For help, advice and discussion about stuff not related to aviation. Play nice: no religion, no politics and no axe grinding please.
#1541473
map5623 wrote:
PaulB wrote:On the wider issue a friend suggested that the climate agenda may have something to do with the refub carried out..

The government schemes behind it are CERT (Carbon Emission Reduction Target) which Blair's government introduced after signing up to the Kyoto Agreement. That was superseded by the the Conservative Coalition's Energy Company Obligation, known colloquially as ECO. It's what also put free fluorescent light bulbs through your letter box a few years ago.

Council's and RSL's used the schemes as a way of getting free money to refurb tower blocks and other social housing stock that they had neglected for years. Most reasonable minds would see that both Labour and Conservative coalition governments went to considerable effort to leverage hundreds of millions of extra cash out of uncaring faceless big business to upgrade the 'homes of the poor' and reduce their energy bills at no cost to the tenant.

Paradoxically, ECO and it's sister Green Deal scheme were canned when the National Audit Office concluded that they didn't deliver the stated bill reduction benefits to householders, so maybe national government can be blamed for not delivering great value (quell surprise Rodney!) but they can't be accused of not trying.
#1541474
johnm wrote:A couple of points: Marxism is an economic philosophy primarily, Leninism is what takes it into the realms of socialist direct action and the basis of the Soviet Union</pedant>

Let's just call it communism - always just one more revolution away from making it work.
PaulB, johnm, Flyin'Dutch' liked this
#1541866
I have three words for the survivor who suggested that we taxpayers gifting him five grand was unacceptable as his bed and his tele were worth more than that.

Household Contents Insurance.

Rob P
skydriller liked this
#1541878
    Rob P wrote:I have three words for the survivor who suggested that we taxpayers gifting him five grand was unacceptable as his bed and his tele were worth more than that.

    Household Contents Insurance.

    Rob P


    Don't be silly Rob.

    How is he going to afford insurance on his benefits? :lol:
    Rob P liked this
    #1542079
    Oh dear, one of the holes in the cheese might be firefighters not noticing that the fire had jumped outside.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06 ... ing-flats/

    Firefighters had put out the initial fridge fire at Grenfell Tower and were leaving the building when the blaze suddenly flared up, it has emerged.

    Crews believed they had put out the fire at the London high-rise and were astonished to see flames rising up the side of the building, new reports have claimed.

    Shortly after dealing with the fridge fire early last Wednesday, firefighters were telling residents that it was out, BBC Panorama reported.
    #1542091
    Rob P wrote:I have three words for the survivor.......Household Contents Insurance.

    There was a similar situation when the country experienced flooding. There was a rush to promise compensation for victims who "could not afford" building and contents insurance.

    Some had modest means but were responsible and choose to forgo luxuries so they could pay their household insurance policies, and as a consequence would be excluded from the compensation scheme.

    Some were genuinely skint, and had no budget for house insurance after basic life essentials were covered and would be included in the scheme.

    But there would likely be a significant number who also could not afford house insurance after covering what they considered as life essentials, such as Sky subscriptions, mobile phone contracts and 55 inch plasma TV's.

    I'm not sure how it worked out on the end, but without firm due diligence, there is scope for creating a significant moral hazard
    #1542533
    More on the rent-a-mob:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/18/tory-councillor-beaten-grenfell-tower-protesters-revealed-volunteer/

    A man who was mistaken for a Tory councillor and beaten up by activists who stormed Kensington Town Hall in the wake of the Grenfell Tower tragedy has been left injured and badly shaken by the incident.

    Robert Outram, 56, had spent much of last week volunteering at the makeshift shelters set up to help victims of the deadly blaze.

    Dressed in a suit, he was apparently deemed a legitimate a target by protesters who set upon him, pushing him to the ground and pouring water on him.

    ​He said he and a colleague were suddenly attacked as they entered the building after someone shouted "It's them two".

    ​His wife, Angela Outram, said: "He got a big bang on the head, he was thumped, he’s been left with a lump on the side of his head. He was really shaken up by it all.
    #1545865
    chevvron wrote:
    It seems to me that:-
    1. The tower block was a 'dumping ground' for immigrant families.
    2. Some of those families probably (and illegally) sub-let rooms so it was overcrowded.
    3. The company who did the re-furb used sub-standard materials which 'met' the minimum standard required and made a whacking profit from the council for doing so.
    #1545896
    eltonioni wrote:We will see, but I'm not yet convinced that the materials used met the standard, ie the Building Regulations.

