• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

London's Grenfell Tower, A Very Political Tragedy

Chagos said:
I believe the system (i.e. mounting the insulation on wooden slats) was probably not illegal in its time, but has long since become so.

Whether it's actually the same stuff as at Grenfell is something I can't find confirmation on but that's irrelevant to its present illegality.

As I outlined in a previous post, the frequently changing owners have each been charged with addressing a known problem but none of them complied.

With the mills of bureaucracy churning as slowly in Germany as they do everywhere else, Grenfell was probably a blessing (excuse me, I'm aware of how awful that sounds) to the tenants of this building. In that the authorities all of a sudden felt compelled to propel their butts faster than has so far been the case.
Click to expand...

Apparently so, the cladding is not illegal, because it passed/passes very inadequate tests.

If a match or lighter flame is played upon the aluminium skin of the cladding for a few seconds, the aluminium skin disperses the heat - what little there is! - and the cladding doesn't catch fire. This is one of the original test standards, which is ludicrous and could probably only have been thought up by the industry itself.

If you move the lighter or any hotter heat source under the cladding itself, under the polyethylene, it catches fire within a few seconds. Within a minute's burning it is hot enough to feed off itself, and spread rapidly.

This is how they are testing it at present, in a way which reasonably mimics exposure to a rather small outbreak of fire. Lots of hair-raising stuff about the mechanics of how cladding fires can spread:

Fire Risks From External Cladding Panels ? A Perspective From The UK « Probyn Miers
 
I'm in agreement with David Orr, National Housing Federation chief executive. Every single one of 120 tests have failed so it it time to move on to removal and investigation of where this cladding has been used (and shouldn't be).
Thankfully a head of the inquiry has been appointed and he is a specialist in commercial law.

Meanwhile, Corbyn and several Labour MPs continue to try and peddle the lie that Grenfell is down to Conservative Austerity policies.

I don't think the Conservatives should get too involved in the mudslinging of where cladding first started being installed on Tower blocks - using politics to deflect blame back to Labour doesn't get away from how bad the response was by a conservative council in the immediate aftermath of the fire.


But then, it is easy to repeat a lie often enough that it becomes part of the public mantra - "Austerity caused Grenfell" will become as bad and as widespread a lie as "taking back control" or "spend £350 million on the NHS instead of the EU" became in the referendum. People don't question lies when they are repeated often enough.

Chagos said:
There's no confirmation as yet that the panels in question (Wuppertal) were the same as those used in Grenfell. But that's just getting stuck on technicalities, that the Wuppertal system is unsafe (possibly just as unsafe) is not to be doubted.

The construction shown would pass in Germany (house size), the wooden slats for holding the polystyrene plates wouldn't.

But, as can be seen in the Wuppertal example, did. Well did NOT exactly pass but the lethargy with which the known problem was treated gives no cause for cheering.

As a sideline, panels like those depicted above are used down here as well, more as insulation AGAINST heat. But inside the brick and mortar, i.e. bricked up and cemented on both sides.

That is in fact the best bet, all assuming they're fire retardant as well (which those look to be). The danger that's apparently being denied even by "continental" authorities (as outlined in my previous post) is where that stuff is on the outside and "merely" covered by a thin veneer of rendering.

That house doesn't look like anyone's going to encase those panels with another outside wall of bricks.

That said, it still won't constitute the same hazard that Grenfell did.
Click to expand...

The image was just used to show how extensive polystyrene (expanded or not) is across all forms of building.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
People don't question lies when they are repeated often enough.
Click to expand...

You clearly believe that IC, since you have been by far the most repetitive voice on this thread: "It's nothing to do with austerity. It's nothing to do with austerity. It's nothing to do with austerity. It's nothing to do with austerity. It's nothing to do with austerity. It's nothing to do with austerity. It's nothing to do with austerity. It's nothing to do with austerity." The trouble with that is that there will always be someone that questions everything, just as I absolutely question your pre-judged position on austerity.

Any fair-minded person would conclude that you are being either disingenuous or politically partisan. Perhaps both.

Corbyn is credible and even John MacDonnell's less measured statements ring true to a lot of people, but there's a big difference between having a ring of truth, and being true. In order to assess the role austerity played in the Grenfell disaster you have to look at the wider context; at the effect austerity has had on society in general. As Corbyn, amongst many others, has stated privatisation, deregulation and austerity go hand in hand. The idea that government expenditure must be cut in order for the private sector to drive economic development and growth cannot be achieved without deregulation and permitting further privatisation of activity in the public sector.

