Julian Cope presents Head Heritage

Head To Head
Log In
Register
U-Know! Forum »
The dangers of deregulation
Log In to post a reply

Pages: 2 – [ 1 2 | Next ]
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
thesweetcheat
thesweetcheat
5878 posts

The dangers of deregulation
Jun 15, 2017, 17:20
The ever-erudite George Monbiot on the dangers of deregulation, highlighted by the Grenfell Tower tragedy.

There's a warning about the potential of the "Great Repeal Bill" in this context.

https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/15/grenfell-tower-red-tape-safety-deregulation
Howburn Digger
Howburn Digger
765 posts

Re: The dangers of deregulation
Jun 15, 2017, 21:00
I dont think you'd find anyone disagreeing with George Monbiot's little essay on the forseeable dangers of post-Brexit dregulation. I think the problem most people have is that the "Post-Brexit de-regulation" hasn't happened yet. Grenfell Tower happened under existing British and EU Regulation. I, like many people of my generation, remember Summerland. The insane danger of fixing cladding coated in flammable plastics, foam, bitumen (or whatever petro-chemical by-product we care to name) to the outside of buildings was shown only too clearly. It was like watching 1973 all over again.

The clear Roman Candle effect of cladding a building in flammable petrochemical-based resin foam is there for all to see in the videos from Grenfell. It acts like a blow-torch to the interiors, setting of incendiary fires at an incredible rate, feeding on its own appetite. We don't need to wait two years for the heel-dragging public inquiry to find a toaster was at fault and an unknown vandal had disconnected an alarm or some horsehit like that. This has been known for at least 44 years since Summerland.

Nothing sharpens the guilty mind like a noose, a long prison sentence or a public mood for a harsh flogging. We know the NKTM Officers responsible for the safety of these buildings, we know the firm who fitted the cladding, we know what state the fire alarms were in, we know who signed off the work, we know the safety concerns, worries and serious complaints which were ignored. The Police should make some pre-emptive arrests and get them singing like canaries.
There were people paid BIG FAT salaries to make sure this did not happen. Public sector contracts paid out to the lowest bidder in the refurb. There are 100 plus dead people lying in that burnt out tower. The cops and the FB are not moving them. It is a crime scene. Let's remember that.
tjj
tjj
3357 posts

Re: The dangers of deregulation
Jun 15, 2017, 21:11
You are spot on. As is the writer of this blog - serious criminality has taken place against the poorest - who just happen to live in one of the richest boroughs of London.

https://keepourcouncilhomes.wordpress.com/2017/06/15/grenfell-tower-fire/#more-1161
thesweetcheat
thesweetcheat
5878 posts

Re: The dangers of deregulation
Jun 15, 2017, 22:17
I agree with all of this. In fact it also ties in with the point I made to you in the other thread that UK austerity is a home-grown parasite, not at EU one. What has happened here is very much the profit-at-any-cost-to-hell-with-state-intervention stuff we have become used to under successive governments (and I wouldn't excuse New Labour wholly there either, although it has definitely escalated since 2010). The fact that 300-odd Tory MPs voted against making it a legal requirement that rented accommodation is "fit for human habitation" was shoddy then and positively sickening now.

There is however a very real danger that the Tories intend to use the excuse of the Great Repeal Bill as a cloak to mask a lot more deregulation. Although hopefully their lack of a real majority may prevent the worst excesses happening. One rich man's "red tape" is without doubt another poor man's security from the consequences of the worst of cost-cutting and profiteering.
tjj
tjj
3357 posts

Re: The dangers of deregulation
Jun 15, 2017, 22:46
thesweetcheat wrote:
I agree with all of this. In fact it also ties in with the point I made to you in the other thread that UK austerity is a home-grown parasite, not at EU one. What has happened here is very much the profit-at-any-cost-to-hell-with-state-intervention stuff we have become used to under successive governments (and I wouldn't excuse New Labour wholly there either, although it has definitely escalated since 2010). The fact that 300-odd Tory MPs voted against making it a legal requirement that rented accommodation is "fit for human habitation" was shoddy then and positively sickening now.

There is however a very real danger that the Tories intend to use the excuse of the Great Repeal Bill as a cloak to mask a lot more deregulation. Although hopefully their lack of a real majority may prevent the worst excesses happening. One rich man's "red tape" is without doubt another poor man's security from the consequences of the worst of cost-cutting and profiteering.


Thanks your posts tsc, I read George Monboit's piece. Like the rest of the country I am still horrified and bewildered at how an 'accident' on this scale could happen. Judging by some of the posts I've seen on social media I wouldn't be surprised if there aren't riots over this. Unsurprisingly, once the shock wears off, there will be a lot of very real anger out there on the streets.
Howburn Digger
Howburn Digger
765 posts

