Home  5  Books  5  GBEzine  5  News  5  HelpDesk  5  Register  5  GreenBuilding.co.uk
Not signed in (Sign In)

Categories



Green Building Bible, Fourth Edition
Green Building Bible, fourth edition (both books)
These two books are the perfect starting place to help you get to grips with one of the most vitally important aspects of our society - our homes and living environment.

PLEASE NOTE: A download link for Volume 1 will be sent to you by email and Volume 2 will be sent to you by post as a book.

Buy individually or both books together. Delivery is free!


powered by Surfing Waves




Vanilla 1.0.3 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to new Forum Visitors
Join the forum now and benefit from discussions with thousands of other green building fans and discounts on Green Building Press publications: Apply now.




    • CommentAuthorCWatters
    • CommentTimeMay 30th 2018
     
    One other issue is that residents had complained about a fire risk before the fire and felt they weren't listened to. There would be a massive public outcry if they felt they weren't being listened to again. It's only two weeks in investigation likely to last two years. Think the last one was yesterday or today.
    • CommentAuthorbarney
    • CommentTimeMay 30th 2018
     
    Well Tom, I would have thought a public enquiry was exactly the place 'to establish the facts' drily and functionally.

    If it is intended to establish a basis in facts to inform legislation and guidance that is

    Don't presume to determine what I'd be needing either

    As for offensive, it's not anymore or less offensive that the claims of D notices, a cast of thousands dead and of people being murdered by a tory government - just a reflection on the echo chamber of social media unfortunately

    Regards

    Barney
    •  
      CommentAuthorfostertom
    • CommentTimeMay 30th 2018 edited
     
    You only just stopped short of 'niggers and whores - they deserved it - and now they're out for sympathy'.

    Haven't heard any talk of D notices, cast of thousands (false flag perhaps?) but I do hold electors' gut-support for well-known Tory beliefs, as well as Tory (and Blairite Labour) govts themselves, responsible for the consequences of what they enthusiastically supported, prob still do. If that's offensive, depends on your tribe.

    No one says this enquiry won't move on 'to establish the facts drily and functionally' (tho we'll be watching for whitewash). Catharsis to begin with (and whenever provoked) needn't threaten that, esp if
    Posted By: CWatterstheir overall experiences of the fire and amounted to witness statements
    •  
      CommentAuthorfostertom
    • CommentTimeMay 30th 2018 edited
     
    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/may/30/all-inquiries-should-use-grenfell-tributes-model-charity-says

    “Future inquests and inquiries should adopt the model of commemoration hearings pioneered by the Grenfell Tower inquiry, a leading charity has said."

    "They have set the tone for what the inquiry needs to achieve in terms of delivering truth, justice and accountability. This was something we had to fight for."
    •  
      CommentAuthordjh
    • CommentTimeMay 30th 2018
     
    Posted By: fostertomI do hold electors' gut-support for well-known Tory beliefs, as well as Tory (and Blairite Labour) govts themselves, responsible for the consequences of what they enthusiastically supported, prob still do. If that's offensive, depends on your tribe.

    I think you're taking aim at the wrong target, Tom. I too expect that one or more likely more than one government should be implicated in the disaster, but I don't hold the voters responsible for that. As I said, I expect everybody to be responsible for their own actions. That means politicians are responsible for their own actions, they can't pass the responsibility onto the electorate.

    But I agree with what else you've said, and for once I agree with what the Grauniad says in its latest article.

    It would be nice if we could respectfully disagree here instead of descending into a flame fest. IMHO, we should have stopped with Tom's "Necessary preamble - just imagine if they'd tried to prevent it." until some other news comes up.
    •  
      CommentAuthorfostertom
    • CommentTimeMay 31st 2018
     
    OK - adjoun to another time!
    • CommentAuthorbarney
    • CommentTimeMay 31st 2018
     
    Don't put words in my mouth, Tom - I said nothing of the sort, and your comments are offensive

    You must have been on holidays in the immediate aftermath of the fire, if you missed some of the more outrageous claims being made, on all sides, in what was understandably and emotional time for some people.

    Personally, I would want the PI to now dispassionately examine the facts and establish the causes of the incident - I don't see the need for "commemoration" hearings.

    Again, personally, I don't see that anyone had to fight for delivering truth, justice and accountability - unless you believe that Sir Martin Moore-Bick is incapable of delivering the objectives in parallel (and often conflict) with the yet to be completed criminal investigation.

