Towering inferno in London

You make some good points.

 

However unless I have it wrong the key point with flats is containing a fire within the flat and as cladding is a pretty obvious way for fire to spread from one flat to another would have thought it would have been one of the first areas to make sure clear rules apply.

Exactly. Part B of the building regs gives the impression that fire stopping of cavities at floors, windows and party walls is sufficient to compartmentalise the building. We don't know yet if Grenfell was adequately fire stopped (Lakanal was not) but, as I think I have said before on this thread, if the surface spread of flame characteristic of the cladding was inadequate then no amount of fire stopping of the cavity will prevent the fire from spreading. Having said that, the fire will spread much quicker if the fire stopping is absent.

As you well know it was what you wrote in post 584 that I took issue with.

 

'In fact even in the week of the Grenfell fire they were meeting to discuss removing regulation on building cladding.'

 

Anyone reading that would get the impression it was building cladding only which is far from the truth. You put the same spin on it that Greenpeace did.

How do you know what they were going to discuss? And if you're honest you'll admit they weren't meeting to improve fire safety regulation, they were meeting to work out what regulation they could cut. There is zero chance that cladding systems would be safer if the recommendations of the initiative were implemented, and every chance the Lakanal report would continue to be ignored.

This is what happens when initiatives and policies are not joined up.

It is not only our country which have concerns.

 

German city 'will evacuate building because of Grenfell tower-style cladding'

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/german-city-grenfell-tower-fire-cladding-evacuate-11-storey-building-wuppertal-exterior-insulation-a7810891.html

 

This is going to be a massive global problem.

Except for in the states where this type of cladding is against building codes, because of this very issue strangely enough.

How do you know what they were going to discuss? And if you're honest you'll admit they weren't meeting to improve fire safety regulation, they were meeting to work out what regulation they could cut. There is zero chance that cladding systems would be safer if the recommendations of the initiative were implemented, and every chance the Lakanal report would continue to be ignored.

 

This is what happens when initiatives and policies are not joined up.

The question is how do YOU know? You were the one that said they were meeting to discuss cladding.

I take your second point completely.

Except for in the states where this type of cladding is against building codes, because of this very issue strangely enough.

In the UK building regulations are not checked by councils or Government, that would be great signing off your own repairs.

See Newsnight link.

Quite a nasty tit for tat battle about cladding on PMQs today with May saying that the cladding started during the Blair administration. Not sure how that excuses flammable materials.

Quite a nasty tit for tat battle about cladding on PMQs today with May saying that the cladding started during the Blair administration. Not sure how that excuses flammable materials.

It doesn't and I don't think she was seeking to. It was in retaliation to Mr Corbyn's accusation about austerity policies being responsible. As you say, tit for tat.

Except for in the states where this type of cladding is against building codes, because of this very issue strangely enough.

I think it is quite recent their building codes outlawed this type of cladding. They most likely have many more buildings than us with similar cladding to that fitted in the Tower, which had the fire. It is a truly global problem.

Quite a nasty tit for tat battle about cladding on PMQs today with May saying that the cladding started during the Blair administration. Not sure how that excuses flammable materials.

Things go wrong, but there have now, for quite a few years, been recommendations after serious fires in other tower blocks. In the Blair years, the enquirers came after.

The question is how do YOU know? You were the one that said they were meeting to discuss cladding.

 

I take your second point completely.

They were going to discuss what is effectively a materials list which included cladding. Are you now arguing that cladding wasnt on the list.

---------- Post added 28-06-2017 at 18:04 ----------

Things go wrong, but there have now, for quite a few years, been recommendations after serious fires in other tower blocks. In the Blair years, the enquirers came after.

There's multiple political aspects.

There the national aspect which whether they like it or not the Tories are responsible for. It is their job to set up enquiries, reviews etc..., devise a strategy for dealing with thousands of dangerous dwellings, and to take steps to avoid a repeat. They cannot avoid it. It is their job and blame is not what the public are looking for right now from them.

Then there is the local political aspect. Dozens of councils and local authorities with serious questions to answer.

They were going to discuss what is effectively a materials list which included cladding. Are you now arguing that cladding wasnt on the list.

You know exactly what l'm arguing.

It would have taken them from here to kingdom come to discuss every material that was on that list so your assertion that they met 'to discuss cladding' was at best a stab in the dark. Don't believe everything Greenpeace say because they know as much as you and me.

At least they had the good grace to say they met to discuss 'materials such as cladding'.

Rock Feilding Mellen. You couldn't make that name up for a Tory toff.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/tory-charge-grenfell-tower-refurbishment-10722834