UK General Election 8th June: Shake it all about?

[P3nT4gR4m]

Yay - our new national anthem is The Sash! 

[Junkenstein]

Cabinet now arguing publicly about brexit. Hammond taking digs at Boris for being a tit. Smells like leadership challenge jockeying.

Headline in the hell is "beyond satire". Possibly the most factual statement ever published if you only look at those two words and not the associated story.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Yay - our new national anthem is The Sash! 

Off to google...

[P3nT4gR4m]

Yay - our new national anthem is The Sash! 

Off to google...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmi2xJn76NE

On the surface it seems innocuous enough but it's when yelled at catholics while you're stomping their face to keep time that it really comes into it's own. I'd advise any tourist visiting our fine nation to whistle this upon entering any pub. You'll either be bought a free drink or killed to death depending on the pub 

[Fallenkezef]

Yay - our new national anthem is The Sash! 

Off to google...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmi2xJn76NE

On the surface it seems innocuous enough but it's when yelled at catholics while you're stomping their face to keep time that it really comes into it's own. I'd advise any tourist visiting our fine nation to whistle this upon entering any pub. You'll either be bought a free drink or killed to death depending on the pub 

I work with an old-school Ulster lass. They are interesting, tough folk. I'm only scared of two people, the missus and the Ulster girl.

[Cain]

As Chancellor, Hammond knows that no deal is, except in ludicrous exploitative circumstances invented in the heads of feverish UKIP members, worse than a deal with the EU.

And I see our "internal ID cards for EU members" will not go down well.  As I'm sure you all remember, the UK argued strongly against the implementation of an EU-wide system of ID.  Of course, there's nothing to stop the UK from doing so, but putting it out like that almost seems like it was designed to raise hackles and play to the home crowd.  If you really want IDs, make a vague mention to a system of registration in the deal, then introduce the legislation once the ink is dry.

Not that I like the idea itself.  I had to carry my ID papers everywhere I went in Switzerland, and I didn't like that.  But the Swiss authorities are quite a cut above the UK ones, and the Swiss leadership hadn't been whipping up xenophobia against legal foreign workers in the way we do here.

[Cain]

David Lammy is suggesting there has been an effort to coverup or play down the number of deaths in Grenfell Towers, to avoid a public riot.  He may be right.

What's definitely a criminal conspiracy is how this cladding, despite being illegal, is so widespread in its usage.  Someone, somewhere, knows why this is the case.  It's not like all these companies independently decided to chance it with the regulations, all at once.  Someone said this was OK or said they wouldn't investigate.

[Cain]

Times cartoon today:

[P3nT4gR4m]

David Lammy is suggesting there has been an effort to coverup or play down the number of deaths in Grenfell Towers, to avoid a public riot.  He may be right.

What's definitely a criminal conspiracy is how this cladding, despite being illegal, is so widespread in its usage.  Someone, somewhere, knows why this is the case.  It's not like all these companies independently decided to chance it with the regulations, all at once.  Someone said this was OK or said they wouldn't investigate.

Minitrue was sticking at 17 for the first day and (more than)17 for about the next two iirc. This was well past the point where it was common knowledge that there were at least 70 bodies lying on a slab somewhere. Huffpo mentioned that between 450-500 would require rehomed. Given that more than most of this number had burned to death, I wouldn't think that would have been a pressing concern.

Any word on the numbers yet or are we still sticking to the official - as many as two people with slightly singed eyebrows - line?

[Cain]

79 seems to be the number the press is going with, but I've heard reports of up to 150 dead.

I've noticed since Lammy spoke up some outlets are now writing "at least 79" dead.

[Junkenstein]

David Lammy is suggesting there has been an effort to coverup or play down the number of deaths in Grenfell Towers, to avoid a public riot.  He may be right.

What's definitely a criminal conspiracy is how this cladding, despite being illegal, is so widespread in its usage.  Someone, somewhere, knows why this is the case.  It's not like all these companies independently decided to chance it with the regulations, all at once.  Someone said this was OK or said they wouldn't investigate.

Well I can give a few reasons based on my dealings with various councils.

The first would be some bollocks like "value engineering" which is a fancy way of saying use a crappier product instead of one that actually meets the spec. Typically a Bill of quantities from a council demands very particular products from certain suppliers but tenderers are "invited to make alternative proposals" which usually means "Offer us something that saves time or money, preferably both". The muppets assessing the bids then rate them. 80%+ of the total bid score is usually down to cost. Less than 10% normally on H+S, the remainder on proving you're not about to go bang before the work is done.

