Boris at it again and the contest to replace the lying c***

[BillyDee]

https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/b...ia-style-trade-deal-and-what-it-means-1383293

So it's not going to be "No Deal" but it might be an "Australian Deal". But the Australians don't have a deal, despite negotiating for two years...

 

[Sniffer]

So the Australians are negotiating with the EU on the basis that they want a deal better than what they already have? In the meantime Alex the not so great is advocating that the deal that the Australians currently have and don't want (essentially WTO/no deal) is something that is OK for us?

I'm confused.

 

[Derby Wolf]

https://twitter.com/MrMichaelSpicer/status/1224619601738137600?s=09

 

[darlowolf64]

https://twitter.com/MrMichaelSpicer/status/1224619601738137600?s=09

I know the "counter-terrorism" bit is probably looped a little (I bloody hope!) but if Dianne Abbott was doing that interview she would have been ripped apart and ridiculed but hey, she's a Tory so it's all good

 

[Stan Hullis]

I don't think it is looped - that was the live interview

 

[darlowolf64]

I don't think it is looped - that was the live interview

Holy fucking shit! And the interviewer didn't think he should pull her up on exactly who the "victims of counter-terrorism" would be?

 

[Tony Towner]

She and Raab are just spectacularly thick people.

 

[Kenny]

It isn't looped. She did say Counter Terrorism a million times.

This would be funny but this is the type of person running the Country now.

Boris is so half arsed he got his Dad to speak to the Chinese President regarding the Coronavirus and what the UK could do rather than make the call himself. His Dad emailed the concerns of Xi Jining to Zak Goldsmith and also managed to CC the BBC in error

 

[Derby Wolf]

Not sure where else to post this but the chair of the Grenfell inquiry has asked the Attorney General to grant immunity from prosecution for the commercial companies responsible for designing and installing the cladding on the tower. They could still be prosecuted if the Met find evidence but anything disclosed at the Inquiry would be inadmissible.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-51404218

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

Might be worth asking the council that took the tenders why they didn't take the essentially fireproof cladding options like GRC that cost a lot more and therefore never made the tender process before attacking those that met the tender requirements...

 

[Derby Wolf]

Might be worth asking the council that took the tenders why they didn't take the essentially fireproof cladding options like GRC that cost a lot more and therefore never made the tender process before attacking those that met the tender requirements...

One of those looking for immunity is Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation who managed the building. Unsure if they tendered the cladding or the council itself. I assume KCTMO are like Wolverhampton Homes or the like.

 

[MARKakaJIM]

There are a lot of different directions the finger could ultimately point in...

The TMO as the client for the works would bare the final responsibility in some eyes but then they've probably appointed an independent PM to manage the whole project and procurement who you would expect to provide some guidance, a lot of times the client doesn't really have much of a clue of the detail they just know what they want as an end result and leave their appointed team to make it so.

Then you'll have the architects who would've most likely specified the desired cladding system, there will be some sign off on whatever product is proposed by the client but again they might not really have any knowledge of what's being offered and pick purely on aesthetics or costs whilst relying on the advice of their appointed team to make sure everything checks out. Some client's will have more control, their own in house specifications and guidelines which have to be following but it isn't always the case, hotel chains seem to be the most on the ball in this regard from my experience.

Then there's further consultants that the architect would've employed and relied on advice from, building control experts to make sure their proposals comply with local authority guidelines, fire consultants too for specific advice on fire safety and perhaps even facade consultants to give an overview that all elements of the works combine together to work as planned. You'd expect them to be employed anyway, there's always the potential that these parties aren't bought to the table at this stage and then responsibility would be passed on to the selected contractor to satisfy themselves that everything was designed as it should before starting work.

Eventually you get to the contractor(s) responsible for the works, your main contractor managing the whole project needs to be confident that the design works, that their bid is compliant with that design and then ultimately they're responsible for the installation adhering to that design, whether directly or via vetting of suitable subcontractors for different elements of the works.

Could be a big oversight by one party somewhere along the line or several small infringements by several parties that lead to a perfect storm.

 

[leedswolf]

Not sure where else to post this but the chair of the Grenfell inquiry has asked the Attorney General to grant immunity from prosecution for the commercial companies responsible for designing and installing the cladding on the tower. They could still be prosecuted if the Met find evidence but anything disclosed at the Inquiry would be inadmissible.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-51404218

For a second time, they haven't asked for immunity from prosecution though...

"The BBC's home affairs correspondent Tom Symonds said this deal - if it is backed by the Attorney General - would not provide immunity from prosecution, as the police can still gather their own information.

But he added: "They couldn't use what a witness said at the inquiry as evidence at a trial."

 

[Derby Wolf]

For a second time, they haven't asked for immunity from prosecution though...

"The BBC's home affairs correspondent Tom Symonds said this deal - if it is backed by the Attorney General - would not provide immunity from prosecution, as the police can still gather their own information.

But he added: "They couldn't use what a witness said at the inquiry as evidence at a trial."

Try reading the final sentence of my post brightspark.. you know, the

anything disclosed at the Inquiry would be inadmissible

bit.

