The Politics Thread

[Hoboh]

What would be an acceptable maximum number of people that they should accept negligence for hobes? Shall we say 10 in a flat? Clearly, above that number people should understand that it'll be their fault if they die due to someone else's decisions. Perhaps we could enshrine this in law to remove the ambiguity?

Not very clever with 'risk management' nor peoples 'personal responsibility' are you? 40 in a flat, not a massive risk? clearly you have little understanding of flats then. 40 people 10 or 12 floors up trying to get out of 1 door, blocking a corridor, wow with others trying to escape!

Look, none of this excuses the cladding, not in the slightest but this Lammy guy is clearly trying to make political points and if the flats were so overcrowded, surely this is a relevant, contributory factor, in the number of lives lost by peoples own negligence?
This is one flat being mentioned, suppose others had many more folk in them than they should have? You don't need to be Einstein to work out you have a serious problem.
Actually the local authorities would then have to shoulder even more blame for not issuing strict regulation as to the number of people allowed in a flat and enforcing it.

[Hoboh]

Compo's UK

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/ ... helicopter

(Well he does love the place doesn't he?)

[Lord Kangana]

What would be an acceptable maximum number of people that they should accept negligence for hobes? Shall we say 10 in a flat? Clearly, above that number people should understand that it'll be their fault if they die due to someone else's decisions. Perhaps we could enshrine this in law to remove the ambiguity?

Not very clever with 'risk management' nor peoples 'personal responsibility' are you? 40 in a flat, not a massive risk? clearly you have little understanding of flats then. 40 people 10 or 12 floors up trying to get out of 1 door, blocking a corridor, wow with others trying to escape!

Look, none of this excuses the cladding, not in the slightest but this Lammy guy is clearly trying to make political points and if the flats were so overcrowded, surely this is a relevant, contributory factor, in the number of lives lost by peoples own negligence?
This is one flat being mentioned, suppose others had many more folk in them than they should have? You don't need to be Einstein to work out you have a serious problem.
Actually the local authorities would then have to shoulder even more blame for not issuing strict regulation as to the number of people allowed in a flat and enforcing it.

So are we enforcing a maximum number or not? Your posts seem to be contradictary.

[Hoboh]

What would be an acceptable maximum number of people that they should accept negligence for hobes? Shall we say 10 in a flat? Clearly, above that number people should understand that it'll be their fault if they die due to someone else's decisions. Perhaps we could enshrine this in law to remove the ambiguity?

Not very clever with 'risk management' nor peoples 'personal responsibility' are you? 40 in a flat, not a massive risk? clearly you have little understanding of flats then. 40 people 10 or 12 floors up trying to get out of 1 door, blocking a corridor, wow with others trying to escape!

Look, none of this excuses the cladding, not in the slightest but this Lammy guy is clearly trying to make political points and if the flats were so overcrowded, surely this is a relevant, contributory factor, in the number of lives lost by peoples own negligence?
This is one flat being mentioned, suppose others had many more folk in them than they should have? You don't need to be Einstein to work out you have a serious problem.
Actually the local authorities would then have to shoulder even more blame for not issuing strict regulation as to the number of people allowed in a flat and enforcing it.

So are we enforcing a maximum number or not? Your posts seem to be contradictary.

Clearly not, a fault of the local authorities.
To be quite honest I fail to see why blocks so large, with so many residents do not by law have to be monitored and managed by on site permanent, 24hr, wardens or similar.

[Lord Kangana]

And I'd agree with that, but we live in an age of austerity now. So no dice with anything to do with cost.

[malcd1]

I have been trying not to get involved with this Grenfell discussion. I have experience in new construction builds and the material they use. It comes as absolutely no surprise to me and my colleagues that this has happened in this way and scale. Some feck* like Lammy and Corbyn have been making comments about this being a poor people's problem created by government cut backs. Absolute bullshit. These panels are installed throughout the country in council flats, posh private apartment blocks, student accommodation, offices and probably hospitals to name a few. This is just the tip of the iceberg and I can tell you that there are other buildings that use much worse materials than these panels. For example SIPS (Structural Insulated Panels), EIFS (External Insulated Finishing Systems) and polystyrene plus a myriad of other buildings constructed in ways and containing materials known as Modern Methods of Construction (MCC).

LK - To respond to your comment of on the maximum number of people in a building or single flat, it will be based on the Fire Risk Assessment. This will be used as the document for fire stopping, number of staircases, travel distance, fire doors etc. The life safety and evacuation on the building will probably be based on normal occupation per flat i.e. a two bedroom flat will probably be on two adults sharing the double bedroom and two children sharing the other. Anything above that puts everyone in that flat and the building at risk. Same with the normal expected fire load. It won't be based on hoarders who have bags of clothes and newspapers up to the roof. These assessments are written by under-qualified idiots who don't know their arse from their elbow.

Also, these flats might be privately or council owned. Either way, no one from the council, building owner or management company will be able to gain access to the flat or limit how many people live in each. Perhaps the only people who would have the power to do so would be the Fire Brigade and they wouldn't do it anyway.

The whole Building Regulations are a disgrace and have not been fit for purpose since they were introduced in 2007. They give architects and builders far too much flexibility to whatever the feck they like and they are definitely the people to trust. I am hoping for sweeping changes to the way buildings are built and refurbished but I will not hold my breath.

[malcd1]

Oh yes. There are plans to start constructing buildings like Grenfell and much higher from timber instead of reinforced concrete. In some circumstances, timber can offer better fire properties than steelwork that starts to expand and weaken when it gets to 550°C so it is not all bad but for lofty buildings?

Do you think a building like Grenfell, constructed from Modern Methods of Construction, would still be standing now. The fact that this block of flats was built in the 1960's or 70's is probably why it is still there as a charred skeleton.

[TANGODANCER]

Not sure where how many people that were in a flat at a given time is relevant Hoboh? Christmas, New Year, Birthday parties can all see large numbers of folk in a small area as can obviously religious celebrations etc. The ability to get people out of the building/area safely in emergencies and have procedures in place is surely the issue. I well remember the loss of several friends and aquaintances in the Top Storey night club fire in Bolton back in 1961 that also was down to inadequate facilities in place for emergency. The people renting the building out had been warned about its lack of safety but nothing was done in time. Nineteen people out of twenty two in the building at the time died that night, fourteen burned to death and the rest died trying to escape. There were differences granted, but not in the fatalities which both never should have happened and, in this case, were certainly not the fault of the people celebrating in a flat regardless of numbers nor how many were in a club..

[Worthy4England]

I have been trying not to get involved with this Grenfell discussion. I have experience in new construction builds and the material they use. It comes as absolutely no surprise to me and my colleagues that this has happened in this way and scale. Some feck like Lammy and Corbyn have been making comments about this being a poor people's problem created by government cut backs. Absolute bullshit. These panels are installed throughout the country in council flats, posh private apartment blocks, student accommodation, offices and probably hospitals to name a few. This is just the tip of the iceberg and I can tell you that there are other buildings that use much worse materials than these panels. For example SIPS (Structural Insulated Panels), EIFS (External Insulated Finishing Systems) and polystyrene plus a myriad of other buildings constructed in ways and containing materials known as Modern Methods of Construction (MCC).

LK - To respond to your comment of on the maximum number of people in a building or single flat, it will be based on the Fire Risk Assessment. This will be used as the document for fire stopping, number of staircases, travel distance, fire doors etc. The life safety and evacuation on the building will probably be based on normal occupation per flat i.e. a two bedroom flat will probably be on two adults sharing the double bedroom and two children sharing the other. Anything above that puts everyone in that flat and the building at risk. Same with the normal expected fire load. It won't be based on hoarders who have bags of clothes and newspapers up to the roof. These assessments are written by under-qualified idiots who don't know their arse from their elbow.

Also, these flats might be privately or council owned. Either way, no one from the council, building owner or management company will be able to gain access to the flat or limit how many people live in each. Perhaps the only people who would have the power to do so would be the Fire Brigade and they wouldn't do it anyway.

The whole Building Regulations are a disgrace and have not been fit for purpose since they were introduced in 2007. They give architects and builders far too much flexibility to whatever the feck they like and they are definitely the people to trust. I am hoping for sweeping changes to the way buildings are built and refurbished but I will not hold my breath.

Whilst not disagreeing that there's something completely amiss here, we had Building Regs before 2007 and as far as I recall, they all followed some "broad principles" - someone proposes a design (architects and builders etc.), someone then checks that design against stat requirements and "approves it" (usually council bodies, fire service etc.), someone then delivers "what's been approved", someone checks that what's been delivered was what was approved.

That sorta suggests either the regulations are wrong (e.g. they specify that materials can be used that in the event were a contributory factor to the spread of the fire) or the review/inspection didn't pan out as it should and identify non-conformant products.

