SPAM This thread is for random spam!!

[Job]

What a cunt. You're suggesting the London fire brigade buy a cherry picker costing a good quarter of a million quid, which then sits around doing nothing for years. Do you even know how those things work? Who does the ground survey to determine if it can be used on location? And how exactly do you position the basket so as to rescue people, when the outside of the building is completely ablaze.

What a mind-bendingly stupid arrogant dopey cunt you are.

Jesus fuck..you are actualky calling me a cunt for suggesting London spends 250K on a vehicle that could vastly increase its ability to get water spray and rescue above 200ft...they spend that mucg money on fat cats sitting in meetings every year...thats a car to a lot of people in nearby areas.
It would get used constantly...its a fucking travesty they dont have one and I can assure you the pathetic response of the fire services will be a major part of the enquiry.
People who live above the 6th floor in cladded towers might as well stop paying the fire service because they are out of reach of their servicrs.

 

[Raven]

It would be a hell of a lot more than 250k. A bog standard HIAB costs 250k, add the extra pump units, hydraulic platforms, other equipment etc

A quick google search suggests a standard engine costs around 400k

This would be the first time it would have been needed and if the building management company/council had a clue, shouldn't have happened in the first place.

The real issue is the use of cheap materials, which is retarded because the largest cost would have been fitting the cladding, not the cladding itself. Ali, probably £50 a square metre or so, ali/plastic £25ish a square metre

 

[Tom]

Er yes, you obviously don't understand the weight limits a cherry picker has on its basket, you don't know that such a large and heavy vehicle has to be stabilised at the base and that it needs a ground survey to ensure that it won't tip over while operating. Not to mention the numerous other problems your "idea" presents, such as the sideways force on the arm from the water jet, or what keeps the operator from being burnt to a crisp while up there.

I use the things all the time, you don't have a fucking clue what you're on about. And your idea that everyone should open their taps at once? You're supposed to be a plumber but you don't realise that the building almost certainly doesn't have enough pressure for what you suggest. You're obviously a shit plumber.

Every time you open your mouth, drivel comes out. It's astonishing how fucking stupid you are, but then again most racists are.

 

[Scouse]

a vehicle that could vastly increase its ability to get water spray and rescue above 200ft...

Do they even exist? Do you know how powerful a pump would have to be to get water up higher than that? How would firemen be able to keep hold of the hose safely?

The problem here is nothing to do with the fire service. The problem here is, ultimately, inequality. But if that's to nebulous a logical concept for you the problem is deregulation, lack of inspection and legal(ish) profiteering by the already-rich.

Stricter building regs and inspections that renovation had been carried out strictly to regulation would have ensured that there were sprinklers, proper fireproof cladding, proper fire doors etc. etc. and the fire would have been contained to the apartment in which it started.

In this case the entire building was ablaze in fifteen minutes. It's like they made it out of dry kindling.

 

[Tom]

You don't need sprinklers on a building like that. It was reportedly designed to contain fires such that people could escape at leisure.

It does surprise me though that flammable coating is allowed. I've installed a lot of polystyrene-like insulation in my house but you can bet I paid a great deal of attention to its fire rating (I bought the best I could). I used fireproof plasterboard under the stairs, thick plasterboard ceilings with fire-rated downlight receptacles, etc. I have a smart smoke alarm that sends me texts if it detects anything. And I'm just some random bloke who knows little about building regulations. That anyone could install flammable coating on a building like that and think it's ok - personally I think it's morally indefensible, no matter how legal it may be.

 

[Scouse]

Small state not able to keep up with / test / regulate / legislate for new building materials.

Add to that rich lobbyists who have had the Tories and Labour (and governments the world over) tearing up regulations for decades because "the market knows best".

For making profit the market knows best...

 

[Scouse]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2PyeXRwhCE&feature=youtu.be

 

[caLLous]

You don't need sprinklers on a building like that. It was reportedly designed to contain fires such that people could escape at leisure.

It does surprise me though that flammable coating is allowed. I've installed a lot of polystyrene-like insulation in my house but you can bet I paid a great deal of attention to its fire rating (I bought the best I could). I used fireproof plasterboard under the stairs, thick plasterboard ceilings with fire-rated downlight receptacles, etc. I have a smart smoke alarm that sends me texts if it detects anything. And I'm just some random bloke who knows little about building regulations. That anyone could install flammable coating on a building like that and think it's ok - personally I think it's morally indefensible, no matter how legal it may be.

That's for you though. If your house was a business and all you cared about was making as much as possible out of it, (if you were some sort of cunt) you'd spend as little as humanly possible getting it up a level whereby it would comply with regulations.

 

[Raven]

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about as usual @Scouse but don't let that get in the way of a bit of UK bashing.

This "small state" is pretty much the only state in the EU that does actually follow EU regulation to the letter, often well above what is required.

This is a one off example (this group of flats) and I imagine existing legislation will be used to take a great big shit from height upon those responsible for renovating it.

People in the UK tend to moan about red tape because we actually comply with it, it is often a pain in the arse but we adhere to it none-the-less.

 

[Scouse]

I thought you managed lads who loaded trucks @Raven? What makes you an expert?


And if this small state (wan't talking about the size of our country - but government size) was capable of monitoring things correctly (which was the point I was making) then existing legislation (EU or otherwise - does it matter?) would get enforced.

 

[Raven]

I manage all sorts. We build warehouses, that are clad.

And regs do get enforced by the government, usually at local level in small scale residential like this. The local council will likely have some serious questions to answer, as will the sub-contractor that fitted the cladding.

 

[Scouse]

Those well-funded local councils eh? And my point about managing / testing / keeping abreast of new building materials? Or of the plans to have a "bonfire of regulations"? Or the ability to monitor proactively?

It's all well and good putting the resouces in to properly investigate and prosecute after people are dead...

 

[Raven]

Edit timer.

Also, regulation is like any law, you will get people that break the law. Just because murder is illegal does not mean it doesn't happen. The same as regulations, there are unscrupulous firms that don't comply, and they do get prosecuted if/when caught. I reckon this could go as far as manslaughter which will mean jail time for directors and contractors.

 

[Scouse]

Yes yes. That's not under dispute.

What about what I was actually discussing?

 

[Raven]

You mean lack of regulation, or some bizarre idea that it will be got rid of?

You know, something that is untrue.

 

[Tom]

I must admit though, after reading further I'm now wondering if I shouldn't go under the floor (which is insulated with Jablite) and cover it all up with plasterboard. There's precious little down there that could start a fire and all the floors are wooden anyway, but it does make me think.

 

[Scouse]

You mean lack of regulation, or some bizarre idea that it will be got rid of?

You know, something that is untrue.

Tories promise bonfire of regulations for farmers after Brexit
Brexit is a golden chance to have regulations bonfire
Boris Johnson backs campaign to cut "EU red tape that's choking Britain"

Plus the friends I have who's work is already substantially changing because of the expectation of imminent huge regulatory changes and my partner, who's UK road lead for a massive construction company who's readying the business for the tearing up of environmental protections for new construction projects and the watering down of legislation for the maintenance of existing.

Even the FT says the Great Repeal Bill is "an issue with consequences for almost every sector of British business".


If you think this isn't a thing then you're incredibly blinkered. Not just wilfully ignorant, but utterly self-blinding. It's not a secret. The fact that this is happening is being openly discussed by all our political leaders. And the ones in power - the Tories, not only have spent decades deregulating, they've also spent the last ten years increasing deregulation's pace for oft-stated ideological reasons.

Here's a fucking link to the Gov.UK website saying they're "slashing red tape" across all sectors ffs:

The UK already has the lowest burden of regulation in the G7, according to the World Economic Forum. Businesses from across the country have been responding to the Cutting Red Tape review programme to identify further areas in need of reform.

This government is delivering on its commitment to free firms from £10 billion of heavy-handed over-regulation and build a more productive Britain. ... we are extending the scope of our deregulation target to cover the actions of regulators, going further than ever before to tackle troublesome red tape.

So removal of regulation and the active removal of regulators.


It's a fucking thing @Raven. A real thing. Wake the fuck up.

 

[Scouse]

Anyway. 76 people missing apparently. Way more deaths than terrorism so far this year.

Makes me wonder if we should review where we should be cutting and where our priorities should lie.

 

[Job]

Do they even exist? Do you know how powerful a pump would have to be to get water up higher than that? How would firemen be able to keep hold of the hose safely?

The problem here is nothing to do with the fire service. The problem here is, ultimately, inequality. But if that's to nebulous a logical concept for you the problem is deregulation, lack of inspection and legal(ish) profiteering by the already-rich.

Stricter building regs and inspections that renovation had been carried out strictly to regulation would have ensured that there were sprinklers, proper fireproof cladding, proper fire doors etc. etc. and the fire would have been contained to the apartment in which it started.

In this case the entire building was ablaze in fifteen minutes. It's like they made it out of dry kindling.

All the legislation in the world doesnt protect from the unexpected, just because the firepersons are heroes doesnt mean the service is lacking.
Of course you can have higher power pumps and the sprays are controlled by hydraulics...its a simple failing of not looking outside the box of the ordinary.
There is no proof yet it was the cladding, could be internal fireblocks disturbed..or incorrectly applied firestop...or not at all.
The machinery they took that fire was useless...they just let it burn out.
Are you defending that as the best we can do.

 

[Scouse]

"All the legislation in the world" and proper funding of inspections and materials testing stops the "unexpected". (And it wasn't "unexpected" - people have been complaining about flammable materials use (still legal) and in the case of this building the residence were complaining about fire safety systems.)