    I'd be pretty sure that governments of all shades have been responsible for providing the framework of deregulation that may, or may not have, had implications for Grenfell, so perhaps stand down the guns, eh

    Regards

    Barney
    •  
      CommentAuthordjh
    • CommentTimeJun 4th 2018
     
    I think the first day of the 'investigative' part of the enquiry seems to have got off to a good start. The various reports seem to be asking questions in the right directions. It remains to be seen whether the inquiry tracks those threads through to those who were ultimately responsible.
    • CommentAuthormike7
    • CommentTimeJun 4th 2018
     
    The latest issue of the London Review of Books is almost entirely given over to a piece by Andrew O'Hagan. It's a long read:-

    http://lrb.me/theaftermath
    •  
      CommentAuthordjh
    • CommentTimeJun 4th 2018
     
    Posted By: mike7The latest issue of the London Review of Books is almost entirely given over to a piece by Andrew O'Hagan.

    Thanks for that. It seems rather focussed on the council? (Not to mention having its prejudices pinnned to its chest)

    I think I'll wait for the enquiry.
    • CommentAuthormike7
    • CommentTimeJun 5th 2018
     
    Posted By: djh
    (Not to mention having its prejudices pinned to its chest)


    I suspect the 15 min between my post and yours was not sufficient to form a fair judgment
    • CommentAuthorlineweight
    • CommentTimeJun 7th 2018 edited
     
    Very extensive initial report on fire safety stuff (design, management and firefighting) here:

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/9f9679e7k0yppyj/Dr%20Barbara%20Lane%20report_1.pdf?dl=0
    • CommentAuthorgyrogear
    • CommentTimeJul 31st 2018 edited
     
    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-45024375

    "Experts say the risk to public safety is low because even when fire doors do not meet the full resistance standards, they provide some protection from the spread of a blaze"
    ============
    cf. "Although the aircraft lost both engines and crashed into the sea killing all on board, nonetheless the engines did work OK for most of the flight..."

    etc.


    (it is called "spin")
    (no pun intended...)

    gg
    •  
      CommentAuthordjh
    • CommentTimeJul 31st 2018
     
    So the next question is who certified those fire doors?
  1.  
    Posted By: djhSo the next question is who certified those fire doors?

    Probably like a cars MOT OK when tested - to the standards of the day. However there is no liability 5 mins. later or for what ever the residents might do by way of 'adjusting' automatic closers or wedging doors open.
    •  
      CommentAuthordjh
    • CommentTimeAug 1st 2018
     
    AIUI, the doors have been retested and have failed the tests they are supposed to have passed. So nothing to do with different standards, or five minutes later or anything. Down to who tested and certified them originally?
    • CommentAuthorgyrogear
    • CommentTimeAug 1st 2018
     
    Posted By: djhDown to who tested and certified them originally?


    +1.

    Somebody either getting a back-hander, or sleeping on the job ? or both ?

    gg
    • CommentAuthorFred56
    • CommentTimeAug 1st 2018
     
    The original doors actually tested did meet the requirement but production doors won't be so carefully prepared or manufactured. Just like car fuel consumption and emissions, air infiltration tests for the big builders (sample only on a specially prepared unit), building control for the big housebuilders (type approval and scant inspection).

    I found that contractors rarely understood fire door installation. The certification is only valid if the door is installed with the same materials and standards as it was when tested. You can't just wang in any old hardware or put a leaf in any old frame. The doors should be supplied and fitted as a complete set, leaf, frame, hardware the lot. If you mention intumescent hinge or lock pads on most sites you will get the "what's that about then" response. They don;t know because they have never seen or used them. Some hardware and doors need them because that's how they were certified. I used to work in the defence estate and fire was a bit if a hot topic.

    Just last year i was contract administrator on a project. The job was done and we were awaiting final BC inspection. BC rejected because immediately our job was done the client instructed its own security contractor to install card operated security locks to doors on the main escape route. We had no knowledge but when BC saw it they said not would issue a certificate until the locks we removed. Right too. I looked a bit stupid because I did not know what the client was doing. But think about it. The client and the security contractor failed to recognise what they were doing. This was a public sector client and the very largest. The security contractor is their preferred specialist and fits locks to doors all day every day.
    • CommentAuthorgyrogear
    • CommentTimeAug 1st 2018
     
    Posted By: Fred56This was a public sector client and the very largest


    MoD = ? Ministry of Doors ?

    gg
    • CommentAuthorFred56
    • CommentTimeAug 1st 2018
     
    NHS
    • CommentAuthorborpin
    • CommentTimeAug 2nd 2018
     
    Posted By: Fred56the client instructed its own security contractor to install card operated security locks to doors on the main escape route.
    One of those FFS moments...
Add your comments

    Username Password
  • Format comments as
 
   
The Ecobuilding Buzz
Site Map    |   Home    |   View Cart    |   Pressroom   |   Business   |   Links   
Logout    

© Green Building Press