Cladding

[Top_gun]

Interesting. Agreed re the latter - but how much diligence did they do, and could they be expected to do? And how much of that should be RBKC vs the TMO. As in, did the TMO appoint a clerk of works/checking engineer/architect? If so, would RBKC then be expected to have their own separate checks beyond this and their own building control department? (and that assumes it was RBKC building control and not a third party approved inspector)

The due diligence doesn't necessarily mean RBKC had to replicate the TMO structure. Due diligence could involve an effective complaints system which was badly lacking in RBKC. Residents made complaints about the TMO to RBKC which was then re-routed back to TMO. Thus any concerns is effectively locked within the TMO. Whose job is it to the listen to the concerns of residents?

RBKC could have appointed third party specialists if there were merits in the residents' complaints.

The Grenfell Tower fire was entirely unavoidable had there been a two way conversation between the TMO and residents. That is what TMOs is meant to be about. The clue is in the acronym.

[Zak33]

i'm gonna step in now and ask for a.... ... a little less... tit for tat please.

I love a debate, and an argument, though I do it little here.

I do appreciate the <j> and <t> style of debate. but needs must.. it shall be nice and polite and stay thus.

there are a couple of unrequired digs in this threads- I dislike them.

[Ttaskmaster]

T>I see you're off in full stereotyping mode again.

Just working with what you give me....

I take it you're a Blair fan, who thinks it's okay to invite people here and stick them in old blocks for decades.

Blair - Not especially.
Invite people - Sure. It's worked for centuries.
Old blocks - Plenty of native-born white people in similar housing. Plenty native and immigrant alike have both proven they can work their way up the housing chain, though.

You don't see it, but like I said the Idea of a city for fundamentalists, is just that.

Then don't allow those ones here in the first place, maybe? Then you wouldn't have to inter them in a separate city and take up large areas of land that could be used for... I dunno... trees and other such scenic green and pleasant goodness for which we're meant to be famed.
Besides, once you build one such city, every other conceivable #MeToo minority will demand one.

Because the alternative is a city's worth of fundamentalists spread across the country.

Which is worse than another country full of them how, exactly?

The intelligence services are trying to monitor over 3,500 different subjects, but that will inevitably grow with a new generation of disillusioned adolescents.

Google are quite effectively monitoring millions of people, all around the country... It's clearly not that difficult a task!

The fundamentalists cut themselves off, they generally don't interact, and don't let their women far from their control(the two muslim women I talk to are from moderate muslim countries but married to fundamentalist husbands).

But they still find a way to talk to you and therein is where the seeds of our culture are sown, from which they can blossom throughout the generations until isolationist behaviour becomes a very difficult way to live life for any fundamentalist.

Don't get me started on Multiculturalism

I don't believe I did.... I certainly wouldn't advocate it myself and I may even have spoken thus earlier in this thread.... or another similar.

But you don't really have anything to say, you are just ........I don't know what it is you think you are doing.

Merely challenging others' assertions in my usual fashion.

It's from this Adam Curtis documentary. 'Inquiry The Great British Housing Disaster'

Might watch it if I get time later this week. Can't access audio/video at work.

[johnroe]

T>you're really not saying anything. I don't think you understand at what level of surveillance the intelligence services have to work, to keep track of those that don't want to be monitored.

I think the UK is moving into a new era, and we can make the best of that, (or moan) and deflect from real problem. The people who live here, unless they break some serious laws are staying here. They need proper homes, and the Grenfell tower inferno is a symptom of that. Why can't people just take the numbers requiring housing; immigrants or Brit youngsters, to those displaced from their communities, and see that what the UK needs to kickstart this new era is a massive house building project, so that young people grow up in safe environments.

I think if you watch that doc, you'll change your mind about the blocks. Harold Wilson got elected by promising to build a half a million homes per year. The concrete slabs were poorly constructed in a factory with apparently no quality control, because when they interviewed the unskilled workers who bolted the blocks together, they said all panels were different and the holes for the bolts didn't line up, so they didn't put many in. Floor slabs weren't attached to walls. The cladding was to stop the rot of what bolts there are. Council inspectors left it mostly to the constructors. They kept patching them up, although most faults can't be verified until demolition. The whole project was a disaster. They should have all been demolished, but incoming millions meant that they just kept patching them up.

[johnroe]

For anyone who has the time, there's an article that goes into immense detail. Here's a few clips which relate to earlier points;

'In any case, the question of who chose the cladding is a red herring: hundreds of councils made similar choices, believing that cost and colour – not safety – were the issues they were being asked to adjudicate. Flammability was never mentioned. (It would have been taken for granted that the suppliers had successfully tested the different materials.) In fact, Feilding-Mellen(the council’s cabinet member for housing, property and regeneration.... covered Grenfell Tower), far from wanting to save money, states in his email of 18 July that he would support the more expensive option. It is Maddison(director of Assets and Regeneration at the TMO) who raises the issue of costs in his next email, three days later. Again: one should not be surprised by this – it’s his job. ‘We were hoping to achieve savings by negotiating with the Planners over the cladding material (aluminium instead of zinc),’ he writes, ‘and fixing method (face-fixing instead of cassette).’

It seems that assumptions where made about contractor's responsibility, and the recurring theme on the side of the contractors was cutting costs in the building and renovating of council properties.

From document and film> https://www.lrb.co.uk/v40/n11/andrew-ohagan/the-tower

[Ttaskmaster]

T>you're really not saying anything.

Whereas you're saying a lot, but not really addressing the point. I therefore assume you're a local councillor, or something... Lib Dem? Your attitude suggests Labour, but your Love Affair with Blair kyboshes that a little...

I don't think you understand at what level of surveillance the intelligence services have to work, to keep track of those that don't want to be monitored.

Oh, I think you'll find I do..............!

Why can't people just take the numbers requiring housing; immigrants or Brit youngsters, to those displaced from their communities, and see that what the UK needs to kickstart this new era is a massive house building project, so that young people grow up in safe environments.

They did that in the 70s and built one of the largest housing estates the UK had ever seen, right here in Reading. I wouldn't call it especially safe, given how two parts of it are pretty much no-go areas for Police and taxi drivers, with several others bordering the estate, along with it being the best place to score all manner of drugs (several of the larger resident dealers bring their cars to us for servicing and often don't even bother to remove various substances from the glove compartment).
But now they want to bulldoze a whole swaythe of farmland to build another, bigger one just like this..... It is NOT the answer!!

I think if you watch that doc, you'll change your mind about the blocks.

I don't care about the blocks. I care about the nice shiny buildings that have never been occupied in the first place, that we're just wasting, along with all the stupid new builds that we don't need.

Harold Wilson got elected by promising to build a half a million homes per year.

Yes, but that's just a promise, and from a politician, at that.
[Insert random construction company name] got the contract by promising to build 3,000 new homes... They then saved money and made a profit by only building 2,500 of them, half of which were pre-sold to foreign investors for more money than they were contracted for, on top. The result is a perceived housing shortage, prompting even more New Build plans, which means [Insert another random construction company name] will get the job to build the next one, and around we go.....

Keep pushing that new build and your grand scheme of special cities... None of it will work out that way. Not while there's even a single person who can make money from it.

[johnroe]

T>that's the problem then, you're on the wrong thread. You want the 'Ttaskmaster is annoyed by recent building projects, empty office blocks, foreign investors,rail privatisation' thread. Stop trying to hijack this one.

[ik9000]

T>that's the problem then, you're on the wrong thread. You want the 'Ttaskmaster is annoyed by recent building projects, empty office blocks, foreign investors,rail privatisation' thread. Stop trying to hijack this one.

For someone commenting as some of your recent posts in the cladding materials (and by association Grenfell Tower) thread that seems to me a little rich. Perhaps others might also like to stick to the point too, as I can find several posts diverging somewhat from the topic at hand not belonging to T; and I'm sure he wouldn't be replying thus were others also not drawing the conversation off in a different direction.

Part of the art of debating is to accept that you will never be able to make everyone agree with you. It's about presenting your argument such that even an opponent can understand your point of view. If the debaters are sensible they will often be willing to admit that there are alternate views they might not have considered previously - and then to weigh them on their merits. Or if they have already considered them, they would present reasons why they might view things in a different manner themselves. Sadly it is all too common in debates for some people to be stubborn, blinkered and unwilling to consider any viewpoints other than their own - irrespective of how biased, prejudiced, misguided or hypocritical their view might be. They then get more and more entrenched, obstinate, and even aggressive as the debate goes on, because they see it almost a matter of principle to be seen to be right. Annoyingly a good number of such folk end up becoming politicians. and then we wonder why things are run so badly.

My point being, don't throw the rattle out of the pram just because someone picks holes in your arguments. That is the nature of the beast I'm afraid, and personally I enjoy it when I learn something new by people taking time to discuss different views with me. It broadens one's outlook and helps make someone more rounded. IMO better discussion and reason, than the gutter lies and angry obfuscation of the daily hate.

