No London Fire Thread?

[Guest]

Grenfell Tower: 16 council inspections failed to stop use of flammable cladding

Grenfell Tower renovation works were inspected 16 times by Kensington and Chelsea council, but these failed to prevent the use of the flammable cladding that is being blamed for spreading the deadly fire that killed at least 79 people.

Inspections were spread over almost two years during the £10m refurbishment project between 2014 and 2016, but these appear not to have spotted that the building was being clad in a material banned on tall buildings by the government.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/21/grenfell-tower-16-council-inspections-failed-to-stop-use-of-flammable-cladding


Well done Tories.

Si will blame Corbyn

[Si_Crewe]

Got to say, for someone so useless and ineffective Corbyn does a splendid job of pissing your kind off.

you say that as if it's a good thing.

Your buddy, Rollup, seems to delight in proclaiming that "the centre ground is dead" and he might be correct.

I suppose that might be a good thing for some oddball marxist/anarchist because people like that realise that the ONLY way they're ever going to gain power is if the electorate are forced to choose between equally extreme alternative and if people have really had a belly full of conservatism they might just decide to vote for hard-line socialism instead.

Take a look at the actual numbers involved in GE results over the last 20-odd years though.
Corbyn's "moral victory" was the result of winning 262 seats in the HOC.
To put that in perspective, Neil Kinnock's Labour party won 271 seats in the 1992 election.
Kinnock managed a BETTER result than Corbyn.
And it got him replaced by Tony Blair.

Of course I'm fucking annoyed that the Labour party spunked away what probably should have been the easiest victory in 20 years.
I'm even more annoyed that they don't seem willing, or able, to see that gigantic blunder for what it was.

But, hey, Momentum says a moderate leftie like me can fuck right off because there's no place in Jeremy's little gulag for wishy-washy moderates.
Better red than elected, eh?

[McAz]

Got to say, for someone so useless and ineffective Corbyn does a splendid job of pissing your kind off.

you say that as if it's a good thing.

Your buddy, Rollup, seems to delight in proclaiming that "the centre ground is dead" and he might be correct.

I suppose that might be a good thing for some oddball marxist/anarchist because people like that realise that the ONLY way they're ever going to gain power is if the electorate are forced to choose between equally extreme alternative and if people have really had a belly full of conservatism they might just decide to vote for hard-line socialism instead.

Take a look at the actual numbers involved in GE results over the last 20-odd years though.
Corbyn's "moral victory" was the result of winning 262 seats in the HOC.
To put that in perspective, Neil Kinnock's Labour party won 271 seats in the 1992 election.
Kinnock managed a BETTER result than Corbyn.
And it got him replaced by Tony Blair.

Of course I'm fucking annoyed that the Labour party spunked away what probably should have been the easiest victory in 20 years.
I'm even more annoyed that they don't seem willing, or able, to see that gigantic blunder for what it was.

But, hey, Momentum says a moderate leftie like me can fuck right off because there's no place in Jeremy's little gulag for wishy-washy moderates.
Better red than elected, eh?

We've been here before so you'll need to lecture someone else - as you know I don't want Tory Right or Tory Lite. Given the fuck-up which is Brexit things are going better than I expected and Corbyn is a better leader that I dared imagine. Perhaps the wheel's in spin again - if it is then;

"Your old road is
Rapidly agin'
Please get out of the new one
If you can't lend your hand"

[Si_Crewe]

Grenfell Tower: 16 council inspections failed to stop use of flammable cladding

Grenfell Tower renovation works were inspected 16 times by Kensington and Chelsea council, but these failed to prevent the use of the flammable cladding that is being blamed for spreading the deadly fire that killed at least 79 people.

Inspections were spread over almost two years during the £10m refurbishment project between 2014 and 2016, but these appear not to have spotted that the building was being clad in a material banned on tall buildings by the government.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/21/grenfell-tower-16-council-inspections-failed-to-stop-use-of-flammable-cladding


Well done Tories.

I find myself wondering about the word "effectively".

Firstly, I wonder why you chose to edit it out of the paragraph you quoted.
Secondly, I wonder why the Garudnia chose to use it in the article which you misquoted.