Re: The dangers of deregulation
Jun 15, 2017, 22:49
The arms length plausible deniability here has me reaching for the sick bucket. This renovation is indicative of how tendering and sub contracting works, with each link in the chain taking a chunk of the cash and delegating the work down the line to the cheapest bid, tender or supplier. And right down the line goes any oversight, regulation, or responsibility. At least that's what these shits were and are hoping.
NKTMO awarding of the renovation contract to Rydon begins the fiasco... Rydon then sold the project management over to a French Company called Artelia. Artelia (cost management specialists) then dispersed the various component parts of the renovation job out to a variety of companies who tossed their tenders into the ring. Some of these then sub-contracted again...
Artelia's mention of their involvement in the Grenfell renovation disappeared from their website yesterday evening.
The building services engineering firm Max Fordham were brought in as consultants and one of the things they recommended was to remove the "fire stopping" between floors in order to fit new heating pipework. References to this were not on Max Fordham's Website yesterday. Max Fordham would not make any comment yesterday.
Studio E was commissioned as the architect for the refurb but their website was not operational yesterday.
Rydon had engaged the services of Fan Systems (the UK branch of a German Ventilation Company called Witt and Sohn). They had contracted a UK company called JS Wright from Birmingham to work on the ventilation sytem (required to remove smoke from the building in the event of a fire)....
Harley Facades were brought in to fit the insulation. Harley Facades said it had bought the insulation material (burnt pieces of which are now littering the ground around Grenfell Tower) from Celotex a company based in Ipswich. Celotex said its thoughts were with those affected, adding that it would “assist with enquiries from the relevant authorities”.
Harley Facades were brought in to install the tower block’s Reynobond cladding. Harley said today through a spokesperson that it would “fully support and cooperate with the investigations into this fire” but added that it was “not aware of any link between the fire and the exterior cladding”. Reynobond PE is the aluminium panel used in the Grenfell Tower cladding and was designed by the multinational firm Arconic.
Arconic also makes a less flammable version of the Reynobond product called Reynobond FR, which stands for “fire resistant”.

Here's a wee helpful flow chart...

https://interactive.guim.co.uk/uploader/embed/2017/06/contractor_flowchart/giv-3902fkZU1ehCeiif/

The 100 plus dead bodies will remain there at the scene of the crime until SOCOs have been through every flat and recorded the evidence.

These Corporate Criminals need something to focus their minds, something to bring things up in sharp relief, something to make them feel uncomfortable.

Labour then pisses on what should be a no-brainer.‘Everybody should take share of responsibility for tower fire’ says Labour’s housing secretary.

Dear God.
nigelswift
7435 posts

Edited Jun 16, 2017, 06:08
Re: The dangers of deregulation
Jun 16, 2017, 05:45
I know a bit about the Building Research Establishment. That cladding will have been tested multiple times and found to be safe. I suspect that what will come out is that it had been applied in a non-standard and ultimately fatal way. Whether the blame for that lies with the BRE for not issuing adequate guidance and not anticipating what non-compliance could lead to, or the contractors for not following guidance or the regulatory authorities or the contractor's engineers for not picking up that the fixing method was non-compliant or the politicians for failing to adequately finance one of the areas of regulatory scrutiny I don't know.

However, my bet is that BRE will have been well aware of the danger of misapplying the cladding and will have replicated the results in a lab and will have issued caveats on the subject in huge red letters both at the time they approved the system and in subsequent updates based on other incidents elsewhere in the world. Which points the finger towards a failure further down the line. Was a section of cladding removed since it was applied in order to investigate if the fixing was correct? That would have been down to the Local Authority not the original contractors. It would be pretty typical Local Authority speak to say that check was an unexpected addition to the maintenance budget so had been allocated for actioning "in the next five years"
Sanctuary
Sanctuary
4705 posts

Re: The dangers of deregulation
Jun 16, 2017, 07:04
Howburn Digger wrote:

The building services engineering firm Max Fordham were brought in as consultants and one of the things they recommended was to remove the "fire stopping" between floors in order to fit new heating pipework. References to this were not on Max Fordham's Website yesterday. Max Fordham would not make any comment yesterday.


The floors/ceilings are all concrete so it must have been ducting the pipes were laid in. Did they not also recommend that the 'fire stopping' should be replaced after the pipes were laid as the ducting would surely have been designed with this in mind? The heating engineers themselves can be held responsible (like any other tradesman) if they deliberately remove a protection barrier and not replace it irrespective of what orders they are given by an employer.
Have they shown it to have been removed or is that just speculation at this time?
Howburn Digger
Howburn Digger
765 posts

Re: The dangers of deregulation
Jun 16, 2017, 08:25
nigelswift wrote:
I know a bit about the Building Research Establishment. That cladding will have been tested multiple times and found to be safe. I suspect that what will come out is that it had been applied in a non-standard and ultimately fatal way..... (edit)... Which points the finger towards a failure further down the line.... Was a section of cladding removed since it was applied in order to investigate if the fixing was correct? That would have been down to the Local Authority not the original contractors. It would be pretty typical Local Authority speak to say that check was an unexpected addition to the maintenance budget so had been allocated for actioning "in the next five years"



It wasn't a section. This place went up like a Roman Candle.

removing a section of cladding would have been a help for those inside. In fact removing the whole bleeding lot woulda been a lifesaver.

But I agree... a finger will be pointed further down the line.
nigelswift
7435 posts

Re: The dangers of deregulation
Jun 16, 2017, 08:41
Howburn Digger wrote:

It wasn't a section.

Yes, I meant taking a piece off to see if it had been fixed correctly. For instance, if there was an air gap between the cladding and the main wall that could act like a chimney that would be deadly.

Anyway, the talk now is that this may have been the cheapskate cladding of several safer versions which would have cost only a total of 5K more. If so, God help those who sanctioned it.
Pages: 2 – [ 1 2 | Next ] Add a reply to this topic

U-Know! Forum Index