the structure, a higher authority maybe.

No, no we couldn't. Mainly because your frequent use of logical fallacies would drive me nuts.

No, I'm saying that when I had a heart valve replaced several years ago, I asked the cardiologist, an old dude, (and that reminds me I've seen a couple of sad attempts at insults on this forum, which are very indicative of a certain mindset(pre-1945), one was claiming I was young(and therefore what?), one claiming I was a woman(and therefore what?). I asked him if he could just run through the procedure, explain the options, etc. He refused, with this 'expert attitude', I am too superior to explain myself. Finally he printed some pages off the internet.

So by then I'd got a younger, 'human' surgeon who was quite willing to treat me like a patient, rather than a statistic. Also a quick check on line showed me that the original surgeon had a lower success rate. I also found out about all the different types of valve replacements online, and as I said could have watched a procedure being carried out. That's just the way I am. You aren't being logical thinking I would suggest anyone but the right surgeon.

Why don't i find that surprising, although it's rather telling that when it comes to your health, like i said, experts are only something to disagree with when your life doesn't depend on them apparently.

As for what you claim are sad attempts at insults, what on earth does that have to do with anything, are you directing your accusation directly at me? If so perhaps you'd like to point out where i mentioned you age or gender, if not then i would be a good idea to be more succinct in case someone misconstrues what you're saying.

Look most of the threads on this forum, because of it's nature, only elicit a certain level of response. But we are all intelligent adults, there's no reason that we can't discuss anything. I do find when many are thinking the same way, it's because they aren't really thinking, just repeating what they read in the mass media. But some people look deeper, some people approach from an unusual perspective. Heck some people just make you think about an issue in a completely new way. You may not agree with them(Zizek makes me think), but it makes you consider different possibilities.

You can be open minded, or just keep on repeating the same mistakes. How many have to die, be traumatised, and live on miserable Brutalist estates, before someone dare speak the obvious truth. I'm just one of many calling for a massive change to housing policy.

There are reasons we can't discuss anything, as I've tried to point out on many occasions now, not least of which are you're repeated attempts at trying to portray yourself as an enlightened, logical, and reasoned person and anyone who doesn't agree with you are being unreasonable, illogical, and ignorant.

If as you say you take in all information and you're the enlightened one then perhaps you should take the time to listen to a meeting held by Architects for Social Housing.



As they say these calls, such as yours, to tear down what you call 'miserable Brutalist estates' is a dangerous one, what you're advocating is basically social cleansing.

[johnroe]

Corky> thanks for the video. I'll add it to what I know already, then I'll read some of the most recent reports from this year(I think a number were released the day the inquiry started). I am just an interested lay person, any other conclusion you are coming to is based on your perceptions or mis perceptions. I can spot a bluffer though(again general).

From what I know of the estate by me; people were moved to several large housing estates(several right outside the city away from their lives), mostly blocks and towers; to make way for the new shopping centre in the centre of town. When the new wave of immigrants came in, most of the older tenants were moved out and rehoused elsewhere(a few still remain), often away from their families and lives.

The truth is these towers and blocks are just warehouses, people stacked up on top of each over, waiting for a home. The safe blocks with modern fire safety measures would suit singles and couples. The rest should be flattened, and either new housing developments like the one I referenced earlier be used to replace them, or new houses built. Should people get passionate about an issue, no stay logical, count the pennies.
No the comments about insults were general(it was the elderly surgeon that reminded me of a certain mindset). I'll let you know about vid tomorrow.

I just started watching that, what new type of Hell. Luckily the same group produced a more detailed document which is the one I've been referencing from the Left of the debate(and I've been referencing The Tower for balance). I gave the link way back.

[ik9000]

The truth is these towers and blocks are just warehouses, people stacked up on top of each over, waiting for a home.

LOL this is a warehouse.



this is a home.







Nice isn't it? Shall we put people in homes like this? Any guesses where this is from?

Hardly a warehouse now is it?

what about flats like this one?








You do realise that under your policy suggestion, it being more than 3 storeys and over 100 years old it must automatically be demolished right?

Are you sure you've thought this through?

[johnroe]

That group you referenced then led me to this group. The Grenfell Action Group, again a massive amount of information that can be interpreted in different ways.

'The Grenfell Action Group has decided to publish a monthly photograph to highlight some of the slum-like living conditions on Lancaster West Estate that we are seeking to improve. It is worth remembering that residents on Lancaster West Estate are forbidden from describing our living conditions in their true state by some of those with power in Hornton St and we believe that this oppressive behaviour brings great shame on the likes of Conservative Councillor Rock Feilding-Mellen and Labour Councillor Judith Blakeman'

from> the site itself is a good source. https://grenfellactiongroup.wordpres...y-slum-part-2/

[Butcher]

Interestingly you can see the poor fit of the windows in those pictures.