[peterb]

Part of the art of debating is to accept that you will never be able to make everyone agree with you. It's about presenting your argument such that even an opponent can understand your point of view. If the debaters are sensible they will often be willing to admit that there are alternate views they might not have considered previously - and then to weigh them on their merits. Or if they have already considered them, they would present reasons why they might view things in a different manner themselves. Sadly it is all too common in debates for some people to be stubborn, blinkered and unwilling to consider any viewpoints other than their own - irrespective of how biased, prejudiced, misguided or hypocritical their view might be. They then get more and more entrenched, obstinate, and even aggressive as the debate goes on, because they see it almost a matter of principle to be seen to be right.

Couldn't have put it better myself!

[ik9000]

The due diligence doesn't necessarily mean RBKC had to replicate the TMO structure. Due diligence could involve an effective complaints system which was badly lacking in RBKC. Residents made complaints about the TMO to RBKC which was then re-routed back to TMO. Thus any concerns is effectively locked within the TMO. Whose job is it to the listen to the concerns of residents?

RBKC could have appointed third party specialists if there were merits in the residents' complaints.

The Grenfell Tower fire was entirely unavoidable had there been a two way conversation between the TMO and residents. That is what TMOs is meant to be about. The clue is in the acronym.

I don't think the failures of the cladding system would have been picked up in tenant feedback - but certainly there were failings in communication and tenants not being listened to more widely.

My own experience of the TMO was that they considered tenants were there to be managed - or rather dictated to - than any sense of representing, or being on behalf of, the tenants/residents. As you say the clue is in the acronym Tenants MANAGEMENT Organisation, NOT Tenants Representative Organisation or similar. I wouldn't be surprised if they'd wanted RBKC Management Of Tenants , only to be told the MOT acronym had already been dibsed by another government organisation (and its spin-off vehicle testing).

[johnroe]

For someone commenting as some of your recent posts in the cladding materials (and by association Grenfell Tower) thread that seems to me a little rich. Perhaps others might also like to stick to the point too, as I can find several posts diverging somewhat from the topic at hand not belonging to T; and I'm sure he wouldn't be replying thus were others also not drawing the conversation off in a different direction.

Part of the art of debating is to accept that you will never be able to make everyone agree with you. It's about presenting your argument such that even an opponent can understand your point of view. If the debaters are sensible they will often be willing to admit that there are alternate views they might not have considered previously - and then to weigh them on their merits. Or if they have already considered them, they would present reasons why they might view things in a different manner themselves. Sadly it is all too common in debates for some people to be stubborn, blinkered and unwilling to consider any viewpoints other than their own - irrespective of how biased, prejudiced, misguided or hypocritical their view might be. They then get more and more entrenched, obstinate, and even aggressive as the debate goes on, because they see it almost a matter of principle to be seen to be right. Annoyingly a good number of such folk end up becoming politicians. and then we wonder why things are run so badly.

My point being, don't throw the rattle out of the pram just because someone picks holes in your arguments. That is the nature of the beast I'm afraid, and personally I enjoy it when I learn something new by people taking time to discuss different views with me. It broadens one's outlook and helps make someone more rounded. IMO better discussion and reason, than the gutter lies and angry obfuscation of the daily hate.

Tosh! What you're obviously not understanding is that all these elements are important; yes the title of the thread is 'cladding', but if you don't understand; the building and continual refurbishment, political decisions that were made. How they were scheduled for demolition, and many have been, but back in 1984, that meant finding new homes for 6 million people. Another political decision in the 90's meant that authorities had to rely on refurbishment and keep using the unsafe blocks and houses.


You're comments on debating make sense. I look at the different opinions of experts, and try to come to some overall understanding of how the UK got into such a mess with it's housing stock, that people are burning alive, trying to escape, and there have been many incidents in these blocks. I was just agreeing with T, as he says he has no interest in the blocks, but has made it clear over several posts, where his concerns about housing lie.

'throw rattle out of pram', I said don't waste your 'kinder garden' level insults at me. No one is picking holes in my argument, if I can call it that, it's an argument put forward by experts(I'm only referencing and interpreting). T is just arguing for the sake of it. I also said I'm not interested people that just post inane comments after my quotes. If he actually had any point to make I'd answer it if I could. If you actually had anything to say. God I long for people that can see through the media hype, and don't just act like sheep.

Your last few sentences must be referring to you. Because like most, I didn't know the complex background behind this case, but now I realise that contractors for decades have been criminal in their procurement of council contracts, criminal in the buildings they supplied which have blighted the lives of many, and criminal in the cladding of Grenfell Tower and the hundreds of others across the country. So to use one of your 'kinder garden' cliches, don't lecture me. Oh I see what the real problem is here; you've made several unfounded statements on which you've based your argument, and now the evidence undermines that, the evidence of people who were actually involved in the construction and renovation. So now you attack the poster, got it!