The whole thing was up in flames in fifteen minutes. And you think a fireman on a really high ladder or cherry picker will be able to help when it's in that state? You're deluded.

The fire service has long said "don't build high-rise as it's too difficult to tackle" - but either way it's not down to them. What needed to happen was proper legislation, proper inspection, proper construction standards - then this wouldn't have happened in the first place.

Prevention is better than cure.


BTW - I'm not "defending" our response as the "best we can do" - I'm saying there are better, more effective ways of dealing with these things. Long-known principles that aren't being adhered to. It's not fucking rocket science.

You, on the other hand, are focussing on totally the wrong thing as usual. Building standards legislation and enforcement is the issue here. Not long fire hoses and tall cherry pickers. It's much easier to design fire safety in than it is to save a building that's been wrapped in a fucking petrochemical kindling blanket.

 

[Job]

The real world has trumped your argument ...5 million quids worth of extra height water delivery should be...and will be demanded now.
They give 5 million to lesbian bee keepers in this country.
There are 10s thousands of people living outside of fire jets in this country...its a travesty.
What a piddling amount...even 10 million to provide an absolute backup for all kinds of fire situations.
Im flabbergasted they dont have such equipment.
They spent 10 million upgrading that one tower

 

[BloodOmen]

Fucking disgraceful!

Sun journalist 'impersonated Grenfell Tower victim's relative at hospital'

 

[Bodhi]

Those well-funded local councils eh? And my point about managing / testing / keeping abreast of new building materials? Or of the plans to have a "bonfire of regulations"? Or the ability to monitor proactively?

It's all well and good putting the resouces in to properly investigate and prosecute after people are dead...

Point of order, Kensington Borough Council is actually one of the richest local authorities in the world - last I read they had £300 million in the bank. If the residents had wanted sprinklers installed they would have been installed - there isnt a contractor in this country that would have said no to the additional work.

However I'm also reading from multiple places they were offered sprinklers and said no, as they didn't want the extra inconvenience.

 

[Scouse]

Link @Bodhi?

Regardless - does that stop proper enforcement of proper rules? As it appears it's legal to clad a building in petrochemical kindling perhaps central government should be funding a standards body and tightening legislation rather than cutting mythical red tape?

 

[Bodhi]

LinkGrenfell-residents-did-not-want-sprinklers-council-claims.html
enforcement of proper rules? As it appears it's legal to clad a building in petrochemical kindling perhaps central government should be funding a standards body and tightening legislation rather than cutting mythical red tape?

Original source was The Mail sadly, but as it's the head of Kensington Council suggesting this I'm inclined to believe it.

Grenfell residents did not want sprinklers, council claims | Daily Mail Online

There's clearly quite a few issues at play here, and a hell of a lot of people involved in the refurbishment who will be a bit on the nervous side. Not just contractors, the council, the property management company, etc.

 

[Job]

Yes scouse..we get what should happen in a perfect world...would you be happy if the government said new implemented fire regs mean we can disband the fire service...because thats where we are now.
There isnt a fire service for people above the 8th floor.

 

[Scouse]

@Bodhi - "Kensington and Chelsea Council boss said residents didn't agree over sprinklers"

Aside from the fact that that meant some did want them - if it's unsafe without them, who needs agreement?

STANDARDS. PROPERLY ENFORCED.

But again, it's immaterial. What about cladding the outside of a building in a petrochemical fuel source? Where's the government regulation on that? Or isn't there the time, money and backing to develop legislation on new building materials, evolving building standards and proper enforcement?

No. We just surrounded the flats in easily burning fuel and the whole thing went up faster than a BBQ gets lit.

 

[dysfunction]

Yes scouse..we get what should happen in a perfect world...would you be happy if the government said new implemented fire regs mean we can disband the fire service...because thats where we are now.
There isnt a fire service for people above the 8th floor.

If the government actually invested in the fire service instead of trying to shut down fire stations I would maybe lean a little in your point of view.

But sadly they don't and the fire service has to deal with the resources they are given. Don't blame them for the lack of resources. Twat.

 

[Raven]

Actually, experts (yeah, those guys) agree that flats do not need sprinklers due to their design (Concrete blocks, floor walls and ceiling) Fire does not spread from one flat to the other, in the same way your front room doesn't go up in smoke when you light the fire.

The flats all caught fire from the outside, the single reason for the spread of fire is the cheapo cladding that a single company fitted and will likely be prosecuted for after the enquiry,

 

[Scouse]

I didn't bring up the sprinklers @Raven - @Bodhi did.

And it all comes back to what I said originally. Nobody's addressed that - apart from the disagree brigade of you and bodhi who seem to have an issue with standards being applied, new building materials being tested for suitability and legislated for, inspectors fully inspecting and buildings being made safe simply because it means a properly funded state infrastructure and more "red tape" for business - and that goes against your ideology.