[ik9000]

Interestingly you can see the poor fit of the windows in those pictures.

yeah but they don't look as ill fitting as the ones in the 2nd flat, so it's hard to predict how bad it went just from the photos. Hindsight and all that...

[Butcher]

You're not some sort of expert are you?

Why would it matter if I were?
Using the word expert to try to cast doubt on people's opinions does you no favours.

[peterb]

Look I don't really feel like I'm able to talk to such a Master Debater.

Hmm, I found that quite funny....



when I first heard it in the first year at secondary school.

You see what I mean, if you claim you are some expert, you are basically saying, nothing anyone else is saying can possibly have any value(or in this case because of the way I'm saying it).

'Experts' can and do have different opinions - because there are different interpretations of data. There are numerous examples of correlation being confused with causality.

However an expert is usually regarded as having a more than superficial knowledge of a subject. As was said earlier, giving a post graduate thesis may be incomprehensible to lay person (ie someone who has no knowledge of the subject matter) who may take the conclusions as fact. Another academic may see flaws in the discussion and set up experiments/research to demonstrate an alternative and plausible conclusion. Who does the lay person believe? That might depend on their general level of intelligence, their general educational level or their own experience.

On the other hand they may favour on view over another because they have their own agenda, or their own axe to grind, and so will use one opinion to support their own prejudice.

You can be open minded, or just keep on repeating the same mistakes. How many have to die, be traumatised, and live on miserable Brutalist estates, before someone dare speak the obvious truth. I'm just one of many calling for a massive change to housing policy.

The whole point of the Grenfell inquiry is to identify mistakes so that building refurbishment may be safer - that doesn't necessarily mean that there is a requirement to change housing policy in the round.

Superficially it seems that the safety of the Grenfell tower was compromised by inappropriate cladding materials and/or the application of them. If that is the inquiry's conclusion, then the policy regarding cladding may be updated, but it doesn't necessarily mean that housing policy needs to be changed.

And the 'obvious truth' may not be quite so obvious when all the facts surrounding the fire are known. And I do wonder if perhaps you have an agenda perhaps someone in local government or some other partisan position?

[Ttaskmaster]

The whole point of the Grenfell inquiry is to identify mistakes so that building refurbishment may be safer - that doesn't necessarily mean that there is a requirement to change housing policy in the round.

I go so far as to say that if a massive inquiry is necessary, then the truth is not as 'obvious' as some have asserted - If it were, we'd just go through the obvious checklist and apportion out the blame as we find it.

Superficially it seems that the safety of the Grenfell tower was compromised by inappropriate cladding materials and/or the application of them.

Still seems to me that the primary problem was lack of correct information dissemination over the change in suitability of the material.

[Corky34]

I think it's safe to say most people recognise the problem as the materials used and there installation (cladding and windows), obviously the inquiry will give a definitive answer on that but it would be surprising if they didn't reach the same conclusion, the real question is where was the breakdown in the system that should have prevented such a situation.

Personally it's not about blaming for me, when it comes to safety i always look to the way the aviation industry investigate accidents/mistakes and then go on to implement changes or extra checks to reduce the chance of a similar situation occurring in the future, we sometimes seem more concerned with retribution than making the system safer.

[ik9000]

what corky said

[Ttaskmaster]

I think it's safe to say most people recognise the problem as the materials used

I agree.....

the real question is where was the breakdown in the system that should have prevented such a situation.

This^ is the key factor, IMO, which would/should have either prevented use of the materials in the first place, or highlighted the legal requirement to replace them once the classification had changed.

Personally it's not about blaming for me

It shouldn't be.... but that is usually what it comes down to, even only as a secondary result intended to serve as a deterrent (because potentially killing someone isn't enough already?), but it's always about pinning the blame on someone if it's not simply something at fault.

i always look to the way the aviation industry investigate accidents/mistakes and then go on to implement changes or extra checks

But they prefer performance-based risk management, over prescription-based...

we sometimes seem more concerned with retribution than making the system safer.

Retribution is big business, though. Can't go depriving insurers and prosecutors of their livelihood now, can we...!

[johnroe]

Why would it matter if I were?
Using the word expert to try to cast doubt on people's opinions does you no favours.

You know why. You were a so called expert on the game future thread.

Like I said earlier, on any topic I can find you a hundred academics and experts with contrary views. And that's healthy thing, usually some consensus is reached. Even then others disagree. Sometimes a revision takes place, sometimes new information becomes available. That's what I'm waiting for, this years reports from actual experts involved in the case.