'I believe in estate regeneration,’ he said. ‘A lot of those Brutalist postwar buildings are not fit for purpose, and our tenants were always telling us that. So I wanted either to improve them or build them again, with guaranteed housing for existing tenants, and with more affordable homes on the same sites'(Feilding-Mellen) from The Tower

[ik9000]

Tosh! What you're obviously not understanding is that all these elements are important; yes the title of the thread is 'cladding', but if you don't understand; the building and continual refurbishment, political decisions that were made. How they were scheduled for demolition, and many have been, but back in 1984, that meant finding new homes for 6 million people. Another political decision in the 90's meant that authorities had to rely on refurbishment and keep using the unsafe blocks and houses.


You're comments on debating make sense. I look at the different opinions of experts, and try to come to some overall understanding of how the UK got into such a mess with it's housing stock, that people are burning alive, trying to escape, and there have been many incidents in these blocks. I was just agreeing with T, as he says he has no interest in the blocks, but has made it clear over several posts, where his concerns about housing lie.

'throw rattle out of pram', I said don't waste your 'kinder garden' level insults at me. No one is picking holes in my argument, if I can call it that, it's an argument put forward by experts(I'm only referencing and interpreting). T is just arguing for the sake of it. I also said I'm not interested people that just post inane comments after my quotes. If he actually had any point to make I'd answer it if I could. If you actually had anything to say. God I long for people that can see through the media hype, and don't just act like sheep.

Your last few sentences must be referring to you. Because like most, I didn't know the complex background behind this case, but now I realise that contractors for decades have been criminal in their procurement of council contracts, criminal in the buildings they supplied which have blighted the lives of many, and criminal in the cladding of Grenfell Tower and the hundreds of others across the country. So to use one of your 'kinder garden' cliches, don't lecture me. Oh I see what the real problem is here; you've made several unfounded statements on which you've based your argument, and now the evidence undermines that, the evidence of people who were actually involved in the construction and renovation. So now you attack the poster, got it!

'I believe in estate regeneration,’ he said. ‘A lot of those Brutalist postwar buildings are not fit for purpose, and our tenants were always telling us that. So I wanted either to improve them or build them again, with guaranteed housing for existing tenants, and with more affordable homes on the same sites'(Feilding-Mellen) from The Tower

Can you back any of that up with references? What was scheduled to be knocked down, by whom and when?

Which companies are you accusing of criminal activities exactly? Who, what, how and when?

Also kindly find me the quote where I say to you "don't lecture me". I'm not sure you can. Watch your tone please - there's no need to get hissy. Particularly with those folk who have stayed quite neutral in this thread. For forum posting, rather like gambling, and much else in life: when the fun stops, stop.

[johnroe]

ik9000>look it's obvious you mis interpreted what I said to T. And the only person who is getting 'hissy' is you. Now you are mis interpreting what I say(ie: I'm not talking about kinder garden forum cliches specific to you, but are still in use on this forum, as a way of insulting a poster you don't agree with)

I'm posting above clips that show council involvement and contractors involvement, I'm referring to documents, which I've referenced. Look I get it, your stereotyping, your narrow bandwidth 'concentrate on the cladding'. Well I'm taking a wider view and looking at the real problems. Shortage of safe housing. You stick to cladding. The figures being mentioned; for building the blocks, for the poorly constructed slabs, the cutting of cost by employing unskilled labour to bolt them together, to bribing council officials, government grants offered to constructors, to all the billions spent on refurbishment and also major repairs since they were built, but the work was done for lowest cost. For all that cost they could have built real houses, instead of prefabricated death traps.

[ik9000]

fyi grenfell tower was a traditional reinforced concrete frame. it was not prefab.

[peterb]

fyi grenfell tower was a traditional reinforced concrete frame. it was not prefab.

Which may be why it is still standing in spite of the ferocity of the fire. Many of those 60s and 70s high rise were very over-engineered for safety.

The idea was that the construction would contain a fire within one flat so that there didn't need to be a mass evacuation which could cause greater loss of life.

And that advice was sound until the inappropriate installation of the cladding which created a flue between the cladding and the wall which created an up draught that spread the fire in a way that an unclad building would not.

I am not a fire expert, (or a civil engineer) but logically one might think that having fire retardant cladding would make the situation worse as it would maintain the integrity of the flue for longer - something that burned would fall away - although that would present a hazard to people on the ground.

Im sure this is a point that will be addressed (among many) by the inquiry.

[ik9000]

hot gases. provided they don't come into contact with combustible materials the fire would not have spread how it did. However the flue effect should not have happened if the fire closers had been installed to the correct size and performance. also the inadequate gaps left around window frames due to the windows not being the right size so the fire could jump inside. Those are IMO the more avoidable and potentially negligent aspects.