Not all companies are run for profit. I know of several instances of owners of flats (where they are all privately owned) forming a limited company to manage the communal areas. All the flat owners are noiminal shareholders, but the company exists to service the building and as such is not intended to make a profit from its activities.
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")
Been helped or just 'Like' a post? Use the Thanks button!
My broadband speed - 750 Meganibbles/minute
They're working on concrete-cored steel bricks for our industry, to replace some of the CSB (bolted concrete segment) assets we've had problems with lately. Couple of others too, but I don't actually speak enough German to know what they're on about.Originally Posted by Butcher
J> Why?
J> Is there not enough segregation and division in this country already?
J> Anyone who comes here either integrates into the existing culture, takes over and dominates, or they sling their hook and go elsewhere. Nothing else works, as many thousands of years of history all around the world has proven time and time and time and time and time again... and you want to chuck them all into a racial and cultural enclosure, a ghetto, a concentration camp... because that's always worked SO well in the past... ???!!!
J> Why are you being deliberately obtuse? It's illogical.
J>You're not retarded, so I know you get my point...
J>And you think a wooden door and a bit of glass will keep them safe??
J>If armed police are patrolling the streets, you live in a war zone and any pretense of safety you want to wave about like some kind of victory flag will burn away the instant one of these families goes outside.
J> Really?
J> So how come a few foreign people have privately purchased such blocks (office, plus one former shopping mall) and done them up for housing that passed inspection and are now privately let? Where do you think people got the idea? Because it's already happened.
J> Difference is, these were bought by foreigners and brought money into the country instead of it being spent by the council and going out to whatever foreign country the owners live in.
Oh, yes, J, faster broadband. You have found my weakness. Good Googling. Well done. In THAT case, go ahead and build whatever you like, mate. Jeezy, "Faster Broadband" - That was all you had to say.
Tell you what, go out to all those small country villages full of old people who have lived there since the 1950s, bulldoze the lot and pave the heck out of it, so you can build a massive brand new city in which we can lock up all the foreigners and immigrants you never wanted, while also displacing a bunch of old people who'll probably die and lighten the load on the NHS. We might even get to hang that evil Blair from one of the cranes, eh!!
So long as I get my faster broadband, anything goes.......
Well GOOD flippin' NEWS - You don't NEED new houses. There are stacks of existing ones available. You just have to get them off the overseas owners. For the record, my house was built in 1886 and even though it has no gas or sewerage connections, it's perfectly habitable.
Ditch the idea of just assuming you need new builds and stop with this disposable culture attitude that helped create this problem of profit-driven cheapskate deathtrap buildings in the first place.
So you're not going to answer any of my questions, continue to push your openly biassed agenda, and then start picking apart the structure of my argument rather than addressing the actual points, accusing me of logical fallacies by committing your own in the same sentence, before throwing your toys out of the pram with a meme.... and you call me a troll??!!
T>Not very logical, more a sort of scatter gun approach(and there's no way of comparing apples to houses). What you try to spin from what I said, is exactly what is happening at present. In Holland the approach was to spread the new immigrants from fundamentalist countries across the country. But the people who moved here all know each other from their homelands, and they would rather congregate together. So councils usually move new immigrants into the poorest inner city areas. But with the sort of numbers(which are rarely revealed), you just can't keep forcing more and more people into already crowded areas. I have lived in areas where there was a certain amount of integration. But the fundamentalists have no intention of integrating or being assimilated, hence I thought it would be better for them to have a safe new city(not a spun ghetto). Also their adolescents are breaking away from their parents traditions(which causes family tension), they are drinking and doing drugs.
Also as fundamentalists are the recruiting ground for terrorists, it would be much easier to monitor them all in one place, rather than spreading intelligence services across the country. The armed police were making a strong point about the rise in gun crime. There are many gangs from different countries who are willing to kill to protect the lucrative trade(crack seems fashionable at present). That is happening in a southern UK city, and it's the reason many people I know, especially those with families have fled the city.
Here's an article about building a new city. With modern architectural software it isn't that difficult, 'From Songdo, South Korea to Lavasa, India via Egypt’s unnamed new capital, everywhere you look it seems someone’s building a brand-new city. How hard could it be?' from> https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2...step-diy-guide
Last edited by johnroe; 25-05-2018 at 05:17 PM.
Oh righty ho, I do apologise, then.