I mean, if the cladding IS banned then there's no need for the word "effectively", is there?
Conversely, if it isn't actually "banned" then there's nothing to hold the building inspectors accountable for.

Of course, I'm quite happy to hold the council responsible for failing to specify a suitably high-standard of materials, or seek sufficient guidance on what materials to specify, but if the material used wasn't unequivocally banned then there's no grounds to blame the building inspectors for not taking any action.

What's more, it's not like these building inspectors operate in a vacuum.
They don't just rock up at a site, check a bunch of stuff, give the site operator the all-clear and then climb aboard a golden chariot so that a winged horse can take them back to Olympus.
They produce reports and pass those reports onto a variety of people.
If there's nothing actually illegal on the site, they've got no reason to stop the work.
In that case, it's up to other people to read the site report and decide whether there's anything on site which might be cause for concern.

[McAz]

Grenfell Tower: 16 council inspections failed to stop use of flammable cladding

Grenfell Tower renovation works were inspected 16 times by Kensington and Chelsea council, but these failed to prevent the use of the flammable cladding that is being blamed for spreading the deadly fire that killed at least 79 people.

Inspections were spread over almost two years during the £10m refurbishment project between 2014 and 2016, but these appear not to have spotted that the building was being clad in a material banned on tall buildings by the government.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/21/grenfell-tower-16-council-inspections-failed-to-stop-use-of-flammable-cladding


Well done Tories.

I find myself wondering about the word "effectively".

Firstly, I wonder why you chose to edit it out of the paragraph you quoted.
Secondly, I wonder why the Garudnia chose to use it in the article which you misquoted.

I mean, if the cladding IS banned then there's no need for the word "effectively", is there?
Conversely, if it isn't actually "banned" then there's nothing to hold the building inspectors accountable for.

Of course, I'm quite happy to hold the council responsible for failing to specify a suitably high-standard of materials, or seek sufficient guidance on what materials to specify, but if the material used wasn't unequivocally banned then there's no grounds to blame the building inspectors for not taking any action.

What's more, it's not like these building inspectors operate in a vacuum.
They don't just rock up at a site, check a bunch of stuff, give the site operator the all-clear and then climb aboard a golden chariot so that a winged horse can take them back to Olympus.
They produce reports and pass those reports onto a variety of people.
If there's nothing actually illegal on the site, they've got no reason to stop the work.
In that case, it's up to other people to read the site report and decide whether there's anything on site which might be cause for concern.

I didn't consciously edit out anything, I simply posted the first 2 paragraphs but missed the byline (or whatever it's called) - the full text is available via the link.

Chancellor Hammond said the material was banned (see earlier in the thread somewhere) - but I don't care one way or the other, the Tories are responsible regardless - and that was full scope of my comment.

[Guest]

Got to say, for someone so useless and ineffective Corbyn does a splendid job of pissing your kind off.

you say that as if it's a good thing.

Your buddy, Rollup, seems to delight in proclaiming that "the centre ground is dead" and he might be correct.

I suppose that might be a good thing for some oddball marxist/anarchist because people like that realise that the ONLY way they're ever going to gain power is if the electorate are forced to choose between equally extreme alternative and if people have really had a belly full of conservatism they might just decide to vote for hard-line socialism instead.

Take a look at the actual numbers involved in GE results over the last 20-odd years though.
Corbyn's "moral victory" was the result of winning 262 seats in the HOC.
To put that in perspective, Neil Kinnock's Labour party won 271 seats in the 1992 election.
Kinnock managed a BETTER result than Corbyn.
And it got him replaced by Tony Blair.

Of course I'm fucking annoyed that the Labour party spunked away what probably should have been the easiest victory in 20 years.
I'm even more annoyed that they don't seem willing, or able, to see that gigantic blunder for what it was.

But, hey, Momentum says a moderate leftie like me can fuck right off because there's no place in Jeremy's little gulag for wishy-washy moderates.
Better red than elected, eh?

Once again your concept of political ideology is found wanting
how can an anarchist - anti-authoritarianism be a Marxist - pro-authoritarianism?
Kinnock wasn't replaced by Blair.
Smith took over from Kinnock.

So what do you say about the media lies, smears, disinformation about Labour or Corbyn etc. in the election run up?
How did Kinnock get a better result in his first General Election as Leader?
If you think someone with barely 2 years as leader can get a better result as a leader who had 9 years in charge, then you are seriously deluded.

[Red Okktober]

The point about her avoiding the area, along with the actions of the local authorities, is to show how people like her despise working class people. her attitude towards rich and influential people is different as shown by her dedication to their beck and call.

Do you not realise that a lot of 'rich and influential people' started off as 'working class people', and worked so hard at it, that they became rich and influential? Do you not think hard workers should be rewarded in life, and be able to buy things like property, and let them out at a profit to lazy arsed cunts like you?

You're one of the perpetual 'hard done by' types - if you put as much effort into bettering yourself as you do into complaining about those who have, you would see things differently. It looks like your life path is set though, and you will always be an underachiever, forever looking up and whinging about those who made that effort, and have the things that you will never have.

[McAz]

Not rich and influential = "lazy arsed cunt" who should have "worked so hard at it".

[Red Okktober]

And you're just a sad fuck who's entire waking life revolves around trolling atrocities.

The pair of you need to sort yourselves out

[McAz]

And you're just a sad fuck who's entire waking life revolves around trolling atrocities.

The pair of you need to sort yourselves out

Which one are you, firestarter - rich and influential or "lazy arsed cunt" who should have "worked so hard at it"?

[Stooo]

Residents of a luxury housing block have been slammed online after complaining that the arrival of Grenfell Tower survivors will lead to a fall in property prices.

The Standard revealed on Wednesday that 68 “social housing" flats in the £2 billion Kensington Row scheme have been acquired to permanently house families from the nearby tower.

Communities Secretary Sajid Javid said: “Our priority is to get everyone who has lost their home permanently rehoused locally as soon as possible, so that they can begin to rebuild their lives.”

But several residents of the luxury complex, which features a gym, swimming pool and 24-hour concierge service that will be off limits to Grenfell families, complained the move was “unfair”

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/o ... 70331.html

Ah...

[Si_Crewe]

Once again your concept of political ideology is found wanting
how can an anarchist - anti-authoritarianism be a Marxist - pro-authoritarianism?
Kinnock wasn't replaced by Blair.
Smith took over from Kinnock.

So what do you say about the media lies, smears, disinformation about Labour or Corbyn etc. in the election run up?
How did Kinnock get a better result in his first General Election as Leader?
If you think someone with barely 2 years as leader can get a better result as a leader who had 9 years in charge, then you are seriously deluded.

Once again, your lack of comprehension skills is just as apparent as it ever was.

Marxists will be happy if Corbyn gets elected. Anarchists will be happy at the prospect of the impending collapse of our economy resulting from that government.
It doesn't mean they're the same people.

As for John Smith, he didn't participate in a GE so there's little to learn from his tenure as leader.
We know Kinnock was a traditional "leftie" and the Labour party were a fucking joke under his tenure.
We know Blair occupied the middle ground and he swept to victory.
We also know that Corbyn is a "leftie" and he only managed to do as well as Kinnock against the weakest opposition in over two decades.
Make of that what you will.

[McAz]

If our almost £2 trillion quid debt, much of it gifted to the rich, hasn't collapsed the economy then let's not exaggerate the effect of few modest proposals to spend a few billion in support of the poor who desperately need it.

[Si_Crewe]

If our almost £2 trillion quid debt, much of it gifted to the rich, hasn't collapsed the economy then let's not exaggerate the effect of few modest proposals to spend a few billion on the poor who desperately need it.

Do you not remember the 1970s?

3 day weeks, power cuts, general strikes etc.
Almost certainly the most appealing period in recent history for anybody seeking the downfall of a system of government.

[McAz]

If our almost £2 trillion quid debt, much of it gifted to the rich, hasn't collapsed the economy then let's not exaggerate the effect of few modest proposals to spend a few billion on the poor who desperately need it.

Do you not remember the 1970s?

3 day weeks, power cuts, general strikes etc.
Almost certainly the most appealing period in recent history for anybody seeking the downfall of a system of government.

Blame Heath not Corbyn.

And sodall to do with diverting money from the rich (who do not need it) to the poor (who do).