You sort of expect that if architect/builder proposes a "house of straw", that it's going to get knocked back somewhere down the line.

What changed in 2007?

[Hoboh]

Not sure where how many people that were in a flat at a given time is relevant Hoboh? Christmas, New Year, Birthday parties can all see large numbers of folk in a small area as can obviously religious celebrations etc. The ability to get people out of the building/area safely in emergencies and have procedures in place is surely the issue. I well remember the loss of several friends and aquaintances in the Top Storey night club fire in Bolton back in 1961 that also was down to inadequate facilities in place for emergency. The people renting the building out had been warned about its lack of safety but nothing was done in time. Nineteen people out of twenty two in the building at the time died that night, fourteen burned to death and the rest died trying to escape. There were differences granted, but not in the fatalities which both never should have happened and, in this case, were certainly not the fault of the people celebrating in a flat regardless of numbers nor how many were in a club..

It is to the number of fatalities Tango and the chances of escape in an emergency.
My house, 2 storey, has 4 exits (not counting windows) and to be honest I'd baulk at the idea of 40 people being inside.

[Lord Kangana]

Still don't understand what relevance it has with a building being clad with flammable material though.

[Worthy4England]

Not sure where how many people that were in a flat at a given time is relevant Hoboh? Christmas, New Year, Birthday parties can all see large numbers of folk in a small area as can obviously religious celebrations etc. The ability to get people out of the building/area safely in emergencies and have procedures in place is surely the issue. I well remember the loss of several friends and aquaintances in the Top Storey night club fire in Bolton back in 1961 that also was down to inadequate facilities in place for emergency. The people renting the building out had been warned about its lack of safety but nothing was done in time. Nineteen people out of twenty two in the building at the time died that night, fourteen burned to death and the rest died trying to escape. There were differences granted, but not in the fatalities which both never should have happened and, in this case, were certainly not the fault of the people celebrating in a flat regardless of numbers nor how many were in a club..

It is to the number of fatalities Tango and the chances of escape in an emergency.
My house, 2 storey, has 4 exits (not counting windows) and to be honest I'd baulk at the idea of 40 people being inside.

Good job you don't have 40 mates then.

Seriously Hobes, whilst I agree that cramming 40 people into a flat isn't ideal I see that sort of thing going on in offices fairly regularly - large groups of folks in (usually boring) meetings in rooms that are designed to accommodate 1/10th of the people that are actually crammed into them. No fire, and it's no more of a problem than some folks are cramped for a bit. Fire breaks out and people would ask why there was "X" times the room capacity in the room at the time.

It's not too untypical at a "do" at our house to have 40-50 people spread across (predominantly) three rooms - when there's been more it's usually sunny and we're in the garden too.

But it actually doesn't matter that much if there was 40 or 10 or just the nuclear 2.7 family in there. Their chances of escape wasn't inhibited as the fire instruction was to "stay put" in case of a fire, in which case they had no chance whatever the number. Sure it might increase the final "total" of poor bastards that perished, but whether it was 1 or 40, the outcome would have been the same, no?

[Hoboh]

Not sure where how many people that were in a flat at a given time is relevant Hoboh? Christmas, New Year, Birthday parties can all see large numbers of folk in a small area as can obviously religious celebrations etc. The ability to get people out of the building/area safely in emergencies and have procedures in place is surely the issue. I well remember the loss of several friends and aquaintances in the Top Storey night club fire in Bolton back in 1961 that also was down to inadequate facilities in place for emergency. The people renting the building out had been warned about its lack of safety but nothing was done in time. Nineteen people out of twenty two in the building at the time died that night, fourteen burned to death and the rest died trying to escape. There were differences granted, but not in the fatalities which both never should have happened and, in this case, were certainly not the fault of the people celebrating in a flat regardless of numbers nor how many were in a club..

It is to the number of fatalities Tango and the chances of escape in an emergency.
My house, 2 storey, has 4 exits (not counting windows) and to be honest I'd baulk at the idea of 40 people being inside.

Good job you don't have 40 mates then.

Seriously Hobes, whilst I agree that cramming 40 people into a flat isn't ideal I see that sort of thing going on in offices fairly regularly - large groups of folks in (usually boring) meetings in rooms that are designed to accommodate 1/10th of the people that are actually crammed into them. No fire, and it's no more of a problem than some folks are cramped for a bit. Fire breaks out and people would ask why there was "X" times the room capacity in the room at the time.