In that case, feel free to pick ANY things of which you hypothetical already have plenty, in great condition, ready to use... and then hypothetically ask yourself if you should instead go out and buy more instead of using the perfectly good ones you have... The analogy works the same with just about anything.
It's not what you're comparing, it's what you're doing with them that's the analogous part.
And that makes it alright, does it??!!
Oh, it's already happening and it's happened before... It didn't work at all and some nations still can't live it down, but we'll propose it anyway....
But as you say, people would rather congregate together and you will NOT stop that unless you start putting Berlin Walls up everywhere and physically restricting the movement of citizens... which is an unusually Liberal conspiracy for me, but still a valid assertion in this case.
No-one is forcing them to stay there... Indeed, given the high volumes of immigrants who have gotten good jobs and/or worked hard for their money and moved out of London to settle right here in Reading... I'd say that's quite a substantiated assertion on my part.
Indeed, I went to see the Han Solo film just last night, in the company of one such fella and his girlfriend. He became a mechanic, worked long hours, got some money together and left London. He's just upgraded to a larger workshop, in fact. I used to house-share with an Iranian (electrician and fantastic cook) in Harrow (not the posh on-the-Hill part), who also worked hard and got himself a decent life.
Then don't let them in to begin with. Simple answer, no?
When in Rome, do as the Romans do. When in [whatever country they are from], do as they do. When in the UK.... what, segregate yourself off?
No. Doesn't work. Not in any country.
Find a way to integrate, or find somewhere else to go. It's not like there's really that much in the world that is incompatible anyway.
I'm pretty certain that's happening with non-fundamentalist and even non-immigrant children, too.... That's not a housing shortage, town planning or building regulations matter - Now, I could be wrong on that, feel free to correct me, and I'm more than willing to hang a few construction industry regulators for leading our children astray.... but please do check first.
It's true then? You really never do leave the KGB? Wow, I thought that was just in the movies...
So what are you going to do if these foetid hives of terrorist HR start getting too many sign-ups? Take off and nuke the entire site from orbit, or just clad their buildings with substandard materials and sit back to watch...?
Ah, but we've banned most of the guns. This shouldn't be happening...
Jeezy, what then is the name of this wretched hive of scum and villainy?
Tell us, lest we accidentally drive there in the course of our wholesome work duties, or something....
Step 5: Do not alienate locals.
With your masterful city-sized dumping ground for all the fundamentalist and other undesirables that flag up on the BNP/UKIP database, you're ignoring Step 5 of this very article.....
So as an aside, what is your agenda in this?
To lump all the immigrants into a concentration camp, to seek a higher standard of enforced construction safety regulation, to tackle crime maybe.... ?
T>I just base these observations on what I see. These people are stuck in a sort of limbo, just like many young people, because they simply can't raise enough money to buy a house. Often in these communities the wives aren't allowed to work. Also I think they would feel safer, surrounded by those with similar cultural values. It won't happen, but it makes you think. Many new cities have been created for thousands of years.
I also talk to some of the muslim men and women around here, so M asked me why house prices are so high(his wife got the old cliche from council> if you want more points have more children). It's just obvious we need a lot more houses, and to stop tarting up out of date blocks built fifty years ago, which no one ever liked, because they are like open prisons.
When you know how much the UK's drug trade is worth, you know why they use guns. It's just a fact of life in certain areas. Obviously they aren't interested in civilians, but kids get caught up in the cross fire.
I've just found an interesting link, architects use software like Esri City Engine and Unreal 4(originally developed for gaming I believe) to create new cities which they can transport themselves into.
Last edited by johnroe; 25-05-2018 at 08:41 PM.
Don't you see that it's that sort of sweeping generalisation that is undermining any credible arguments you are trying to put forwards?
Once again: The people living in Grenfell did like living there. It was not an open prison, they openly, and happily, talk about the sense of community, and lots of people knew each other and their neighbours. There are tragic stories of people going round to shelter with neighbours instead of just getting out. There are also stories of people assisting neighbours to get out, and knocking on doors to wake people who were sleeping etc - linked in to a criticism of the new alarm systems that didn't wake everyone up (partly by design SFAIK!!!)
Just because a building is old does not make it a prison just because you do not like the architectural style. Just because it is in an estate does not make it a prison. How many estates have you lived on? I've lived on two, with very mixed demographics, both were great (mostly) both in terms of the apartments, and the people. I have to say bar a few bad eggs it was not the horror show I was brought up assuming it would be. You might benefit from trying it too.