What this leads to is something like:
-Council insists material must be X, which has (Safety feature, like say flame retardant)
-Contractors spec X, and also spec Y which is cheaper by a country mile.
-Council compares the prices of various Y's and nominates the cheapest contractor.
-Cheap contractor turns up with crappy materials and gets on with job. No real questions asked.
-If shit ever goes wrong, it's not on the contractors toes, as the council agreed to the change in material spec.

Needless to say, Austerity is a factor in these kind of bad decisions. A council just sees an easy way to save £X on a job, why think more of it?


Another strong possibility is a tool in a building control department at some council, somewhere OK'd the first use of it as being close enough. That's taken as a precedent and the next time any objections are raised, they go back to that guy. That guy now can't change his mind as it's already been done and it would cost him his job. So he approves the next. Precedent is now the standard. And now it's everywhere.


Bribery of a council employee to accept alternative spec and award contract on that basis is 50/50. Can't speculate to much there without seeing the original work spec. It happens too routinely anyway to be much of a factor overall.


An outside possibility is that the contractors just used alternative materials without telling anyone or discussing it. I think this unlikely for a few reasons but it's not in the realms of the impossible. Incredibly stupid, requires committing fraud and opening the company/you personally up to all sorts of legal ramifications but not impossible.


This isn't a whodunit for the ages, the list of possible suspects is laughably short and must have a relatively lengthy paper trail by the nature of the projects. It's either a council gremlin, building control monkey or the contractor who have severely fucked up. This is pitifully easy to investigate and determine blame, just look at the winning tender documentation, contract award and paper trail. If I had access to these, I could accurately point a finger at the culprit in probably less than half an hour. Then it becomes a discussion about who authorised what and were they instructed to do so, etc. But again, there will be an easy, obvious paper trail.


I would also note that no-one is being publicly hung out to dry over this yet. That screams council to me as if it was the contractors fault/error/fuckup their names would be all over the press with taglines like "MURDERERS". Mainly as there would be someone at the council saying "told you so, let's fuck them". This hasn't occurred so it does imply the responsibility will be with the council for accepting a change in spec or putting out a bad spec to begin with. 



What I would be marginally more concerned about right now is a radicalised or unstable guy realising that he doesn't even have to rent a van or buy a knife anymore. A packet of matches is all that's needed. That's a significantly lower barrier to entry than making a bomb or renting a van.


As for the total # dead, it's impossible to say for certain without cleaning out the building. You can account for residents but guests and visitors are a total unknown and identification a touch tricky. It'll be a while before an official total is given but I wouldn't be surprised at 200+.

[P3nT4gR4m]

What I would be marginally more concerned about right now is a radicalised or unstable guy realising that he doesn't even have to rent a van or buy a knife anymore. A packet of matches is all that's needed. That's a significantly lower barrier to entry than making a bomb or renting a van.

Been patiently awaiting Great Fire of London II since I first heard it was the cladding. One might also take into consideration the prime motivator for these renovations in the first place, ie. cosmetic - important people in expensive buildings don't want tatty council housing spoiling their view and messing with their property valuations. Maybe safe materials are a bit uglier and hence the deciding factor?

[Junkenstein]

The appearance is indistinguishable, the cost will be the factor. Bet on it.

[Junkenstein]

Anyway, anyone fancy going halves on starting a cladding removal company?

[Vanadium Gryllz]

The appearance is indistinguishable, the cost will be the factor. Bet on it.

It seems the cladding was polyethylene sandwiched between aluminium sheets - any higher rated cladding is likely to differ in the core material rather than the aluminium.

The testing that this cladding is likely to have gone through will be either direct or indirect exposure to flame (i.e. torch the fucker or set something on fire near the fucker). It's possible that the cladding as-is will have performed well on these tests - only once the protective aluminium was pierced (as it was fitted to the building possibly) and the completely flammable core exposed did it prove to be a hazard.

It looks like the panels in question, Reynobond PE, were actually tested to ASTM E84 which is more of an American standard than a European/British one to my knowledge.

The manufacturer claims that both the PE and the FR versions of their composite cladding achieves a class A - based off this it sounds like it could be slightly harder to pin the blame on someone - choosing a cheaper cladding is a no-brainer if they both appear to meet the same specification.