It's not too untypical at a "do" at our house to have 40-50 people spread across (predominantly) three rooms - when there's been more it's usually sunny and we're in the garden too.

But it actually doesn't matter that much if there was 40 or 10 or just the nuclear 2.7 family in there. Their chances of escape wasn't inhibited as the fire instruction was to "stay put" in case of a fire, in which case they had no chance whatever the number. Sure it might increase the final "total" of poor bastards that perished, but whether it was 1 or 40, the outcome would have been the same, no?

I'm not sure about not having an effect if the fireman had actually got to the room, if it existed, would have thought they would not be able to cope with such an unexpected amount of folk safely.
I do get your general point but just make sure it ain't you responsible for all those people crammed in a room for a meeting if the worst happens, neck in noose so to speak.

[malcd1]

I have been trying not to get involved with this Grenfell discussion. I have experience in new construction builds and the material they use. It comes as absolutely no surprise to me and my colleagues that this has happened in this way and scale. Some feck like Lammy and Corbyn have been making comments about this being a poor people's problem created by government cut backs. Absolute bullshit. These panels are installed throughout the country in council flats, posh private apartment blocks, student accommodation, offices and probably hospitals to name a few. This is just the tip of the iceberg and I can tell you that there are other buildings that use much worse materials than these panels. For example SIPS (Structural Insulated Panels), EIFS (External Insulated Finishing Systems) and polystyrene plus a myriad of other buildings constructed in ways and containing materials known as Modern Methods of Construction (MCC).

LK - To respond to your comment of on the maximum number of people in a building or single flat, it will be based on the Fire Risk Assessment. This will be used as the document for fire stopping, number of staircases, travel distance, fire doors etc. The life safety and evacuation on the building will probably be based on normal occupation per flat i.e. a two bedroom flat will probably be on two adults sharing the double bedroom and two children sharing the other. Anything above that puts everyone in that flat and the building at risk. Same with the normal expected fire load. It won't be based on hoarders who have bags of clothes and newspapers up to the roof. These assessments are written by under-qualified idiots who don't know their arse from their elbow.

Also, these flats might be privately or council owned. Either way, no one from the council, building owner or management company will be able to gain access to the flat or limit how many people live in each. Perhaps the only people who would have the power to do so would be the Fire Brigade and they wouldn't do it anyway.

The whole Building Regulations are a disgrace and have not been fit for purpose since they were introduced in 2007. They give architects and builders far too much flexibility to whatever the feck they like and they are definitely the people to trust. I am hoping for sweeping changes to the way buildings are built and refurbished but I will not hold my breath.

Whilst not disagreeing that there's something completely amiss here, we had Building Regs before 2007 and as far as I recall, they all followed some "broad principles" - someone proposes a design (architects and builders etc.), someone then checks that design against stat requirements and "approves it" (usually council bodies, fire service etc.), someone then delivers "what's been approved", someone checks that what's been delivered was what was approved.

That sorta suggests either the regulations are wrong (e.g. they specify that materials can be used that in the event were a contributory factor to the spread of the fire) or the review/inspection didn't pan out as it should and identify non-conformant products.

You sort of expect that if architect/builder proposes a "house of straw", that it's going to get knocked back somewhere down the line.

What changed in 2007?

Approved Document B was released in 2006 (Not 2007. Sorry) that allowed architects and builders increased flexibility in the design of buildings and how they are built including the materials. Up until then there were prescriptive building regulations.

Building Control and Local Fire Officers (until Fire Risk Assessments were taken out of their remit and transferred to building owners and occupiers) are seen as responsible for building regulations but in reality it is builders and architects. Building Control do not get involved in the day to day responsibilities of new projects or refurbishments. They basically check 5% of the building and have a checklist to follow.

The entire building regulations are a waste of time. From reports on the BBC yesterday, every single panels tested on 120 tower blocks has failed the combustibility test. This is not a mistake of the odd one. The system is not fit for purpose.

Another thing that may come out of this cladding testing is that in Australia they had similar issues. Cladding was checked and they found that 35% were counterfeit (mainly from China) as were the test performance certificates that were issued. The Middle East have found Chinese copies as well. Are there problems in the UK? No one knows because no one is checking them. It falls under Trading Standards but they have not one person looking into counterfeit building products.