Going back to one of your earlier posts, I can also take you to £1m-2m private houses where they had bed bug problems, roaches etc. That is not the reserve of the poor, and like anything, you treat it, deal with it and move on.
Just because you don't like the look of the buildings does not mean the right answer is to tear them down. Given you start by saying we need more houses, the answer is not to bulldoze ones we already have.
I smell Guardian spin. As a Modernist concept I appreciate the idea of 'a machine for living in'. But these style blocks are a cheap and nasty version of the concept. Originally in this city they were built to house all those displaced from their homes, to make way for the new shopping centre. I've lived in tower blocks and other massively overcrowded inner city areas in three major cities. Yes of course people help each other, and particularly in an event like that. I never really saw any problems between any ethnic groups until the recent massive increase since Blair reduced the evidence needed to claim asylum, allowed so called students to stay, etc. The fundamentalist do keep themselves to themselves and are generally unfriendly. I've seen tension between them and other groups. Oh and the reason I compare them to open prisons>the estate by me; key fob to enter compound, and front door. 450 cctv cameras in a half a square mile(they monitor everything from a secret location, fine dog walkers and get others arrested). Here's a simple question> What have you got against building as many houses as is required for; all our young people struggling, all those families invited here with the promise of proper accommodation, and those displaced or made homeless?
This should appeal> https://www.theguardian.com/society/...flats-homeless
Last edited by johnroe; 26-05-2018 at 08:07 PM.
Have I missed something? At no point have I made any comment regarding that. I've merely pointed out the deficiencies in your arguments regarding the Grenfell tower, and similar housing in general. And I come back to the fact that knocking down a perfectly servicable tower-block does nothing to help house more people. It creates more problems than it solves.
I did say that if singles and couples know the risks then that's okay. I did live in a block near there, in Battersea. I think everything discussed in the press, like cladding, is just the superficial problem, and maybe at some point the Grenfell tower enquiry will reach the same conclusions. As a country we need to make decisions about taking care of all these people and our own young people who are equally desperate, otherwise we will get another generation of affected children growing up in unsafe housing. Our inner cities are becoming unsuitable for families. Mass immigration means mass house building and supportive infrastructure.
I'm only playing with ideas when I talk about a new city; actually I propose two, one in Edinburgh and one in Sedgefield in County Durham.
Although K&C TMO was an independent organisation, K&C council was able to appoint 4 board members of their choosing and influence outcome of any board decisions. K&C has a vested interest in Grenfell tower since they own the freehold and there isn't any excuses for not overseeing the decisions made by K&C TMO board as part of due diligence.
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)
No, the cladding (and how it was installed) really is the issue here. That and changing the windows to pvc melting crap, and wadges of inadequate firestopping around the windows because they (presumably) opted not to order bespoke windows of the right size for cost reasons. The building as it was originally would have survived just fine, even with its stair and lift configuration. (In fact one interesting thing to come out of the reports was that the stair lobbies and refuse chute areas survived the fire intact. It's not known whether the conditions in them during the fire would have sustained life, but anyone who'd got in those certainly wouldn't have been burned.)
Regarding risks of living in old buildings: The stair being smaller than modern standards require is no different to half the houses in the UK. My parent's stairs in their house probably don't comply, and I doubt mine would either. Pitch too steep/width too narrow/rise:going ratio too steep etc is a common trait. It doesn't make them unsafe, it just means we try and be more generous now.
We don't pin notices to every piece of railing around the street that no longer complies with modern regulations, nor do we stop walking on pavements/driving on roads over basements that were built in Georgian times for horses and carts and not modern vehicles. Don't even mention all those old masonry road and rail bridges we all travel over...
Similarly most existing houses have a threshold doorstep - correct for its time, but now that would not be DDA compliant. A number of older buildings don't have cavity walls but rather uninsulated solid walls, and nearly everything built before 1950 has foundations that are too shallow compared to modern the building regulations. Victorian buildings invariably have timber joists built into the solid masonry walls which is a modern no-no, as are the timber window lintels and embedded wall plates of that time. Ditto the degree of ventilation in them - again correct for its time (to combat TB and ensure air flow - something that came out of the slum clearances) but no way you could meet the modern part L requirements that way. I could go on.
