Huge fire in Grenfell Tower - West London

[Welly]

The Daily Telegraph actually headlined that the use of cheaper inflammable foam instead of the more expensive fire-resistant foam saved a total of £5000 from the cost of the cladding. What a derisory saving - I wonder how little more cash was saved by other corner cutting in the refurbishment work on Grenfell Tower.

 

[NorthernSpirit]

Cynicism of the first degree was there for all to see when amongst the residents with their hand-written placards expressing their personal grief was the usual Socialist Worker headed professionally produced placards expressing nothing about the tragedy but the usual Socialist clap-trap that one expects to see on such posters.

Its a shame that the far left hijacked it, it seems that get a kick out of such tragic events for their own twisted needs. I very much doubt that they'd take a few people in who have lost their homes.

 

[w0033944]

No reason? After Grenfell, I think there's plenty of reason.

To be fair, he did use the word 'financial' to qualify his remark. Still doesn't mean I agree with him, but, technically-speaking, he's correct.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Its a shame that the far left hijacked it, it seems that get a kick out of such tragic events for their own twisted needs. I very much doubt that they'd take a few people in who have lost their homes.

Because the right has never exploited an event for its own ends, of course... :roll:

 

[PHILIPE]

I agree with this. The authorities have been saying that they expect the number of confirmed deaths to rise from 30 so that's not really evidence of a coverup. People like Lily Allen aren't really helping, they should wait for evidence.

People like Lily Allen and baying mobs storming the Council offices should step back and show some respect for the victims and other people caught up in the tragedy. Is it the Momentum crowd, if so Jeremy Corbyn should speak out against them.

 

[jon0844]

Because the right has never exploited an event for its own ends, of course... :roll:

Your point is?

 

[w0033944]

Important development on the BBC live update page (emphasis mine):

There has been speculation over whether the cladding used to cover Grenfell Tower contributed to the speed at which the fire spread.

BBC Newsnight has reported that the exterior cladding on Grenfell Tower, added in 2015, had a polyethylene - or plastic - core instead of a more fireproof alternative.

Now comes a statement from the Department for Communities and Local Government: "Cladding using a composite aluminium panel with a polyethylene core would be non-compliant with current Building Regulations guidance.

"This material should not be used as cladding on buildings over 18m in height.

"We cannot comment on what type of cladding was used on the building - this will be subject to investigations."

 

[MarlowDonkey]

The Daily Telegraph actually headlined that the use of cheaper inflammable foam instead of the more expensive fire-resistant foam saved a total of £5000 from the cost of the cladding.

Someone really ought to carry out a reality check on the arithmetic behind that. Is it not rather more likely, given the size of the building, the number of panels needed and the overall value of the contract, that it's £ 5,000 per flat?

 

[Shenandoah]

People like Lily Allen and baying mobs storming the Council offices should step back and show some respect for the victims and other people caught up in the tragedy. Is it the Momentum crowd, if so Jeremy Corbyn should speak out against them.

But Corbyn won't. He is crafty enough to get others such as Momentum, Socialist Worker and others to fire his bullets for him.

 

[takno]

Someone really ought to carry out a reality check on the arithmetic behind that. Is it not rather more likely, given the size of the building, the number of panels needed and the overall value of the contract, that it's £ 5,000 per flat?

No, the pricing quoted has the fireproof panels at less than 10% more expensive. The majority of the cost of the refurb will have been getting the panels up on a 24 storey-building.

 

[Dai Corner]

No, the pricing quoted has the fireproof panels at less than 10% more expensive. The majority of the cost of the refurb will have been getting the panels up on a 24 storey-building.

Apparently the extra cost is about £2 per square metre of cladding and it has been estimated 2000-3000 square metres were required, so £5000 sound about right for the additional material cost.

 

[Dave1987]

Dave1987 said in his posting that the two projects that he referred to could have their total project refurbishment costs relocated into the covering all the upgrading costs of "all the tower blocks in the UK", a statement that bears no financial rhyme nor reason.

You are totally correct in stating there are hundreds of such tower blocks in the UK.

And you wonder why there is such anger towards May and her Government.:roll:

 

[Bletchleyite]

Someone really ought to carry out a reality check on the arithmetic behind that. Is it not rather more likely, given the size of the building, the number of panels needed and the overall value of the contract, that it's £ 5,000 per flat?

No, Celotex insulation is not all that expensive.

 

[the sniper]

No reason? After Grenfell, I think there's plenty of reason.

