Are our Tower Blocks safe?

[Guest makapaka]

enlighten us then

 

It wouldn't have to be a cash in hand job for there to be no recourse.

 

Neither of us have read the contract so can't speculate on the councils approach.

[hackey lad]

why comment then ?

[jaffa1]

Julie Dore should look into the history of this and she will find that most of this cladding had been done under her own Labour government.

[Guest makapaka]

why comment then ?

 

Because it's wrong to say she should do something she might not be able to do, to criticise an action which may be the right one,and to state

she hasn't read a contract she may have.

 

All those things may or may not be correct - but you don't know - your just speculating which is wrong.

[*_ash_*]

Julie Dore should look into the history of this and she will find that most of this cladding had been done under her own Labour government.

 

You can't write things like this on SF, it will implode.

 

Haven't you seen the placards in London, and glastonbury? There lies the truth

[hackey lad]

Because it's wrong to say she should do something she might not be able to do, to criticise an action which may be the right one,and to state

she hasn't read a contract she may have.

 

All those things may or may not be correct - but you don't know - your just speculating which is wrong.

 

oh right , so thats me well and truly told off . Anything to add to the thread?

[zaci]

https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/BS_8414_Fire_performance_of_external_cladding_systems

[Guest makapaka]

oh right , so thats me well and truly told off . Anything to add to the thread?

 

I wasn't trying to tell you off - I was explaining my post.

[tinfoilhat]

Julie Dore has said the government should pay for the recladding of tower blocks in Sheffield . Why ? As far as im concerned the council should go to the contractor , that they approved , ask them why the materials that they approved , were not used and then make the contractors pay the full cost of the recladding .

 

For all you know the contractors have supplied exactly what they promised and up to the code as it stood at the time. Im going to assume someone at the council, read, UNDERSTOOD and signed the contract. Now if they wanted a fully fire retardant product and one was promised and not delivered, the contractors are totally at fault. But if they went with a cheapo (but still legal at time of fitting) flammable one - Im not sure why the contractors are at fault.

[hackey lad]

For all you know the contractors have supplied exactly what they promised and up to the code as it stood at the time. Im going to assume someone at the council, read, UNDERSTOOD and signed the contract. Now if they wanted a fully fire retardant product and one was promised and not delivered, the contractors are totally at fault. But if they went with a cheapo (but still legal at time of fitting) flammable one - Im not sure why the contractors are at fault.

 

Maybe so but why should the government pay for this ?