In short, there's so much in existing buildings that doesn't comply with modern regulations, but it doesn't mean those buildings are not ok to use, it just means that newer stuff is built to a different set of requirements. The answer is not to bulldoze every property in the UK everytime there is an improvement to the building regulations. That would be madness, both practically and economically.
"sorry sir, your house doesn't comply with the new zero-carbon energy use targets. That could save £50-100 a year, and help reduce energy burden, so we're knocking it down and rebuilding it at a construction cost of £200k, a landfill penalty of £50k, and waste material, a carbon energy spend of xxx-tonnes CO2 in the production of new materials, shipping, demolition and site works. Oh and you have to live somewhere else for a year - good luck finding a rental, what with all these chronic housing shortages we keep hearing about. But, good news! When you come back while your rooms will be 30% smaller, your stair will be 1" wider than now and you'll save £5k over a 50 year occupancy if you live that long (and assuming we don't crack nuclear fusion)."
Scale that kind of approach up to the entire country and hello bankruptcy. And just out of interest, who would be paying the costs for such mass demolition, rebuild and rehousing in the short-term? And where would those spare houses come from? A new city isn't going to house enough people for your dream of tearing down every old building that doesn't meet your tastes.
OR we could just accept that old buildings behave slightly differently, and everyone could agree that a homeowner spending £50-100pa extra is probably worth it overall.
Alternatively for bigger buildings where the energy save could be justifiably large, a pragmatic half-way house is to seek to improve the aspects that can be readily changed (like overcladding with new insulation), providing it can be done so at a economically justifiable cost such that the predicted savings will outweigh the costs and energy penalties of doing the works. That is called a practical solution. And what they tried to do at Grenfell, albeit they cocked it up and then some.
Last edited by ik9000; 27-05-2018 at 01:22 PM. Reason: first line
Actually it needs a slightly broader view, the issue is not just the defects that were built into the building during the re-fit, but also the process that allowed those defects to go unnoticed. As earlier posts, the lack of rigour in terms of independent/third-party oversight and checking in the modern building design and construction processes leaves a lot to be desired IMO, and I hope the inquiry will look into that aspect as well as the physical material/construction errors that allowed the fire to spread in the way it did. Similarly whether the client complied with their obligations to ensure sufficient budget and time, as well as ensuring competency of those appointed. Still doesn't change the fact that the issue is not the original building construction, but rather what was subsequently done to it.
Ik9000>Again just like T you are making illogical analogies. You can keep referring to cladding. Put it another way, if the council weren't trying to hide Grenfell tower(a high rise slum) behind aluminium gentrification then this fire wouldn't have spread the way it did. If only single and couples had been in the block, then even with the fire, it is more than likely most would have escaped via the narrow staircase. The fact of the matter is this country likes to pride itself on it's great liberal consciousness, but doesn't want to take responsibility for the inevitable consequences. You can't invite millions of people to this country, and think that you can keep forcing them into an already over stretched infrastructure. They drove out 70 % of the original inhabitants of the estate next to me, by sending in police units, fully armoured with shields, kicking peoples' doors in and threatening them. (Sometimes they found a bag of weed, sometimes tenants had expressed anger at how they had been treated, and how the council was radically changing their community without any regard for them, they were labelled 'racists' and threatened with eviction)
I actually preferred the original system where those 450 million people from the Commonwealth had a right to come here(probably 500 M in today's terms). They are culturally prepared for the UK, in that the UK often set up the judiciary, government system and education in their countries(ie, they are already compatible generally to our lifestyle and they see the UK as the Motherland), plus because of regulation they could be given rights to work and found housing without overwhelming the infrastructure.
TB and the EU changed all that, their policies have overwhelmed us, and not least in terms of pressure on the housing market, schools and the nhs. Now while the Home Office can only do it's job; try to remove foreign criminals, hate preachers, IS and Al-Qaeda groomers and organisers, but all the rest of these millions of immigrants need homes. IS wouldn't have formed the caliphate and terror base if TB had condoned the destruction of Iraq. Brexit is a direct result of uncontrolled, unregulated mass immigration often from countries highly incompatible with the UK.