Don't be as daft as the mob. Cancelling the refurbishment of Buckingham Palace and Westminster (essentially allowing the latter to fall down) in order for their budget to be diverted to covering (what could be a fraction) the cost of sorting out the flats (the liability of which might at least partially fall to the private sector anyway) that might need work makes no sense at all... The two aren't mutually exclusive. :roll:

 

[Dave1987]

Don't be as daft as the mob. Cancelling the refurbishment of Buckingham Palace and Westminster (essentially allowing the latter to fall down) in order for their budget to be diverted to covering (what could be a fraction) the cost of sorting out the flats (the liability of which might at least partially fall to the private sector anyway) that might need work makes no sense at all... The two aren't mutually exclusive. :roll:

Why not? They are spending hundreds and hundreds of millions on both so why should that money not be immediately diverted to ensuring all these tower blocks aren't potential death traps? Or are Buck House and Westminster Palace far more important than people's lives? You then claim back from any dodgy contractors who tried to save a few quid.

 

[Senex]

Don't be as daft as the mob. Cancelling the refurbishment of Buckingham Palace and Westminster (essentially allowing the latter to fall down) in order for their budget to be diverted to covering (what could be a fraction) the cost of sorting out the flats (the liability of which might at least partially fall to the private sector anyway) that might need work makes no sense at all... The two aren't mutually exclusive. :roll:

No -- they're not mutually exclusive. But as far as the two palaces go, maybe they should both just be allowed to fall down, having been replaced by something on a smaller scale and much cheaper to maintain. What would be wrong with a modern utilitarian conference-centre for MPs, built on a brown-field site somewhere? The costs quoted for modernising the Barry/Pugin palace seem beyond all reason.

 

[Senex]

Important development on the BBC live update page (emphasis mine):
Quote:
There has been speculation over whether the cladding used to cover Grenfell Tower contributed to the speed at which the fire spread.

BBC Newsnight has reported that the exterior cladding on Grenfell Tower, added in 2015, had a polyethylene - or plastic - core instead of a more fireproof alternative.

Now comes a statement from the Department for Communities and Local Government: "Cladding using a composite aluminium panel with a polyethylene core would be non-compliant with current Building Regulations guidance.

"This material should not be used as cladding on buildings over 18m in height.

"We cannot comment on what type of cladding was used on the building - this will be subject to investigations."

If what you quote is indeed correct, and if it was indeed the cladding that allowed fire to spread so disastrously, then it seems that responsibility must lie with the Kensington & Chelsea authorities who accepted a tender that included cladding the building with non-compliant materials. The only alternative is that they accepted a tender that specified compliant materials and that the cheaper non-compliant materials were later substituted.

 

[bussnapperwm]

For those who are suggesting cancelling the refurb of buckingham palace and the palace of westminster and diverting the funds to the tower blocks, what would be more likely to garner a payback?

Hence the refurbishement of the Buckingham Palace and the Palace of Westminster...

 

[the sniper]

Why not? They are spending hundreds and hundreds of millions on both so why should that money not be immediately diverted to ensuring all these tower blocks aren't potential death traps? Or are Buck House and Westminster Palace far more important than people's lives? You then claim back from any dodgy contractors who tried to save a few quid.

Why so...? :roll:

The UK is the fifth largest economy in world. The two things aren't mutually exclusive. As for the bit in bold, don't be ridiculous. Using the deaths of all these people to further an irrelevant argument against renovating some historic buildings is frankly sick in my opinion.

No -- they're not mutually exclusive. But as far as the two palaces go, maybe they should both just be allowed to fall down, having been replaced by something on a smaller scale and much cheaper to maintain. What would be wrong with a modern utilitarian conference-centre for MPs, built on a brown-field site somewhere? The costs quoted for modernising the Barry/Pugin palace seem beyond all reason.

Which is relevant to deaths of all these people and work needed to prevent a reoccurrence elsewhere, how?

 

[Dave1987]

Why so...? :roll:

The UK is the fifth largest economy in world. The two things aren't mutually exclusive. As for the bit in bold, don't be ridiculous. Using the deaths of all these people to further an irrelevant argument against renovating some historic buildings is frankly sick in my opinion.

Well in which case you find some of the opinions of those victims as "sick" then, as it was someone whose life has been devastated by this fire who questioned the millions is being spent on Buck House. I am simply highlighting an opinion of someone who's life has been devastated by this fire.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

No reason? After Grenfell, I think there's plenty of reason.

I am not to blame for your lack of comprehension of what my posting actually said, which was that the claim by the contributor to this thread that the costs of refurbishment of the two stated areas in his posting could have the money for these withdrawn and used instead to be used for all the tower blocks in the UK, which I then said bears no financial rhyme nor reason.

In a later posting, ainsworth74 said there are hundreds of tower blocks in the UK.

 

[backontrack]

I am not to blame for your lack of comprehension of what my posting actually said, which was that the claim by the contributor to this thread that the costs of refurbishment of the two stated areas in his posting could have the money for these withdrawn and used instead to be used for all the tower blocks in the UK, which I then said bears no financial rhyme nor reason.

In a later posting, ainsworth74 said there are hundreds of tower blocks in the UK.

You could at least remove the cladding!

 

[w0033944]

Don't be as daft as the mob. Cancelling the refurbishment of Buckingham Palace and Westminster (essentially allowing the latter to fall down) in order for their budget to be diverted to covering (what could be a fraction) the cost of sorting out the flats (the liability of which might at least partially fall to the private sector anyway) that might need work makes no sense at all... The two aren't mutually exclusive. :roll:

I'm aware that the Houses of Parliament are in a seriously bad state of repair and are in urgent need of repair work, but I was unaware that the Palace was equally as bad.

 

[takno]

I am not to blame for your lack of comprehension of what my posting actually said, which was that the claim by the contributor to this thread that the costs of refurbishment of the two stated areas in his posting could have the money for these withdrawn and used instead to be used for all the tower blocks in the UK, which I then said bears no financial rhyme nor reason.

In a later posting, ainsworth74 said there are hundreds of tower blocks in the UK.

The costs quoted for the Palace of Westminster alone are getting towards 6 billion. You could almost certainly replace the cladding on the tower blocks (many of which will already be compliant), and quite possibly fit sprinkler systems. Might even have some left over to flatten the existing carbunkle of a parliament and build something cheaper and more practical.

 

[w0033944]

Which is relevant to deaths of all these people and work needed to prevent a reoccurrence elsewhere, how?

Well, if the government says that the country cannot afford to make these towers safe, so therefore we'll have to leave them as they are and accept putting the residents at risk, and then spend the money on Westminster and the Palace, there might (shock horror) be a few complaints from the Great Unwashed. Of course, if the world's fifth-largest economy genuinely cannot afford both (as opposed to politicians of whatever stripe using the coast as an excuse, then I think we ought to ask where all the money has gone. In principle, I agree with you that the two ought not be mutually exclusive.

 

[yorkie]

The costs quoted for the Palace of Westminster alone are getting towards 6 billion. You could almost certainly replace the cladding on the tower blocks (many of which will already be compliant), and quite possibly fit sprinkler systems. Might even have some left over to flatten the existing carbunkle of a parliament and build something cheaper and more practical.

This off-topic suggestion to demolish significant landmarks is absurd. It isn't going to happen, and if we did as you suggested, we would end up with less money to pay for things, due to the damage to the tourism industry.

Can people please stop hijacking these tragic events for ludicrous political posturing?

If you want to make such proposals, do so in a new thread if you must.

 

[najaB]

Might even have some left over to flatten the existing carbunkle of a parliament and build something cheaper and more practical.

With that attitude, I'm surprised you don't suggest that the French get rid of that big pylon in Paris and replace it with something more practical. Or the Italians flatten that half-collapsed arena, the Chinese get a more modern concrete wall, etc.

 

[w0033944]

Might even have some left over to flatten the existing carbunkle of a parliament and build something cheaper and more practical.

There's always one. It's only one of the greatest examples of neo-Gothic architecture in the world.

 

[the sniper]

Well in which case you find some of the opinions of those victims as "sick" then, as it was someone whose life has been devastated by this fire who questioned the millions is being spent on Buck House. I am simply highlighting an opinion of someone who's life has been devastated by this fire.

Yeah, yeah.

It's far easier to hide behind the emotional irrationality of someone who has just lost everything and use that against me, rather than support your own argument.

I'm aware that the Houses of Parliament are in a seriously bad state of repair and are in urgent need of repair work, but I was unaware that the Palace was equally as bad.

I don't think they are, hence why I said:

Cancelling the refurbishment of Buckingham Palace and Westminster (essentially allowing the latter to fall down)

Well, if the government says that the country cannot afford to make these towers safe, so therefore we'll have to leave them as they are and accept putting the residents at risk, and then spend the money on Westminster and the Palace, there might (shock horror) be a few complaints from the Great Unwashed.

"If". How about people cross that bridge when we come to it, which unfortunately for the wannabe revolutionaries in our society, most certainly won't come...

 

[takno]

This off-topic suggestion to demolish significant landmarks is absurd. It isn't going to happen, and if we did as you suggested, we would end up with less money to pay for things, due to the damage to the tourism industry.

Can people please stop hijacking these tragic events for ludicrous political posturing?

If you want to make such proposals, do so in a new thread if you must.

I was really just responding to the suggestion that you couldn't possibly fix all the tower blocks in the country with the amount being spent on the Palace of Westminster, which is manifestly untrue. Personally I don't care what they do with the Palace of Westminster either way