 

[nimrod]

There are a lot of different directions the finger could ultimately point in...

The TMO as the client for the works would bare the final responsibility in some eyes but then they've probably appointed an independent PM to manage the whole project and procurement who you would expect to provide some guidance, a lot of times the client doesn't really have much of a clue of the detail they just know what they want as an end result and leave their appointed team to make it so.

Then you'll have the architects who would've most likely specified the desired cladding system, there will be some sign off on whatever product is proposed by the client but again they might not really have any knowledge of what's being offered and pick purely on aesthetics or costs whilst relying on the advice of their appointed team to make sure everything checks out. Some client's will have more control, their own in house specifications and guidelines which have to be following but it isn't always the case, hotel chains seem to be the most on the ball in this regard from my experience.

Then there's further consultants that the architect would've employed and relied on advice from, building control experts to make sure their proposals comply with local authority guidelines, fire consultants too for specific advice on fire safety and perhaps even facade consultants to give an overview that all elements of the works combine together to work as planned. You'd expect them to be employed anyway, there's always the potential that these parties aren't bought to the table at this stage and then responsibility would be passed on to the selected contractor to satisfy themselves that everything was designed as it should before starting work.

Eventually you get to the contractor(s) responsible for the works, your main contractor managing the whole project needs to be confident that the design works, that their bid is compliant with that design and then ultimately they're responsible for the installation adhering to that design, whether directly or via vetting of suitable subcontractors for different elements of the works.

Could be a big oversight by one party somewhere along the line or several small infringements by several parties that lead to a perfect storm.

i really don’t see how several small infringements results in wrapping a residential building in cladding that acts as a fire accelerant. that would be a total cop out. it seems to me that whoever knew about it and did nothing is culpable. whoever was involved in the approval of the cladding or any health and safety sign of for it is culpable. if other buildings are similarly wrapped in the stuff they should be emptied before anyone else dies due to someone’s ‘small infringement’

 

[leedswolf]

Try reading the final sentence of my post brightspark.. you know, the



bit.

I was referring to the misleading part of your post and then clarifying the position. You know, so there isn't any confusion...

 

[Keef]

I'm guessing the buck will be passed down the line to the lowest person in charge of something,be that cladding,planning,fire safety etc and the full force of the law will be bought upon them,at which point it's drinks all round and pats on the back for the company executives/council Chiefs who've got away with it

 

[MARKakaJIM]

i really don’t see how several small infringements results in wrapping a residential building in cladding that acts as a fire accelerant. that would be a total cop out. it seems to me that whoever knew about it and did nothing is culpable. whoever was involved in the approval of the cladding or any health and safety sign of for it is culpable. if other buildings are similarly wrapped in the stuff they should be emptied before anyone else dies due to someone’s ‘small infringement’

Flammable products have been used in construction for years, and still are, you design the system in such a way as to contain fires and prevent the spread across large areas.

It could be that the fire consultant got their bit wrong and they layout of fire breaks and cavity closers wasn't sufficient to do the job, or maybe the cladding company had to alter their fixing detail last minute because of something they uncovered on the existing structure and that compromised the fire strategy. The company installing may have wilfully ignored this design in an attempt to save money, skimping on materials, or individuals may have failed in their workmanship, missing crucial elements or simply doing them incorrectly.

I doubt anyone has looked at that scheme from the off and made a conscious decision to create the situation that ultimately came to pass. There would always be an element of risk in using a flammable material, just as there is with any material choice in any industry, but you manage that risk through proper consultation and design, which has obviously failed somewhere along the line here.

 

[lemonjelly]

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/feb/07/dwp-benefit-related-suicide-numbers-not-true-figure-says-watchdog-nao

The National Audit Office (NAO) inquiry found the figure did not represent the true number of benefit-related suicides, in part because the DWP had until recently failed to actively seek information from coroners and families, or investigate all of the cases that were reported to it.

The government watchdog said that although the DWP said it regarded the internal investigations as a way of improving the safety and quality of its services, it had admitted that it has no idea whether lessons from the reviews were ever learned or their recommendations ever implemented.

 

[nimrod]

Flammable products have been used in construction for years, and still are, you design the system in such a way as to contain fires and prevent the spread across large areas.

It could be that the fire consultant got their bit wrong and they layout of fire breaks and cavity closers wasn't sufficient to do the job, or maybe the cladding company had to alter their fixing detail last minute because of something they uncovered on the existing structure and that compromised the fire strategy. The company installing may have wilfully ignored this design in an attempt to save money, skimping on materials, or individuals may have failed in their workmanship, missing crucial elements or simply doing them incorrectly.

I doubt anyone has looked at that scheme from the off and made a conscious decision to create the situation that ultimately came to pass. There would always be an element of risk in using a flammable material, just as there is with any material choice in any industry, but you manage that risk through proper consultation and design, which has obviously failed somewhere along the line here.

I think you’re moving in the right direction in assessing this, from the suggestion of a series of minor infringements to the more likely wilful neglect with financial motive or unchecked incompetence.