    I think we will find that they did - but they actually had no means of testing it in the first place inorder to actually know.

    An example - 8 yrs ago i set about converting an office above a Subway store to residential accommodation - building control arrive - " how do you propose to provide your tenants with fresh smell free air " says the building control man " Gone are the days of living above a fish and chip shop and it smelling of fish and chips"

    me : I am not sure what I will do - what is the allowance ?"
    Building Control ( BC) : what do you mean ?
    me: well I understand the noise allowance of 76db but how do you regulate a smell ?
    BC: well If I can smell it.
    me: what if you can smell it but no-one else can ?
    BC: what are you getting at ?
    me: where is the line in the sand between what is allowable and what isnt?
    BC: there isnt one
    me; so how do i know what standards to work to
    BC; there arent any
    me: Ok so I will do nothing then
    BC :OK
    me: goodbye then
    BC Goodbye

    And back he went to his office and £40k per year salary in charge of overseeing smells
    I suspect the same thing happened in overseeing what cladding is allowable and what wasnt
    #1545921
    Point 1. I can assure you that the Building Regulations are explicit in terms of what is allowed, as is testing, and materials that burns like Grenfell are absolutely not in code, or at least should not be if the testing criteria is fit for the purposes of the B Regs. Start at P96 of the Building Regulations, Part B, Section 2 Paras 12.5 to 12.9 for the basics, which support the opening principal in 12.5 that
    The external envelope of a building should not provide a medium for fire spread if it is likely to be a risk to health and safety

    https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... 2_2013.pdf It is possible that the B Regs have issues that need sorting out but the principle (as you would expect) is that cladding should not set on fire like Grenfell's did.

    Point 2. there are specific requirements for extract in the building Regulations but did you have planning permission for your office to flat conversion because as a rule, commercial kitchen extract is to be to the satisfaction of the planning department and it is usually a condition to be discharged. With fast food joints that is usually by means of a powered extract above eaves level with a catalyser as appropriate. If you could smell chips a system either isn't installed or isn't performing. If you can give me the authority and application reference code I'll try to assist you. As an example, here's the relevant condition from one of my recent consents, you should have something very similar in yours.

    The commercial food use hereby permitted shall not commence unless a scheme for the installation of equipment to control the emission of fumes and odours from the premises is submitted for written approval by the Local Planning Authority. These details shall be in accordance with the recommendations of the LPA approved Noise Assessment Report; Ref. 0804152NR5; 19th May 2016, and include:
    a)Plans showing the location of the fume extract, to be located as far as possible from the nearest noise sensitive facade and including a low resistance cowl.
    b)Acoustic emissions at the extractor outlet not in excess of 44dB.
    c)Details of any filters or other odour abatement equipment.
    d)Details of the system's required cleaning and maintenance schedule.
    e)Details of a scheme of works to prevent the transmission of structure borne noise or vibration to other noise sensitive portions of the building.

    The use shall not commence until the approved equipment has been installed and is fully operational and shall thereafter be installed, operated, retained and maintained in accordance with the approved details.

    Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the locality and occupiers of adjoining property.

    If you've got a similar condition and not discharged it, your flat will probably smell of chips and you don't have lawful use of the flat so keep an ear out for a knock on the door from planning enforcement and / or the EHO. ;)
    #1545933
    eltonioni wrote:If you've got a similar condition and not discharged it, your flat will probably smell of chips and you don't have lawful use of the flat so keep an ear out for a knock on the door from planning enforcement and / or the EHO. ;)


    Just wondering. Do subway make a lot of chips then?
    Rob P, eltonioni liked this
    #1545967
    I think the real issue we face behind all this is the triumph of form over substance. In government both local and central, but especially local, it's about two things closely related:

    Process compliance
    Avoidance of accountability

    Outcome is quite low on the list.

    Professionals be they engineers, planners, building control, social workers, teachers etc. etc. are either constrained by management who are scared of their own shadows or outsourced into a tightly controlled contract seeking to minimise expenditure rather than deliver service quality.

    They are also driven by simpleminded targets, that are mostly counterproductive.

    It's a mess and it's getting worse not better. :(

    The Emperor is naked and we need a regiment of tailors urgently. :roll:
    Flyin'Dutch', kanga, Charles Hunt and 1 others liked this