I was talking to this Yemini woman I know(she's the one who told me about the EU officials canvassing for immigrants in the M. East and N. Africa) and she expressed concerns that the adolescents in her community are turning their backs on their families. If you think of many of the recent terror attacks these are the people being groomed and recruited; young, alienated, angry with the UK and doing hard drugs. If we don't address the issues like proper housing, safe environments and hope for these UK born adolescents, then Blair's legacy to this country will become a nightmare. At the moment the attacks are pretty unsophisticated, but with hardened fighters fleeing Iraq and Syria, they will inevitably come to Europe. Also even though most of the attacks are stupid(in terms of targets, (concert goers, commuters,etc), they do create a massive backlash against not only fundamentalist muslims, but muslims in general(adding to the problem of alienation). Hence my idea of a separate city.
T>please don't waste what I consider to be 'kinder garden' forum cliches on me. There's no excuse for having a narrow knowledge base, or a narrow viewpoint(you are connected to the internet). When you reference the Holocaust, I find it personally offensive. My mother's family fled Germany because of anti-Semetic persecution. So you can forget that cliched attitude straight away. Also most of the ideas that have changed the world for better or worse, since 1945, come out of the Jewish tradition of political philosophy, psychology, philosophy, sociology,etc. Most were Jewish writers disseminating their ideas through unis in Europe.
J> And there's your problem, J>
J>You see only what you want to see, in order to fuel your political agenda. You don't see problems and solutions... only immigrants and anti-Blair rant-fuel.
J> So rather than mix them in with the rest of our national culture, whence they might start adopting the same values and social attitudes, you want to isolate them in their oppressive community and perpetuate their suffering??!!
J> I'm sure it will one day be programmed by auteurs and designed by advanced AI...
J> That's the residue of your own Daily Fail spin fouling your senses.
J> After all this time, surely we're post-Modernist by now?
J> I'm guessing you're not old enough to have been around in the 1960s, then?
J> It costs too much money, is a waste of all the existing buildings tha are perfectly suitable and at the end of the day it still won't be affordable for a good many of those 'struggling'.
J> Your inability/unwillingness to understand and appreciate them does not make them illogical.
J> Then stop allowing the private sale and decomissioning of fully servicable infrastructure for the purposes of controlling and enhancing profits, as they did with the railways.
Pfft... decades of dealing with the IRA have made us rather apathetic toward terrorism, J.
J... When you get all UKIP (borderline BNP, in fact), talk about tarring all foreigners with the one brush and isolating them in their own separate cities... while at the same time bitching about "open prisons" - I find that highly offensive and it's extremely narrow-minded of you.
But then, who mentioned the Holocaust, anyway, J?
The Holocaust was a systematic genocide, J, as you know full well. I'm talking about your idea of isolated cities and likening it to concentration and internment camps... which I'm sure you are aware predate the Holocaust by a good century and has been used by many nations, most notably including the UK, the USA, Spain, Germany (twice), France, South Korea, Japan, Russia and Australia... many of the big nations, in fact.
None of them worked, J. None of them.
Then you, J, should definitely know better!
I just base these observations on what you write, J...
Then you need to look better, J, because things like that are not going to happen if we lock all these immigrants and foreigners up in their own special isolated cities...!
People need to integrate with the culture and community, not be cut off from it.
T>I see you're off in full stereotyping mode again. Like I say, we all absorb data(from real experience or through media), and interpret it our own way. 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. Then when the whole situation gets embarrassing cover up the blocks in highly flammable cladding. Check out when this cladding started across the country, and how many blocks are still covered(even now).
I know muslim families that are living in these blocks, they tell me exactly what they think(from concerns about over crowding, worried children might climb out window, drug addicts).
You don't see it, but like I said the Idea of a city for fundamentalists, is just that. Because the alternative is a city's worth of fundamentalists spread across the country. The intelligence services are trying to monitor over 3,500 different subjects, but that will inevitably grow with a new generation of disillusioned adolescents. 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).
Don't get me started on Multiculturalism, that refers to culture. What the UK has is multi ethnic groups coexisting, while a bunch of liberals patronise them.
But you don't really have anything to say, you are just ........I don't know what it is you think you are doing. I'm not sure how real this is, but there's plenty of evidence of claims of fire risk>
It's from this Adam Curtis documentary. 'Inquiry The Great British Housing Disaster' > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ch5VorymiL4
Okay I've just watched that documentary. Considering it was made 34 years ago. Conclusion; all system built concrete blocks and housing was poorly constructed, not properly connected together panels....the list of problems has been endless, and has cost council tax payers billions in temporary fixes. None of the blocks can be said to be safe, in 1984.
Last edited by johnroe; 31-05-2018 at 10:14 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
