This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
pefwin Where you have to have an English ... 16 Jun 17 11.11am | |
---|---|
Originally posted by croydon proud
Theresas sent angela leadsom to meet the people, quite fcukable, quite fcukable! At least Teri May f***ed her over. Leaving her to speak to the real people.
"Everything is air-droppable at least once." "When the going gets tough, the tough call for close air support." |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Rudi Hedman Caterham 16 Jun 17 11.16am | |
---|---|
Originally posted by pefwin
At least Teri May f***ed her over. Leaving her to speak to the real people. She's a good resource allocator. 'Amber, you can do the tv debate. Oh your father just died? Chin up, think of the party.' 'Andrea, we're still friends. I forgive you. Can you go and sweeten the people from Grenfell Tower. The Queen is there now. Someone should go.'
COYP |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
pefwin Where you have to have an English ... 16 Jun 17 11.20am | |
---|---|
Originally posted by elgrande
So what good are riots going to achieve...yes there is rightly massive anger at what's happened. My understanding is that the weather is within the "riot window" just over 28C. It's not that it will achieve anything constructive but society's frustration at Teri May's total failure to front up and the establishment hiding behind enquiries and the slow drip of bad news. She is now such a car crash it does not matter what party you support we need to get rid of her for the good of the country, whatever shade of government, or even if it includes loyalist terrorist sympathisers.
"Everything is air-droppable at least once." "When the going gets tough, the tough call for close air support." |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
CambridgeEagle Sydenham 16 Jun 17 11.21am | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Rudi Hedman
Yes and some heads should roll. We just don't know which heads yet. It's clearly going to be because of the cladding and whatever it is that wasn't there to stop it spreading from floor to floor inside. The issue with the cladding is it's legal in the uk even though it's known to be more flammable and definitely not heat resistant. Interestingly it isn't legal in the US. If only there was some body of elected officials whose job it was to decide what is and isn't legal.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
pefwin Where you have to have an English ... 16 Jun 17 11.23am | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Rudi Hedman
What is of further concern is the the fire brigade hoses can only reach so high. So what happens when a fire starts higher? you use sprinklers like most countries. As for the cladding it looks like the guilty are hiding behind red tape. I forget the name of the Tory but there was a car crash interview over cladding on BBC Breakfast.
"Everything is air-droppable at least once." "When the going gets tough, the tough call for close air support." |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
CambridgeEagle Sydenham 16 Jun 17 11.25am | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Rudi Hedman
On the 4th floor? In a properly protected building the fire brigade would've arrived to a fire contained to 1-3 floors, not the majority of the building ablaze with no way of getting it under control. It's plainly obvious it spread so easily outside because of cladding and inside because of lack of containing material. What is of further concern is the the fire brigade hoses can only reach so high. So what happens when a fire starts higher? Establishing cause is fair enough but it's there's gross negligence somewhere. Exactly. Clearly if this was all legal then our lawmakers have allowed something to persist that's seriously wrong and the reasons for that are fairly obvious. If the building was below regs then the landlord has questions to answer. The facts that we do know already (speed and extent of blaze, lack of smoke alarms, no sprinklers) indicate that either the landlord has cut corners or the law is unfit or both.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Rudi Hedman Caterham 16 Jun 17 11.25am | |
---|---|
Originally posted by CambridgeEagle
If only there was some body of elected officials whose job it was to decide what is and isn't legal. I think it's the fire service who inspect buildings in France.
COYP |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
CambridgeEagle Sydenham 16 Jun 17 11.28am | |
---|---|
Originally posted by pefwin
you use sprinklers like most countries. As for the cladding it looks like the guilty are hiding behind red tape. I forget the name of the Tory but there was a car crash interview over cladding on BBC Breakfast. Interestingly, most institutional US property investors (if not all) will not even contemplate buying buildings which don't have sprinkler systems fitted. That was certainly the policy my former employer held. If we looked at any building anywhere in the world the first question was "does it have sprinklers" and if not how much would it cost to retrofit.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Rudi Hedman Caterham 16 Jun 17 11.28am | |
---|---|
Originally posted by CambridgeEagle
Exactly. Clearly if this was all legal then our lawmakers have allowed something to persist that's seriously wrong and the reasons for that are fairly obvious. If the building was below regs then the landlord has questions to answer. The facts that we do know already (speed and extent of blaze, lack of smoke alarms, no sprinklers) indicate that either the landlord has cut corners or the law is unfit or both. No spoke alarms is beyond comprehension. Relying on everyone to knock everyone up like its 5 decades ago, which is what happened.
COYP |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Michaelawt85 Bexley 16 Jun 17 11.30am | |
---|---|
Yes the shock is wearing off and the anger and sheer horror is setting in. Saw some pictures on tv this morning of the inside. Seeing the outside KNOWING it's full of remains of people is very upsetting and as I keep saying very frightening. The government to an extent is bloody lucky it's going to take a while to recover and try and identify those who were inside. If the actual death toll was to be released now there could be riots. I don't know how to put this nicely but I grew up on a council estate and when the authorities start lying to and trying to f*** over the people who many would say are at the bottom of the pile in society then there can be an uprising . Saw from an old school friend on social media this morning who appears to work for Ken and chels council in some form .waxing lyrical that everyone who is homeless and displaced will be rehoused within the borough. Find this very hard to believe with the size of the housing lists across the country and I am sure many will be within their rights to not want to live in another tower block. There's all this legislation which exists and shows tenants rights have come on leaps and bounds but the renters and council tenants or indeed anyone who has attempted to seek housing assistance from the local authority will tell you about the scandal of rental properties in this country. No one gives a f***. No one cares. You pay your money and you are left to f***ing rot. While the government bang on about home ownership and getting people on the property ladder. Absolutely scandalous. Makes me so angry
When I was a young girl my Mother said to me.. You listen here kid you're CPFC |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
CambridgeEagle Sydenham 16 Jun 17 11.31am | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Rudi Hedman
I think it's the fire service who inspect buildings in France. I'm sure that's quite a sensible law. If it's the blokes who actually have to put their lives at risk if something burns down saying that something is OK then that seems sensible. It's in their interests very much to ensure that buildings are safe from a fire safety point of view and they won't care too much about the costs involved.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
pefwin Where you have to have an English ... 16 Jun 17 11.35am | |
---|---|
Originally posted by CambridgeEagle
I'm sure that's quite a sensible law. If it's the blokes who actually have to put their lives at risk if something burns down saying that something is OK then that seems sensible. It's in their interests very much to ensure that buildings are safe from a fire safety point of view and they won't care too much about the costs involved. The UK test is whether it fits the code not whether it is actually "fire safe". Nothing is 100% safe, everything has a risk involved.
"Everything is air-droppable at least once." "When the going gets tough, the tough call for close air support." |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Registration is now on our new message board
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.