[malcd1]

Not sure where how many people that were in a flat at a given time is relevant Hoboh? Christmas, New Year, Birthday parties can all see large numbers of folk in a small area as can obviously religious celebrations etc. The ability to get people out of the building/area safely in emergencies and have procedures in place is surely the issue. I well remember the loss of several friends and aquaintances in the Top Storey night club fire in Bolton back in 1961 that also was down to inadequate facilities in place for emergency. The people renting the building out had been warned about its lack of safety but nothing was done in time. Nineteen people out of twenty two in the building at the time died that night, fourteen burned to death and the rest died trying to escape. There were differences granted, but not in the fatalities which both never should have happened and, in this case, were certainly not the fault of the people celebrating in a flat regardless of numbers nor how many were in a club..

It is to the number of fatalities Tango and the chances of escape in an emergency.
My house, 2 storey, has 4 exits (not counting windows) and to be honest I'd baulk at the idea of 40 people being inside.

Good job you don't have 40 mates then.

Seriously Hobes, whilst I agree that cramming 40 people into a flat isn't ideal I see that sort of thing going on in offices fairly regularly - large groups of folks in (usually boring) meetings in rooms that are designed to accommodate 1/10th of the people that are actually crammed into them. No fire, and it's no more of a problem than some folks are cramped for a bit. Fire breaks out and people would ask why there was "X" times the room capacity in the room at the time.

It's not too untypical at a "do" at our house to have 40-50 people spread across (predominantly) three rooms - when there's been more it's usually sunny and we're in the garden too.

But it actually doesn't matter that much if there was 40 or 10 or just the nuclear 2.7 family in there. Their chances of escape wasn't inhibited as the fire instruction was to "stay put" in case of a fire, in which case they had no chance whatever the number. Sure it might increase the final "total" of poor bastards that perished, but whether it was 1 or 40, the outcome would have been the same, no?

The stay put method is the recognised way of fire safety in this type of apartment block. It is partly so the fire brigade can get up the stairs to fight the fire instead of fighting their way past 600 people making their way down. It is also dangerous for the entire building like Grenfell to be evacuated at the same time which is why there was no overall fire alarm system in the block. Trying to evacuate that number of people down those stair all at the same time would not only be difficult but would inevitably result in mass panic. As people enter the stairs from lower floors, the people at the top would stop moving or slow down significantly. The fire brigade prefer for them to make the assessment and so have a staged evacuation process if needed.

However, the problem with this method of staying in your room is that the fire risk assessments are based on a fire being contained to a single flat. As soon as that fire broke out and up the side of the building, the fire risk assessment was worthless. The only policy would then be to get out of the building as fast as they can. Unfortunately, the fire brigade call centres were telling everyone to stay within their flats. With hindsight that was not the correct policy.

[Worthy4England]

Thanks Malc.

So, in effect, they could design their own plans and then mark their own homework (through a friendly third party)? I would assume the Third Party would be relatively friendly - as they probably don't get used by the same builders/architects if they kick up too much of a fuss and ergo don't earn money as "independent inspectors". That change, I thought was made in the 1980's.

My understanding was that the problem didn't lie specifically with Approved Document B - which I thought had been around since Adam in some form or another, but in the fact that through a combination of Lab Tests and Desktop tests, the people who were doing the "signing off" could get, through a "loophole" lower grade products through the sign-off criteria?

The opportunity to do something to tighten any loopholes, could have been taken in either the 2010 or 2013 revisions, but for whatever reasons weren't.

Surely the answer is to have inspectors that incentivised on "lower fire fatalities" and are not driven by architects/builders profit margins?

[Lord Kangana]

Self regulation being no regulation at all?

Who knew?

[Hoboh]

Self regulation being no regulation at all?

Who knew?

Yeah and deregulation made by the Labour government.

Who'd have thunk it?

Don't remember Comrade Corbyn, Napoleon or Squealer out protesting then, still history, when re-written by the 'party' will show them to be blameless complete with photo shopped pics of Compo protesting about this affront to the 'working' class.

[Worthy4England]

In connection with the current conversation, what deregulation was that Hobes?

[Hoboh]

In connection with the current conversation, what deregulation was that Hobes?

Approved Document B was released in 2006 (Not 2007. Sorry) that allowed architects and builders increased flexibility in the design of buildings and how they are built including the materials. Up until then there were prescriptive building regulations.

Is this not relaxing or deregulating or does it not count in Worthy world?
To a mere layman increasing flexibility from something that was prescriptive is deregulating, no?