Here is a good explanation of the how and the why of austerity. Right at the end (c. 08:35) you'll see how this violent austerity may apply to Grenfell.


The scandal of all the tested cladding across the country failing fire tests, as many have pointed out, is that the extant testing regime is clearly below what is necessary to give peace of mind not only to residents of tower blocks, but to the professionals who are charged with keeping the public safe.

It's not yet proven, despite what comes across as your belief that we already know everything we need to know about the causes of the disaster, which factors caused the disaster and the relative importance of those contributing factors. You seem to me to be approaching the matter with a closed mind and pre-determined conclusions; as if you are looking for facts to confirm what you already believe. That would be dangerous if the same attitude were adopted by the inquiry and the investigators.

Cost-cutting, inadequate oversight of public works, deregulation of building standards, and a culture of race-to-the-bottom contract bidding are all factors that I believe will prove to have played a part in the disaster. They are all facets and manifestations of austerity. Others, such as incompetence, corruption and corporate fraud, faulty emergency information to residents etc may also be important factors. I wouldn't rule any out of the equation, as you seem keen to do.

I don't think any of them are the exclusive preserve of Conservative policy or management. Labour in the late-90s and 2000s were pursuing privatisation of public services, cosying up to private business with relaxing regulation régimes, and bailing out the banks and richest corporations with public money, while imposing targets and extra regulation on the public sector. Fortunately, the austerity enthusiasts are no longer in charge of Labour.
 
Last edited:
Snazzy said:
I hope this man gets locked up for his deplorable behaviour.

"Man PRETENDING he had lost family members in the Grenfell Tower fire to gain money and housing"

Grenfell Tower: Man charged with fire death 'fraud' - BBC News
Click to expand...

He's a trusting soul. Hundreds of the real families are still in temporary housing and hotel rooms. The incompetence persists.

Steve Bell was savage at the weekend.

DD93gOAXkAA_Wph.jpg:large


(that's the Conservative logo on the roof.)
 
The problem is now there are too many self appointed people jumping on the 'protesting' bandwagon for their own benefit rather than to help the families.

Diane Abbott was at it today, now that's the kiss of death for any good cause.

People will just get sympathy fatigue.
 
Manc Skipper said:
The owners, the management company, the local council, the government regulators. All conservative. Luxury flats never burn down like a roman candle because they have adequate fire protection.
Click to expand...

And you can rest assured that the investigation will go on for decades and just like with Hillsborough and after endless buck passing nobody will face criminal charges ...... poor people dont count ultimately :(
 
Manc Skipper said:
He's a trusting soul. Hundreds of the real families are still in temporary housing and hotel rooms. The incompetence persists.

Steve Bell was savage at the weekend.

DD93gOAXkAA_Wph.jpg:large


(that's the Conservative logo on the roof.)
Click to expand...

Looks like someone drew a crude blob and put the UK flag on it.
 
Jack Hays said:
What is it supposed to be? A tree?
Click to expand...

They chose it in order to 'seem' greener than the labour party some years ago when the global warming scam was in full swing. Kinda ironic really given they are the party of big business here
 
Jack Hays said:
A comment on my column last week said that “only Booker could get a link between Grenfell, the EU and global warming into a single article”.
Click to expand...

See? Booker's partisan hackery doesn't go unnoticed.
 
The breaking news last night is that the Police now feel they have sufficient evidence to charge the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Council with Corporate Manslaughter.
 
Andalublue said:
Austerity isn't just about a lack of cash, IC. It can also be about the narrative of a lack of cash as an excuse for cuts and a pretext to disguise the real ideological goal of reducing the size of government.
Click to expand...

Bravo bravo bravo Anda! The most intelligent thing anybody has said on DP this year. This is EXACTLY what it's all about.

I remember Sarko insulting the French, insisting repeatedly that "Les caisses sont vide!" Then the banks needed bailing out and guess what, that magic money tree does exist after all. Somebody tell Theresa.

They could and should have forked out the measly 5K to use inflammable cladding instead of getting the gear off Del Boy and Rodney.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom