I'm still finding this all very ambiguous.
A recent report, that somebody quoted here (from the Gurnaadi or the Indy' IIRC) said that the cladding they used was £250k cheaper than another type of cladding which was more fire-retardant
even though both types of cladding adhered to the same standard.
If the cladding IS banned in the UK then I don't see how it can have adhered to
any standard, much less the same standard as a more fire-retardant cladding.
Seems like there are a variety of people/groups involved in this who all have an interest in shifting the blame so I'm wary of taking
anything at face-value, until the facts are properly established.
I'm still finding this all very ambiguous.
A recent report, that somebody quoted here (from the Gurnaadi or the Indy' IIRC) said that the cladding they used was £250k cheaper than another type of cladding which was more fire-retardant [i]even though both types of cladding adhered to the same standard[/i].
If the cladding IS banned in the UK then I don't see how it can have adhered to [i]any[/i] standard, much less the same standard as a more fire-retardant cladding.
Seems like there are a variety of people/groups involved in this who all have an interest in shifting the blame so I'm wary of taking [i]anything[/i] at face-value, until the facts are properly established. :ooer: