The Grenfell Tower disaster was the result of “decades of failure” byNo, we need not be afraid. After all he is competent and intelligent, a refreshing change over the past eleven months.
central government to stop the spread of combustible cladding combined
with the “systematic dishonesty” of multimillion-dollar companies
whose products spread the fire that killed 72 people, a seven-year
public inquiry has found.
In a 1,700-page report that apportions blame for the 2017 tragedy
widely, Sir Martin Moore-Bick, the chair of the inquiry, found that
three firms – Arconic, Kingspan and Celotex – “engaged in deliberate
and sustained strategies to … mislead the market”.
He also found the architects Studio E, the builders Rydon and Harley
Facades and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea’s building
control department all bore responsibility for the blaze.
Studio E demonstrated “a cavalier attitude to the regulations
affecting fire safety”. Its failure to recognise that the
plastic-filled panels on the high-rise tower were dangerous was not
the action of a “reasonably competent architect” and it “bears a very >significant degree of responsibility for the disaster”, the inquiry
found.
The inquiry was highly critical of the tenant management organisation
(TMO), which was appointed by the local authority, the Royal Borough
of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC), to look after its thousands of homes
but, according to the report, consistently ignored residents’ views.
The TMO chief executive, Robert Black, established a “pattern of
concealment … in relation to fire safety matters” and the TMO “treated
the demands of managing fire safety as an inconvenience” in “a
betrayal of its statutory obligations to its tenants”, the report
said.
After 400 days of evidence in an inquiry that has cost the UK taxpayer
more than £200m, Moore-Bick reserved some of his most damning
conclusions for central government.
It regulates the safety of buildings but failed to tighten up
ambiguous fire regulations while it was engaged in a “bonfire of red
tape” launched by the Conservative prime minister David Cameron from
2010 to 2016 in an attempt to boost the economy after the global
financial crisis.
The inquiry found that the government was “well aware” of the risks
posed by highly flammable cladding “but failed to act on what it
knew”.
Eric Pickles, Cameron’s housing secretary until 2015, had
“enthusiastically supported” the prime minister’s drive to slash
regulations and it dominated his department’s thinking to the extent
that matters affecting fire safety and risk to life “were ignored,
delayed or disregarded”, the inquiry concluded.
____________________________________________
Here in New Zealand, we have also seen fires in boarding houses -with
deaths through people not being able to get out. The last NZ
government to have a "bonfire of regulations" led to the leaky homes >disaster. Should we be very afraid of what the expensive new ministry
set up for David Seymour will do?
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/sep/04/grenfell-report-blames-decades-of-government-failure-and-companies-systematic-dishonesty
The Grenfell Tower disaster was the result of “decades of failure” by
central government to stop the spread of combustible cladding combined
with the “systematic dishonesty” of multimillion-dollar companies
whose products spread the fire that killed 72 people, a seven-year
public inquiry has found.
In a 1,700-page report that apportions blame for the 2017 tragedy
widely, Sir Martin Moore-Bick, the chair of the inquiry, found that
three firms – Arconic, Kingspan and Celotex – “engaged in deliberate
and sustained strategies to … mislead the market”.
He also found the architects Studio E, the builders Rydon and Harley
Facades and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea’s building
control department all bore responsibility for the blaze.
Studio E demonstrated “a cavalier attitude to the regulations
affecting fire safety”. Its failure to recognise that the
plastic-filled panels on the high-rise tower were dangerous was not
the action of a “reasonably competent architect” and it “bears a very >significant degree of responsibility for the disaster”, the inquiry
found.
The inquiry was highly critical of the tenant management organisation
(TMO), which was appointed by the local authority, the Royal Borough
of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC), to look after its thousands of homes
but, according to the report, consistently ignored residents’ views.
The TMO chief executive, Robert Black, established a “pattern of
concealment … in relation to fire safety matters” and the TMO “treated
the demands of managing fire safety as an inconvenience” in “a
betrayal of its statutory obligations to its tenants”, the report
said.
After 400 days of evidence in an inquiry that has cost the UK taxpayer
more than £200m, Moore-Bick reserved some of his most damning
conclusions for central government.
It regulates the safety of buildings but failed to tighten up
ambiguous fire regulations while it was engaged in a “bonfire of red
tape” launched by the Conservative prime minister David Cameron from
2010 to 2016 in an attempt to boost the economy after the global
financial crisis.
The inquiry found that the government was “well aware” of the risks
posed by highly flammable cladding “but failed to act on what it
knew”.
Eric Pickles, Cameron’s housing secretary until 2015, had
“enthusiastically supported” the prime minister’s drive to slash
regulations and it dominated his department’s thinking to the extent
that matters affecting fire safety and risk to life “were ignored,
delayed or disregarded”, the inquiry concluded.
____________________________________________
Here in New Zealand, we have also seen fires in boarding houses -with
deaths through people not being able to get out. The last NZ
government to have a "bonfire of regulations" led to the leaky homes >disaster. Should we be very afraid of what the expensive new ministry
set up for David Seymour will do?
On Thu, 05 Sep 2024 10:50:24 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/sep/04/grenfell-report-blames-decades-of-government-failure-and-companies-systematic-dishonesty
The Grenfell Tower disaster was the result of “decades of failure” by >>central government to stop the spread of combustible cladding combined
with the “systematic dishonesty” of multimillion-dollar companies
whose products spread the fire that killed 72 people, a seven-year
public inquiry has found.
In a 1,700-page report that apportions blame for the 2017 tragedy
widely, Sir Martin Moore-Bick, the chair of the inquiry, found that
three firms – Arconic, Kingspan and Celotex – “engaged in deliberate
and sustained strategies to … mislead the market”.
He also found the architects Studio E, the builders Rydon and Harley >>Facades and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea’s building
control department all bore responsibility for the blaze.
Studio E demonstrated “a cavalier attitude to the regulations
affecting fire safety”. Its failure to recognise that the
plastic-filled panels on the high-rise tower were dangerous was not
the action of a “reasonably competent architect” and it “bears a very >>significant degree of responsibility for the disaster”, the inquiry
found.
The inquiry was highly critical of the tenant management organisation >>(TMO), which was appointed by the local authority, the Royal Borough
of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC), to look after its thousands of homes
but, according to the report, consistently ignored residents’ views.
The TMO chief executive, Robert Black, established a “pattern of >>concealment … in relation to fire safety matters” and the TMO “treated
the demands of managing fire safety as an inconvenience” in “a
betrayal of its statutory obligations to its tenants”, the report
said.
After 400 days of evidence in an inquiry that has cost the UK taxpayer
more than £200m, Moore-Bick reserved some of his most damning
conclusions for central government.
It regulates the safety of buildings but failed to tighten up
ambiguous fire regulations while it was engaged in a “bonfire of red
tape” launched by the Conservative prime minister David Cameron from
2010 to 2016 in an attempt to boost the economy after the global
financial crisis.
The inquiry found that the government was “well aware” of the risks
posed by highly flammable cladding “but failed to act on what it
knew”.
Eric Pickles, Cameron’s housing secretary until 2015, had
“enthusiastically supported” the prime minister’s drive to slash >>regulations and it dominated his department’s thinking to the extent
that matters affecting fire safety and risk to life “were ignored,
delayed or disregarded”, the inquiry concluded.
____________________________________________
Here in New Zealand, we have also seen fires in boarding houses -with >>deaths through people not being able to get out. The last NZ
government to have a "bonfire of regulations" led to the leaky homes >>disaster. Should we be very afraid of what the expensive new ministry
set up for David Seymour will do?
Shame on you for using a disaster in the UK to make a spurious claim
about elimination of building safety regulations by the current
Government. Do you have any credible evidence that building safety >regulations are being loosened?
On Thu, 05 Sep 2024 15:52:38 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>Ah, so your post was pointless as well as completely inappropriate, well done for saying so.
wrote:
On Thu, 05 Sep 2024 10:50:24 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/sep/04/grenfell-report-blames-decades-of-government-failure-and-companies-systematic-dishonesty
The Grenfell Tower disaster was the result of “decades of failure” by >>>central government to stop the spread of combustible cladding combined >>>with the “systematic dishonesty” of multimillion-dollar companies
whose products spread the fire that killed 72 people, a seven-year
public inquiry has found.
In a 1,700-page report that apportions blame for the 2017 tragedy
widely, Sir Martin Moore-Bick, the chair of the inquiry, found that
three firms – Arconic, Kingspan and Celotex – “engaged in deliberate
and sustained strategies to … mislead the market”.
He also found the architects Studio E, the builders Rydon and Harley >>>Facades and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea’s building >>>control department all bore responsibility for the blaze.
Studio E demonstrated “a cavalier attitude to the regulations
affecting fire safety”. Its failure to recognise that the
plastic-filled panels on the high-rise tower were dangerous was not
the action of a “reasonably competent architect” and it “bears a very >>>significant degree of responsibility for the disaster”, the inquiry >>>found.
The inquiry was highly critical of the tenant management organisation >>>(TMO), which was appointed by the local authority, the Royal Borough
of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC), to look after its thousands of homes >>>but, according to the report, consistently ignored residents’ views.
The TMO chief executive, Robert Black, established a “pattern of >>>concealment … in relation to fire safety matters” and the TMO “treated >>>the demands of managing fire safety as an inconvenience” in “a
betrayal of its statutory obligations to its tenants”, the report
said.
After 400 days of evidence in an inquiry that has cost the UK taxpayer >>>more than £200m, Moore-Bick reserved some of his most damning
conclusions for central government.
It regulates the safety of buildings but failed to tighten up
ambiguous fire regulations while it was engaged in a “bonfire of red >>>tape” launched by the Conservative prime minister David Cameron from
2010 to 2016 in an attempt to boost the economy after the global >>>financial crisis.
The inquiry found that the government was “well aware” of the risks
posed by highly flammable cladding “but failed to act on what it
knew”.
Eric Pickles, Cameron’s housing secretary until 2015, had >>>“enthusiastically supported” the prime minister’s drive to slash >>>regulations and it dominated his department’s thinking to the extent
that matters affecting fire safety and risk to life “were ignored, >>>delayed or disregarded”, the inquiry concluded.
____________________________________________
Here in New Zealand, we have also seen fires in boarding houses -with >>>deaths through people not being able to get out. The last NZ
government to have a "bonfire of regulations" led to the leaky homes >>>disaster. Should we be very afraid of what the expensive new ministry >>>set up for David Seymour will do?
Shame on you for using a disaster in the UK to make a spurious claim
about elimination of building safety regulations by the current
Government. Do you have any credible evidence that building safety >>regulations are being loosened?
You make a good point, Crash - Seymour made a lot of noise about
clearing the decks of regulation that was holding up industry. Since
then we have learned that a whole department has been set up with a
couple of well publicised reviews that have put nothing concrete
forward yet . . .
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 05 Sep 2024 15:52:38 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:Ah, so your post was pointless as well as completely inappropriate, well done >for saying so.
On Thu, 05 Sep 2024 10:50:24 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/sep/04/grenfell-report-blames-decades-of-government-failure-and-companies-systematic-dishonesty
The Grenfell Tower disaster was the result of “decades of failure” by >>>>central government to stop the spread of combustible cladding combined >>>>with the “systematic dishonesty” of multimillion-dollar companies
whose products spread the fire that killed 72 people, a seven-year >>>>public inquiry has found.
In a 1,700-page report that apportions blame for the 2017 tragedy >>>>widely, Sir Martin Moore-Bick, the chair of the inquiry, found that >>>>three firms – Arconic, Kingspan and Celotex – “engaged in deliberate >>>>and sustained strategies to … mislead the market”.
He also found the architects Studio E, the builders Rydon and Harley >>>>Facades and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea’s building >>>>control department all bore responsibility for the blaze.
Studio E demonstrated “a cavalier attitude to the regulations
affecting fire safety”. Its failure to recognise that the >>>>plastic-filled panels on the high-rise tower were dangerous was not
the action of a “reasonably competent architect” and it “bears a very >>>>significant degree of responsibility for the disaster”, the inquiry >>>>found.
The inquiry was highly critical of the tenant management organisation >>>>(TMO), which was appointed by the local authority, the Royal Borough
of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC), to look after its thousands of homes >>>>but, according to the report, consistently ignored residents’ views. >>>>The TMO chief executive, Robert Black, established a “pattern of >>>>concealment … in relation to fire safety matters” and the TMO “treated >>>>the demands of managing fire safety as an inconvenience” in “a
betrayal of its statutory obligations to its tenants”, the report
said.
After 400 days of evidence in an inquiry that has cost the UK taxpayer >>>>more than £200m, Moore-Bick reserved some of his most damning >>>>conclusions for central government.
It regulates the safety of buildings but failed to tighten up
ambiguous fire regulations while it was engaged in a “bonfire of red >>>>tape” launched by the Conservative prime minister David Cameron from >>>>2010 to 2016 in an attempt to boost the economy after the global >>>>financial crisis.
The inquiry found that the government was “well aware” of the risks >>>>posed by highly flammable cladding “but failed to act on what it
knew”.
Eric Pickles, Cameron’s housing secretary until 2015, had >>>>“enthusiastically supported” the prime minister’s drive to slash >>>>regulations and it dominated his department’s thinking to the extent >>>>that matters affecting fire safety and risk to life “were ignored, >>>>delayed or disregarded”, the inquiry concluded.
____________________________________________
Here in New Zealand, we have also seen fires in boarding houses -with >>>>deaths through people not being able to get out. The last NZ
government to have a "bonfire of regulations" led to the leaky homes >>>>disaster. Should we be very afraid of what the expensive new ministry >>>>set up for David Seymour will do?
Shame on you for using a disaster in the UK to make a spurious claim >>>about elimination of building safety regulations by the current >>>Government. Do you have any credible evidence that building safety >>>regulations are being loosened?
You make a good point, Crash - Seymour made a lot of noise about
clearing the decks of regulation that was holding up industry. Since
then we have learned that a whole department has been set up with a
couple of well publicised reviews that have put nothing concrete
forward yet . . .
Clearly you have no evidence that anything is amiss in this country.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 05 Sep 2024 15:52:38 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:Ah, so your post was pointless as well as completely inappropriate, well done >for saying so.
On Thu, 05 Sep 2024 10:50:24 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/sep/04/grenfell-report-blames-decades-of-government-failure-and-companies-systematic-dishonesty
The Grenfell Tower disaster was the result of “decades of failure” by >>>>central government to stop the spread of combustible cladding combined >>>>with the “systematic dishonesty” of multimillion-dollar companies
whose products spread the fire that killed 72 people, a seven-year >>>>public inquiry has found.
In a 1,700-page report that apportions blame for the 2017 tragedy >>>>widely, Sir Martin Moore-Bick, the chair of the inquiry, found that >>>>three firms – Arconic, Kingspan and Celotex – “engaged in deliberate >>>>and sustained strategies to … mislead the market”.
He also found the architects Studio E, the builders Rydon and Harley >>>>Facades and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea’s building >>>>control department all bore responsibility for the blaze.
Studio E demonstrated “a cavalier attitude to the regulations
affecting fire safety”. Its failure to recognise that the >>>>plastic-filled panels on the high-rise tower were dangerous was not
the action of a “reasonably competent architect” and it “bears a very >>>>significant degree of responsibility for the disaster”, the inquiry >>>>found.
The inquiry was highly critical of the tenant management organisation >>>>(TMO), which was appointed by the local authority, the Royal Borough
of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC), to look after its thousands of homes >>>>but, according to the report, consistently ignored residents’ views. >>>>The TMO chief executive, Robert Black, established a “pattern of >>>>concealment … in relation to fire safety matters” and the TMO “treated >>>>the demands of managing fire safety as an inconvenience” in “a
betrayal of its statutory obligations to its tenants”, the report
said.
After 400 days of evidence in an inquiry that has cost the UK taxpayer >>>>more than £200m, Moore-Bick reserved some of his most damning >>>>conclusions for central government.
It regulates the safety of buildings but failed to tighten up
ambiguous fire regulations while it was engaged in a “bonfire of red >>>>tape” launched by the Conservative prime minister David Cameron from >>>>2010 to 2016 in an attempt to boost the economy after the global >>>>financial crisis.
The inquiry found that the government was “well aware” of the risks >>>>posed by highly flammable cladding “but failed to act on what it
knew”.
Eric Pickles, Cameron’s housing secretary until 2015, had >>>>“enthusiastically supported” the prime minister’s drive to slash >>>>regulations and it dominated his department’s thinking to the extent >>>>that matters affecting fire safety and risk to life “were ignored, >>>>delayed or disregarded”, the inquiry concluded.
____________________________________________
Here in New Zealand, we have also seen fires in boarding houses -with >>>>deaths through people not being able to get out. The last NZ
government to have a "bonfire of regulations" led to the leaky homes >>>>disaster. Should we be very afraid of what the expensive new ministry >>>>set up for David Seymour will do?
Shame on you for using a disaster in the UK to make a spurious claim >>>about elimination of building safety regulations by the current >>>Government. Do you have any credible evidence that building safety >>>regulations are being loosened?
You make a good point, Crash - Seymour made a lot of noise about
clearing the decks of regulation that was holding up industry. Since
then we have learned that a whole department has been set up with a
couple of well publicised reviews that have put nothing concrete
forward yet . . .
Clearly you have no evidence that anything is amiss in this country.
On Thu, 5 Sep 2024 07:04:15 -0000 (UTC), TonyOh do change the subject. Why not? You have failed to justify anything else you have posted in this thread, which as we all know is pure political trash talk. Your twists and turns are pathetic and transparent.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 05 Sep 2024 15:52:38 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:Ah, so your post was pointless as well as completely inappropriate, well done >>for saying so.
On Thu, 05 Sep 2024 10:50:24 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/sep/04/grenfell-report-blames-decades-of-government-failure-and-companies-systematic-dishonesty
The Grenfell Tower disaster was the result of “decades of failure” by >>>>>central government to stop the spread of combustible cladding combined >>>>>with the “systematic dishonesty” of multimillion-dollar companies >>>>>whose products spread the fire that killed 72 people, a seven-year >>>>>public inquiry has found.
In a 1,700-page report that apportions blame for the 2017 tragedy >>>>>widely, Sir Martin Moore-Bick, the chair of the inquiry, found that >>>>>three firms – Arconic, Kingspan and Celotex – “engaged in deliberate >>>>>and sustained strategies to … mislead the market”.
He also found the architects Studio E, the builders Rydon and Harley >>>>>Facades and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea’s building >>>>>control department all bore responsibility for the blaze.
Studio E demonstrated “a cavalier attitude to the regulations >>>>>affecting fire safety”. Its failure to recognise that the >>>>>plastic-filled panels on the high-rise tower were dangerous was not >>>>>the action of a “reasonably competent architect” and it “bears a very >>>>>significant degree of responsibility for the disaster”, the inquiry >>>>>found.
The inquiry was highly critical of the tenant management organisation >>>>>(TMO), which was appointed by the local authority, the Royal Borough >>>>>of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC), to look after its thousands of homes >>>>>but, according to the report, consistently ignored residents’ views. >>>>>The TMO chief executive, Robert Black, established a “pattern of >>>>>concealment … in relation to fire safety matters” and the TMO “treated >>>>>the demands of managing fire safety as an inconvenience” in “a >>>>>betrayal of its statutory obligations to its tenants”, the report >>>>>said.
After 400 days of evidence in an inquiry that has cost the UK taxpayer >>>>>more than £200m, Moore-Bick reserved some of his most damning >>>>>conclusions for central government.
It regulates the safety of buildings but failed to tighten up >>>>>ambiguous fire regulations while it was engaged in a “bonfire of red >>>>>tape” launched by the Conservative prime minister David Cameron from >>>>>2010 to 2016 in an attempt to boost the economy after the global >>>>>financial crisis.
The inquiry found that the government was “well aware” of the risks >>>>>posed by highly flammable cladding “but failed to act on what it >>>>>knew”.
Eric Pickles, Cameron’s housing secretary until 2015, had >>>>>“enthusiastically supported” the prime minister’s drive to slash >>>>>regulations and it dominated his department’s thinking to the extent >>>>>that matters affecting fire safety and risk to life “were ignored, >>>>>delayed or disregarded”, the inquiry concluded.
____________________________________________
Here in New Zealand, we have also seen fires in boarding houses -with >>>>>deaths through people not being able to get out. The last NZ >>>>>government to have a "bonfire of regulations" led to the leaky homes >>>>>disaster. Should we be very afraid of what the expensive new ministry >>>>>set up for David Seymour will do?
Shame on you for using a disaster in the UK to make a spurious claim >>>>about elimination of building safety regulations by the current >>>>Government. Do you have any credible evidence that building safety >>>>regulations are being loosened?
You make a good point, Crash - Seymour made a lot of noise about
clearing the decks of regulation that was holding up industry. Since
then we have learned that a whole department has been set up with a >>>couple of well publicised reviews that have put nothing concrete
forward yet . . .
Clearly you have no evidence that anything is amiss in this country.
The leaky building crisis was bad enough, Tony - and this government
appears to be set to make decisions without (or against) expert advice
- their transport plans look to be bad for our health, and who knows
how bad they could get on firearms legislation . . .
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:The Subject is the value of good regulations - the Grenfell disaster
On Thu, 5 Sep 2024 07:04:15 -0000 (UTC), TonyOh do change the subject. Why not? You have failed to justify anything else you
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 05 Sep 2024 15:52:38 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>wrote:Ah, so your post was pointless as well as completely inappropriate, well done
On Thu, 05 Sep 2024 10:50:24 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/sep/04/grenfell-report-blames-decades-of-government-failure-and-companies-systematic-dishonesty
The Grenfell Tower disaster was the result of “decades of failure” by >>>>>>central government to stop the spread of combustible cladding combined >>>>>>with the “systematic dishonesty” of multimillion-dollar companies >>>>>>whose products spread the fire that killed 72 people, a seven-year >>>>>>public inquiry has found.
In a 1,700-page report that apportions blame for the 2017 tragedy >>>>>>widely, Sir Martin Moore-Bick, the chair of the inquiry, found that >>>>>>three firms – Arconic, Kingspan and Celotex – “engaged in deliberate >>>>>>and sustained strategies to … mislead the market”.
He also found the architects Studio E, the builders Rydon and Harley >>>>>>Facades and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea’s building >>>>>>control department all bore responsibility for the blaze.
Studio E demonstrated “a cavalier attitude to the regulations >>>>>>affecting fire safety”. Its failure to recognise that the >>>>>>plastic-filled panels on the high-rise tower were dangerous was not >>>>>>the action of a “reasonably competent architect” and it “bears a very >>>>>>significant degree of responsibility for the disaster”, the inquiry >>>>>>found.
The inquiry was highly critical of the tenant management organisation >>>>>>(TMO), which was appointed by the local authority, the Royal Borough >>>>>>of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC), to look after its thousands of homes >>>>>>but, according to the report, consistently ignored residents’ views. >>>>>>The TMO chief executive, Robert Black, established a “pattern of >>>>>>concealment … in relation to fire safety matters” and the TMO “treated >>>>>>the demands of managing fire safety as an inconvenience” in “a >>>>>>betrayal of its statutory obligations to its tenants”, the report >>>>>>said.
After 400 days of evidence in an inquiry that has cost the UK taxpayer >>>>>>more than £200m, Moore-Bick reserved some of his most damning >>>>>>conclusions for central government.
It regulates the safety of buildings but failed to tighten up >>>>>>ambiguous fire regulations while it was engaged in a “bonfire of red >>>>>>tape” launched by the Conservative prime minister David Cameron from >>>>>>2010 to 2016 in an attempt to boost the economy after the global >>>>>>financial crisis.
The inquiry found that the government was “well aware” of the risks >>>>>>posed by highly flammable cladding “but failed to act on what it >>>>>>knew”.
Eric Pickles, Cameron’s housing secretary until 2015, had >>>>>>“enthusiastically supported” the prime minister’s drive to slash >>>>>>regulations and it dominated his department’s thinking to the extent >>>>>>that matters affecting fire safety and risk to life “were ignored, >>>>>>delayed or disregarded”, the inquiry concluded.
____________________________________________
Here in New Zealand, we have also seen fires in boarding houses -with >>>>>>deaths through people not being able to get out. The last NZ >>>>>>government to have a "bonfire of regulations" led to the leaky homes >>>>>>disaster. Should we be very afraid of what the expensive new ministry >>>>>>set up for David Seymour will do?
Shame on you for using a disaster in the UK to make a spurious claim >>>>>about elimination of building safety regulations by the current >>>>>Government. Do you have any credible evidence that building safety >>>>>regulations are being loosened?
You make a good point, Crash - Seymour made a lot of noise about >>>>clearing the decks of regulation that was holding up industry. Since >>>>then we have learned that a whole department has been set up with a >>>>couple of well publicised reviews that have put nothing concrete >>>>forward yet . . .
for saying so.
Clearly you have no evidence that anything is amiss in this country.
The leaky building crisis was bad enough, Tony - and this government >>appears to be set to make decisions without (or against) expert advice
- their transport plans look to be bad for our health, and who knows
how bad they could get on firearms legislation . . .
have posted in this thread, which as we all know is pure political trash talk. >Your twists and turns are pathetic and transparent.
On Thu, 5 Sep 2024 22:00:46 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo, you were and are off topic. Since it is your owm topic that is somewhat silly is it not?
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:The Subject is the value of good regulations - the Grenfell disaster
On Thu, 5 Sep 2024 07:04:15 -0000 (UTC), TonyOh do change the subject. Why not? You have failed to justify anything else >>you
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 05 Sep 2024 15:52:38 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>wrote:Ah, so your post was pointless as well as completely inappropriate, well >>>>done
On Thu, 05 Sep 2024 10:50:24 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/sep/04/grenfell-report-blames-decades-of-government-failure-and-companies-systematic-dishonesty
The Grenfell Tower disaster was the result of “decades of failure” by >>>>>>>central government to stop the spread of combustible cladding combined >>>>>>>with the “systematic dishonesty” of multimillion-dollar companies >>>>>>>whose products spread the fire that killed 72 people, a seven-year >>>>>>>public inquiry has found.
In a 1,700-page report that apportions blame for the 2017 tragedy >>>>>>>widely, Sir Martin Moore-Bick, the chair of the inquiry, found that >>>>>>>three firms – Arconic, Kingspan and Celotex – “engaged in deliberate >>>>>>>and sustained strategies to … mislead the market”.
He also found the architects Studio E, the builders Rydon and Harley >>>>>>>Facades and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea’s building >>>>>>>control department all bore responsibility for the blaze.
Studio E demonstrated “a cavalier attitude to the regulations >>>>>>>affecting fire safety”. Its failure to recognise that the >>>>>>>plastic-filled panels on the high-rise tower were dangerous was not >>>>>>>the action of a “reasonably competent architect” and it “bears a very >>>>>>>significant degree of responsibility for the disaster”, the inquiry >>>>>>>found.
The inquiry was highly critical of the tenant management organisation >>>>>>>(TMO), which was appointed by the local authority, the Royal Borough >>>>>>>of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC), to look after its thousands of homes >>>>>>>but, according to the report, consistently ignored residents’ views. >>>>>>>The TMO chief executive, Robert Black, established a “pattern of >>>>>>>concealment … in relation to fire safety matters” and the TMO “treated >>>>>>>the demands of managing fire safety as an inconvenience” in “a >>>>>>>betrayal of its statutory obligations to its tenants”, the report >>>>>>>said.
After 400 days of evidence in an inquiry that has cost the UK taxpayer >>>>>>>more than £200m, Moore-Bick reserved some of his most damning >>>>>>>conclusions for central government.
It regulates the safety of buildings but failed to tighten up >>>>>>>ambiguous fire regulations while it was engaged in a “bonfire of red >>>>>>>tape” launched by the Conservative prime minister David Cameron from >>>>>>>2010 to 2016 in an attempt to boost the economy after the global >>>>>>>financial crisis.
The inquiry found that the government was “well aware” of the risks >>>>>>>posed by highly flammable cladding “but failed to act on what it >>>>>>>knew”.
Eric Pickles, Cameron’s housing secretary until 2015, had >>>>>>>“enthusiastically supported” the prime minister’s drive to slash >>>>>>>regulations and it dominated his department’s thinking to the extent >>>>>>>that matters affecting fire safety and risk to life “were ignored, >>>>>>>delayed or disregarded”, the inquiry concluded.
____________________________________________
Here in New Zealand, we have also seen fires in boarding houses -with >>>>>>>deaths through people not being able to get out. The last NZ >>>>>>>government to have a "bonfire of regulations" led to the leaky homes >>>>>>>disaster. Should we be very afraid of what the expensive new ministry >>>>>>>set up for David Seymour will do?
Shame on you for using a disaster in the UK to make a spurious claim >>>>>>about elimination of building safety regulations by the current >>>>>>Government. Do you have any credible evidence that building safety >>>>>>regulations are being loosened?
You make a good point, Crash - Seymour made a lot of noise about >>>>>clearing the decks of regulation that was holding up industry. Since >>>>>then we have learned that a whole department has been set up with a >>>>>couple of well publicised reviews that have put nothing concrete >>>>>forward yet . . .
for saying so.
Clearly you have no evidence that anything is amiss in this country.
The leaky building crisis was bad enough, Tony - and this government >>>appears to be set to make decisions without (or against) expert advice
- their transport plans look to be bad for our health, and who knows
how bad they could get on firearms legislation . . .
have posted in this thread, which as we all know is pure political trash talk.
Your twists and turns are pathetic and transparent.
points that out, as did the Leaky Homes disaster. Your irrational
personal abuse is off topic, Tony.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 5 Sep 2024 22:00:46 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo, you were and are off topic. Since it is your owm topic that is somewhat >silly is it not?
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:The Subject is the value of good regulations - the Grenfell disaster
On Thu, 5 Sep 2024 07:04:15 -0000 (UTC), TonyOh do change the subject. Why not? You have failed to justify anything else >>>you
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 05 Sep 2024 15:52:38 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>wrote:Ah, so your post was pointless as well as completely inappropriate, well >>>>>done
On Thu, 05 Sep 2024 10:50:24 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/sep/04/grenfell-report-blames-decades-of-government-failure-and-companies-systematic-dishonesty
The Grenfell Tower disaster was the result of “decades of failure” by >>>>>>>>central government to stop the spread of combustible cladding combined >>>>>>>>with the “systematic dishonesty” of multimillion-dollar companies >>>>>>>>whose products spread the fire that killed 72 people, a seven-year >>>>>>>>public inquiry has found.
In a 1,700-page report that apportions blame for the 2017 tragedy >>>>>>>>widely, Sir Martin Moore-Bick, the chair of the inquiry, found that >>>>>>>>three firms – Arconic, Kingspan and Celotex – “engaged in deliberate >>>>>>>>and sustained strategies to … mislead the market”.
He also found the architects Studio E, the builders Rydon and Harley >>>>>>>>Facades and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea’s building >>>>>>>>control department all bore responsibility for the blaze.
Studio E demonstrated “a cavalier attitude to the regulations >>>>>>>>affecting fire safety”. Its failure to recognise that the >>>>>>>>plastic-filled panels on the high-rise tower were dangerous was not >>>>>>>>the action of a “reasonably competent architect” and it “bears a very >>>>>>>>significant degree of responsibility for the disaster”, the inquiry >>>>>>>>found.
The inquiry was highly critical of the tenant management organisation >>>>>>>>(TMO), which was appointed by the local authority, the Royal Borough >>>>>>>>of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC), to look after its thousands of homes >>>>>>>>but, according to the report, consistently ignored residents’ views. >>>>>>>>The TMO chief executive, Robert Black, established a “pattern of >>>>>>>>concealment … in relation to fire safety matters” and the TMO “treated >>>>>>>>the demands of managing fire safety as an inconvenience” in “a >>>>>>>>betrayal of its statutory obligations to its tenants”, the report >>>>>>>>said.
After 400 days of evidence in an inquiry that has cost the UK taxpayer >>>>>>>>more than £200m, Moore-Bick reserved some of his most damning >>>>>>>>conclusions for central government.
It regulates the safety of buildings but failed to tighten up >>>>>>>>ambiguous fire regulations while it was engaged in a “bonfire of red >>>>>>>>tape” launched by the Conservative prime minister David Cameron from >>>>>>>>2010 to 2016 in an attempt to boost the economy after the global >>>>>>>>financial crisis.
The inquiry found that the government was “well aware” of the risks >>>>>>>>posed by highly flammable cladding “but failed to act on what it >>>>>>>>knew”.
Eric Pickles, Cameron’s housing secretary until 2015, had >>>>>>>>“enthusiastically supported” the prime minister’s drive to slash >>>>>>>>regulations and it dominated his department’s thinking to the extent >>>>>>>>that matters affecting fire safety and risk to life “were ignored, >>>>>>>>delayed or disregarded”, the inquiry concluded.
____________________________________________
Here in New Zealand, we have also seen fires in boarding houses -with >>>>>>>>deaths through people not being able to get out. The last NZ >>>>>>>>government to have a "bonfire of regulations" led to the leaky homes >>>>>>>>disaster. Should we be very afraid of what the expensive new ministry >>>>>>>>set up for David Seymour will do?
Shame on you for using a disaster in the UK to make a spurious claim >>>>>>>about elimination of building safety regulations by the current >>>>>>>Government. Do you have any credible evidence that building safety >>>>>>>regulations are being loosened?
You make a good point, Crash - Seymour made a lot of noise about >>>>>>clearing the decks of regulation that was holding up industry. Since >>>>>>then we have learned that a whole department has been set up with a >>>>>>couple of well publicised reviews that have put nothing concrete >>>>>>forward yet . . .
for saying so.
Clearly you have no evidence that anything is amiss in this country.
The leaky building crisis was bad enough, Tony - and this government >>>>appears to be set to make decisions without (or against) expert advice >>>>- their transport plans look to be bad for our health, and who knows >>>>how bad they could get on firearms legislation . . .
have posted in this thread, which as we all know is pure political trash talk.
Your twists and turns are pathetic and transparent.
points that out, as did the Leaky Homes disaster. Your irrational
personal abuse is off topic, Tony.
And I did not abuise you in the slightest. You see offense where there is only >truth, that is sociopathic.
Your entire thread is deliberate mischief-making political hogwash.
On Fri, 6 Sep 2024 01:42:58 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 5 Sep 2024 22:00:46 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo, you were and are off topic. Since it is your owm topic that is somewhat >>silly is it not?
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:The Subject is the value of good regulations - the Grenfell disaster >>>points that out, as did the Leaky Homes disaster. Your irrational >>>personal abuse is off topic, Tony.
On Thu, 5 Sep 2024 07:04:15 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Oh do change the subject. Why not? You have failed to justify anything else >>>>you
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:The leaky building crisis was bad enough, Tony - and this government >>>>>appears to be set to make decisions without (or against) expert advice >>>>>- their transport plans look to be bad for our health, and who knows >>>>>how bad they could get on firearms legislation . . .
On Thu, 05 Sep 2024 15:52:38 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>wrote:Ah, so your post was pointless as well as completely inappropriate, well >>>>>>done
On Thu, 05 Sep 2024 10:50:24 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/sep/04/grenfell-report-blames-decades-of-government-failure-and-companies-systematic-dishonesty
The Grenfell Tower disaster was the result of “decades of failure” by >>>>>>>>>central government to stop the spread of combustible cladding combined >>>>>>>>>with the “systematic dishonesty” of multimillion-dollar companies >>>>>>>>>whose products spread the fire that killed 72 people, a seven-year >>>>>>>>>public inquiry has found.
In a 1,700-page report that apportions blame for the 2017 tragedy >>>>>>>>>widely, Sir Martin Moore-Bick, the chair of the inquiry, found that >>>>>>>>>three firms – Arconic, Kingspan and Celotex – “engaged in deliberate >>>>>>>>>and sustained strategies to … mislead the market”.
He also found the architects Studio E, the builders Rydon and Harley >>>>>>>>>Facades and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea’s building >>>>>>>>>control department all bore responsibility for the blaze.
Studio E demonstrated “a cavalier attitude to the regulations >>>>>>>>>affecting fire safety”. Its failure to recognise that the >>>>>>>>>plastic-filled panels on the high-rise tower were dangerous was not >>>>>>>>>the action of a “reasonably competent architect” and it “bears a very >>>>>>>>>significant degree of responsibility for the disaster”, the inquiry >>>>>>>>>found.
The inquiry was highly critical of the tenant management organisation >>>>>>>>>(TMO), which was appointed by the local authority, the Royal Borough >>>>>>>>>of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC), to look after its thousands of homes >>>>>>>>>but, according to the report, consistently ignored residents’ views. >>>>>>>>>The TMO chief executive, Robert Black, established a “pattern of >>>>>>>>>concealment … in relation to fire safety matters” and the TMO “treated >>>>>>>>>the demands of managing fire safety as an inconvenience” in “a >>>>>>>>>betrayal of its statutory obligations to its tenants”, the report >>>>>>>>>said.
After 400 days of evidence in an inquiry that has cost the UK taxpayer >>>>>>>>>more than £200m, Moore-Bick reserved some of his most damning >>>>>>>>>conclusions for central government.
It regulates the safety of buildings but failed to tighten up >>>>>>>>>ambiguous fire regulations while it was engaged in a “bonfire of red >>>>>>>>>tape” launched by the Conservative prime minister David Cameron from >>>>>>>>>2010 to 2016 in an attempt to boost the economy after the global >>>>>>>>>financial crisis.
The inquiry found that the government was “well aware” of the risks >>>>>>>>>posed by highly flammable cladding “but failed to act on what it >>>>>>>>>knew”.
Eric Pickles, Cameron’s housing secretary until 2015, had >>>>>>>>>“enthusiastically supported” the prime minister’s drive to slash >>>>>>>>>regulations and it dominated his department’s thinking to the extent >>>>>>>>>that matters affecting fire safety and risk to life “were ignored, >>>>>>>>>delayed or disregarded”, the inquiry concluded.
____________________________________________
Here in New Zealand, we have also seen fires in boarding houses -with >>>>>>>>>deaths through people not being able to get out. The last NZ >>>>>>>>>government to have a "bonfire of regulations" led to the leaky homes >>>>>>>>>disaster. Should we be very afraid of what the expensive new ministry >>>>>>>>>set up for David Seymour will do?
Shame on you for using a disaster in the UK to make a spurious claim >>>>>>>>about elimination of building safety regulations by the current >>>>>>>>Government. Do you have any credible evidence that building safety >>>>>>>>regulations are being loosened?
You make a good point, Crash - Seymour made a lot of noise about >>>>>>>clearing the decks of regulation that was holding up industry. Since >>>>>>>then we have learned that a whole department has been set up with a >>>>>>>couple of well publicised reviews that have put nothing concrete >>>>>>>forward yet . . .
for saying so.
Clearly you have no evidence that anything is amiss in this country. >>>>>
have posted in this thread, which as we all know is pure political trash >>>>talk.
Your twists and turns are pathetic and transparent.
And I did not abuise you in the slightest. You see offense where there is >>only
truth, that is sociopathic.
Your entire thread is deliberate mischief-making political hogwash.
It seems to me that Rich is yet to realise that the Grenfell disaster
did not happen in NZ and there is no evidence that the causes of that >disaster have any application here. Leaky Homes was a 90's thing and
there is no evidence that any current proposals will result in
anything along those lines. This whole thread is based on
anti-Government Political rhetoric and Rich is clearly confused by the >difference between 'abuse' and 'rebuttal'.
On Fri, 6 Sep 2024 01:42:58 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 5 Sep 2024 22:00:46 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo, you were and are off topic. Since it is your owm topic that is somewhat >>silly is it not?
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:The Subject is the value of good regulations - the Grenfell disaster >>>points that out, as did the Leaky Homes disaster. Your irrational >>>personal abuse is off topic, Tony.
On Thu, 5 Sep 2024 07:04:15 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Oh do change the subject. Why not? You have failed to justify anything else >>>>you
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:The leaky building crisis was bad enough, Tony - and this government >>>>>appears to be set to make decisions without (or against) expert advice >>>>>- their transport plans look to be bad for our health, and who knows >>>>>how bad they could get on firearms legislation . . .
On Thu, 05 Sep 2024 15:52:38 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>wrote:Ah, so your post was pointless as well as completely inappropriate, well >>>>>>done
On Thu, 05 Sep 2024 10:50:24 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/sep/04/grenfell-report-blames-decades-of-government-failure-and-companies-systematic-dishonesty
The Grenfell Tower disaster was the result of “decades of failure” by >>>>>>>>>central government to stop the spread of combustible cladding combined >>>>>>>>>with the “systematic dishonesty” of multimillion-dollar companies >>>>>>>>>whose products spread the fire that killed 72 people, a seven-year >>>>>>>>>public inquiry has found.
In a 1,700-page report that apportions blame for the 2017 tragedy >>>>>>>>>widely, Sir Martin Moore-Bick, the chair of the inquiry, found that >>>>>>>>>three firms – Arconic, Kingspan and Celotex – “engaged in deliberate >>>>>>>>>and sustained strategies to … mislead the market”.
He also found the architects Studio E, the builders Rydon and Harley >>>>>>>>>Facades and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea’s building >>>>>>>>>control department all bore responsibility for the blaze.
Studio E demonstrated “a cavalier attitude to the regulations >>>>>>>>>affecting fire safety”. Its failure to recognise that the >>>>>>>>>plastic-filled panels on the high-rise tower were dangerous was not >>>>>>>>>the action of a “reasonably competent architect” and it “bears a very >>>>>>>>>significant degree of responsibility for the disaster”, the inquiry >>>>>>>>>found.
The inquiry was highly critical of the tenant management organisation >>>>>>>>>(TMO), which was appointed by the local authority, the Royal Borough >>>>>>>>>of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC), to look after its thousands of homes >>>>>>>>>but, according to the report, consistently ignored residents’ views. >>>>>>>>>The TMO chief executive, Robert Black, established a “pattern of >>>>>>>>>concealment … in relation to fire safety matters” and the TMO “treated >>>>>>>>>the demands of managing fire safety as an inconvenience” in “a >>>>>>>>>betrayal of its statutory obligations to its tenants”, the report >>>>>>>>>said.
After 400 days of evidence in an inquiry that has cost the UK taxpayer >>>>>>>>>more than £200m, Moore-Bick reserved some of his most damning >>>>>>>>>conclusions for central government.
It regulates the safety of buildings but failed to tighten up >>>>>>>>>ambiguous fire regulations while it was engaged in a “bonfire of red >>>>>>>>>tape” launched by the Conservative prime minister David Cameron from >>>>>>>>>2010 to 2016 in an attempt to boost the economy after the global >>>>>>>>>financial crisis.
The inquiry found that the government was “well aware” of the risks >>>>>>>>>posed by highly flammable cladding “but failed to act on what it >>>>>>>>>knew”.
Eric Pickles, Cameron’s housing secretary until 2015, had >>>>>>>>>“enthusiastically supported” the prime minister’s drive to slash >>>>>>>>>regulations and it dominated his department’s thinking to the extent >>>>>>>>>that matters affecting fire safety and risk to life “were ignored, >>>>>>>>>delayed or disregarded”, the inquiry concluded.
____________________________________________
Here in New Zealand, we have also seen fires in boarding houses -with >>>>>>>>>deaths through people not being able to get out. The last NZ >>>>>>>>>government to have a "bonfire of regulations" led to the leaky homes >>>>>>>>>disaster. Should we be very afraid of what the expensive new ministry >>>>>>>>>set up for David Seymour will do?
Shame on you for using a disaster in the UK to make a spurious claim >>>>>>>>about elimination of building safety regulations by the current >>>>>>>>Government. Do you have any credible evidence that building safety >>>>>>>>regulations are being loosened?
You make a good point, Crash - Seymour made a lot of noise about >>>>>>>clearing the decks of regulation that was holding up industry. Since >>>>>>>then we have learned that a whole department has been set up with a >>>>>>>couple of well publicised reviews that have put nothing concrete >>>>>>>forward yet . . .
for saying so.
Clearly you have no evidence that anything is amiss in this country. >>>>>
have posted in this thread, which as we all know is pure political trash talk.
Your twists and turns are pathetic and transparent.
And I did not abuise you in the slightest. You see offense where there is only
truth, that is sociopathic.
Your entire thread is deliberate mischief-making political hogwash.
It seems to me that Rich is yet to realise that the Grenfell disaster
did not happen in NZ and there is no evidence that the causes of that >disaster have any application here. Leaky Homes was a 90's thing and
there is no evidence that any current proposals will result in
anything along those lines. This whole thread is based on
anti-Government Political rhetoric and Rich is clearly confused by the >difference between 'abuse' and 'rebuttal'.
On Fri, 06 Sep 2024 14:45:51 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>Absolutely none of that has anything to do with the Grenfell disaster. Not one tiny bit.
wrote:
On Fri, 6 Sep 2024 01:42:58 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 5 Sep 2024 22:00:46 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo, you were and are off topic. Since it is your owm topic that is somewhat >>>silly is it not?
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:The Subject is the value of good regulations - the Grenfell disaster >>>>points that out, as did the Leaky Homes disaster. Your irrational >>>>personal abuse is off topic, Tony.
On Thu, 5 Sep 2024 07:04:15 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Oh do change the subject. Why not? You have failed to justify anything >>>>>else
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:The leaky building crisis was bad enough, Tony - and this government >>>>>>appears to be set to make decisions without (or against) expert advice >>>>>>- their transport plans look to be bad for our health, and who knows >>>>>>how bad they could get on firearms legislation . . .
On Thu, 05 Sep 2024 15:52:38 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>>wrote:Ah, so your post was pointless as well as completely inappropriate, well >>>>>>>done
On Thu, 05 Sep 2024 10:50:24 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>>wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/sep/04/grenfell-report-blames-decades-of-government-failure-and-companies-systematic-dishonesty
The Grenfell Tower disaster was the result of “decades of failure” by >>>>>>>>>>central government to stop the spread of combustible cladding combined
with the “systematic dishonesty” of multimillion-dollar companies >>>>>>>>>>whose products spread the fire that killed 72 people, a seven-year >>>>>>>>>>public inquiry has found.
In a 1,700-page report that apportions blame for the 2017 tragedy >>>>>>>>>>widely, Sir Martin Moore-Bick, the chair of the inquiry, found that >>>>>>>>>>three firms – Arconic, Kingspan and Celotex – “engaged in deliberate >>>>>>>>>>and sustained strategies to … mislead the market”.
He also found the architects Studio E, the builders Rydon and Harley >>>>>>>>>>Facades and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea’s building >>>>>>>>>>control department all bore responsibility for the blaze.
Studio E demonstrated “a cavalier attitude to the regulations >>>>>>>>>>affecting fire safety”. Its failure to recognise that the >>>>>>>>>>plastic-filled panels on the high-rise tower were dangerous was not >>>>>>>>>>the action of a “reasonably competent architect” and it “bears a very >>>>>>>>>>significant degree of responsibility for the disaster”, the inquiry >>>>>>>>>>found.
The inquiry was highly critical of the tenant management organisation >>>>>>>>>>(TMO), which was appointed by the local authority, the Royal Borough >>>>>>>>>>of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC), to look after its thousands of homes
but, according to the report, consistently ignored residents’ views. >>>>>>>>>>The TMO chief executive, Robert Black, established a “pattern of >>>>>>>>>>concealment … in relation to fire safety matters” and the TMO “treated
the demands of managing fire safety as an inconvenience” in “a >>>>>>>>>>betrayal of its statutory obligations to its tenants”, the report >>>>>>>>>>said.
After 400 days of evidence in an inquiry that has cost the UK taxpayer
more than £200m, Moore-Bick reserved some of his most damning >>>>>>>>>>conclusions for central government.
It regulates the safety of buildings but failed to tighten up >>>>>>>>>>ambiguous fire regulations while it was engaged in a “bonfire of red >>>>>>>>>>tape” launched by the Conservative prime minister David Cameron from >>>>>>>>>>2010 to 2016 in an attempt to boost the economy after the global >>>>>>>>>>financial crisis.
The inquiry found that the government was “well aware” of the risks >>>>>>>>>>posed by highly flammable cladding “but failed to act on what it >>>>>>>>>>knew”.
Eric Pickles, Cameron’s housing secretary until 2015, had >>>>>>>>>>“enthusiastically supported” the prime minister’s drive to slash >>>>>>>>>>regulations and it dominated his department’s thinking to the extent >>>>>>>>>>that matters affecting fire safety and risk to life “were ignored, >>>>>>>>>>delayed or disregarded”, the inquiry concluded.
____________________________________________
Here in New Zealand, we have also seen fires in boarding houses -with >>>>>>>>>>deaths through people not being able to get out. The last NZ >>>>>>>>>>government to have a "bonfire of regulations" led to the leaky homes >>>>>>>>>>disaster. Should we be very afraid of what the expensive new ministry
set up for David Seymour will do?
Shame on you for using a disaster in the UK to make a spurious claim >>>>>>>>>about elimination of building safety regulations by the current >>>>>>>>>Government. Do you have any credible evidence that building safety >>>>>>>>>regulations are being loosened?
You make a good point, Crash - Seymour made a lot of noise about >>>>>>>>clearing the decks of regulation that was holding up industry. Since >>>>>>>>then we have learned that a whole department has been set up with a >>>>>>>>couple of well publicised reviews that have put nothing concrete >>>>>>>>forward yet . . .
for saying so.
Clearly you have no evidence that anything is amiss in this country. >>>>>>
you
have posted in this thread, which as we all know is pure political trash >>>>>talk.
Your twists and turns are pathetic and transparent.
And I did not abuise you in the slightest. You see offense where there is >>>only
truth, that is sociopathic.
Your entire thread is deliberate mischief-making political hogwash.
It seems to me that Rich is yet to realise that the Grenfell disaster
did not happen in NZ and there is no evidence that the causes of that >>disaster have any application here. Leaky Homes was a 90's thing and
there is no evidence that any current proposals will result in
anything along those lines. This whole thread is based on
anti-Government Political rhetoric and Rich is clearly confused by the >>difference between 'abuse' and 'rebuttal'.
The value of good regulations. Will this be good for us? Will there
be adequate assessment of international products? How much of higher
prices in New Zealand are due to transport costs, higher GST and
limited competition between suppliers?
https://whatsoninvers.nz/new-legislation-aims-to-cut-building-costs-in-new-zealand/
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:We have yet to see if it is accompanied by good regulations, toy - do
On Fri, 06 Sep 2024 14:45:51 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:Absolutely none of that has anything to do with the Grenfell disaster. Not one >tiny bit.
On Fri, 6 Sep 2024 01:42:58 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 5 Sep 2024 22:00:46 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:No, you were and are off topic. Since it is your owm topic that is somewhat >>>>silly is it not?
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:The Subject is the value of good regulations - the Grenfell disaster >>>>>points that out, as did the Leaky Homes disaster. Your irrational >>>>>personal abuse is off topic, Tony.
On Thu, 5 Sep 2024 07:04:15 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Oh do change the subject. Why not? You have failed to justify anything >>>>>>else
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:The leaky building crisis was bad enough, Tony - and this government >>>>>>>appears to be set to make decisions without (or against) expert advice >>>>>>>- their transport plans look to be bad for our health, and who knows >>>>>>>how bad they could get on firearms legislation . . .
On Thu, 05 Sep 2024 15:52:38 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>>>wrote:Ah, so your post was pointless as well as completely inappropriate, well
On Thu, 05 Sep 2024 10:50:24 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/sep/04/grenfell-report-blames-decades-of-government-failure-and-companies-systematic-dishonesty
The Grenfell Tower disaster was the result of “decades of failure” by
central government to stop the spread of combustible cladding combined
with the “systematic dishonesty” of multimillion-dollar companies >>>>>>>>>>>whose products spread the fire that killed 72 people, a seven-year >>>>>>>>>>>public inquiry has found.
In a 1,700-page report that apportions blame for the 2017 tragedy >>>>>>>>>>>widely, Sir Martin Moore-Bick, the chair of the inquiry, found that >>>>>>>>>>>three firms – Arconic, Kingspan and Celotex – “engaged in deliberate >>>>>>>>>>>and sustained strategies to … mislead the market”.
He also found the architects Studio E, the builders Rydon and Harley >>>>>>>>>>>Facades and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea’s building >>>>>>>>>>>control department all bore responsibility for the blaze. >>>>>>>>>>>
Studio E demonstrated “a cavalier attitude to the regulations >>>>>>>>>>>affecting fire safety”. Its failure to recognise that the >>>>>>>>>>>plastic-filled panels on the high-rise tower were dangerous was not >>>>>>>>>>>the action of a “reasonably competent architect” and it “bears a very
significant degree of responsibility for the disaster”, the inquiry >>>>>>>>>>>found.
The inquiry was highly critical of the tenant management organisation
(TMO), which was appointed by the local authority, the Royal Borough >>>>>>>>>>>of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC), to look after its thousands of homes
but, according to the report, consistently ignored residents’ views. >>>>>>>>>>>The TMO chief executive, Robert Black, established a “pattern of >>>>>>>>>>>concealment … in relation to fire safety matters” and the TMO “treated
the demands of managing fire safety as an inconvenience” in “a >>>>>>>>>>>betrayal of its statutory obligations to its tenants”, the report >>>>>>>>>>>said.
After 400 days of evidence in an inquiry that has cost the UK taxpayer
more than £200m, Moore-Bick reserved some of his most damning >>>>>>>>>>>conclusions for central government.
It regulates the safety of buildings but failed to tighten up >>>>>>>>>>>ambiguous fire regulations while it was engaged in a “bonfire of red >>>>>>>>>>>tape” launched by the Conservative prime minister David Cameron from >>>>>>>>>>>2010 to 2016 in an attempt to boost the economy after the global >>>>>>>>>>>financial crisis.
The inquiry found that the government was “well aware” of the risks >>>>>>>>>>>posed by highly flammable cladding “but failed to act on what it >>>>>>>>>>>knew”.
Eric Pickles, Cameron’s housing secretary until 2015, had >>>>>>>>>>>“enthusiastically supported” the prime minister’s drive to slash >>>>>>>>>>>regulations and it dominated his department’s thinking to the extent >>>>>>>>>>>that matters affecting fire safety and risk to life “were ignored, >>>>>>>>>>>delayed or disregarded”, the inquiry concluded.
____________________________________________
Here in New Zealand, we have also seen fires in boarding houses -with
deaths through people not being able to get out. The last NZ >>>>>>>>>>>government to have a "bonfire of regulations" led to the leaky homes >>>>>>>>>>>disaster. Should we be very afraid of what the expensive new ministry
set up for David Seymour will do?
Shame on you for using a disaster in the UK to make a spurious claim >>>>>>>>>>about elimination of building safety regulations by the current >>>>>>>>>>Government. Do you have any credible evidence that building safety >>>>>>>>>>regulations are being loosened?
You make a good point, Crash - Seymour made a lot of noise about >>>>>>>>>clearing the decks of regulation that was holding up industry. Since >>>>>>>>>then we have learned that a whole department has been set up with a >>>>>>>>>couple of well publicised reviews that have put nothing concrete >>>>>>>>>forward yet . . .
done
for saying so.
Clearly you have no evidence that anything is amiss in this country. >>>>>>>
you
have posted in this thread, which as we all know is pure political trash >>>>>>talk.
Your twists and turns are pathetic and transparent.
And I did not abuise you in the slightest. You see offense where there is >>>>only
truth, that is sociopathic.
Your entire thread is deliberate mischief-making political hogwash.
It seems to me that Rich is yet to realise that the Grenfell disaster
did not happen in NZ and there is no evidence that the causes of that >>>disaster have any application here. Leaky Homes was a 90's thing and >>>there is no evidence that any current proposals will result in
anything along those lines. This whole thread is based on >>>anti-Government Political rhetoric and Rich is clearly confused by the >>>difference between 'abuse' and 'rebuttal'.
The value of good regulations. Will this be good for us? Will there
be adequate assessment of international products? How much of higher
prices in New Zealand are due to transport costs, higher GST and
limited competition between suppliers?
https://whatsoninvers.nz/new-legislation-aims-to-cut-building-costs-in-new-zealand/
On Fri, 6 Sep 2024 22:20:50 -0000 (UTC), TonyStill nothing to do with the Grenfell disaster - that is your topic, not mine, when do you plan to address "your" topic?
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:We have yet to see if it is accompanied by good regulations, toy - do
On Fri, 06 Sep 2024 14:45:51 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:Absolutely none of that has anything to do with the Grenfell disaster. Not >>one
On Fri, 6 Sep 2024 01:42:58 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 5 Sep 2024 22:00:46 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:No, you were and are off topic. Since it is your owm topic that is >>>>>somewhat
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:The Subject is the value of good regulations - the Grenfell disaster >>>>>>points that out, as did the Leaky Homes disaster. Your irrational >>>>>>personal abuse is off topic, Tony.
On Thu, 5 Sep 2024 07:04:15 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Oh do change the subject. Why not? You have failed to justify anything >>>>>>>else
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:The leaky building crisis was bad enough, Tony - and this government >>>>>>>>appears to be set to make decisions without (or against) expert advice >>>>>>>>- their transport plans look to be bad for our health, and who knows >>>>>>>>how bad they could get on firearms legislation . . .
On Thu, 05 Sep 2024 15:52:38 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>>>>wrote:Ah, so your post was pointless as well as completely inappropriate, >>>>>>>>>well
On Thu, 05 Sep 2024 10:50:24 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/sep/04/grenfell-report-blames-decades-of-government-failure-and-companies-systematic-dishonesty
The Grenfell Tower disaster was the result of “decades of failure” >>>>>>>>>>>>by
central government to stop the spread of combustible cladding >>>>>>>>>>>>combined
with the “systematic dishonesty” of multimillion-dollar companies >>>>>>>>>>>>whose products spread the fire that killed 72 people, a seven-year >>>>>>>>>>>>public inquiry has found.
In a 1,700-page report that apportions blame for the 2017 tragedy >>>>>>>>>>>>widely, Sir Martin Moore-Bick, the chair of the inquiry, found that >>>>>>>>>>>>three firms – Arconic, Kingspan and Celotex – “engaged in deliberate
and sustained strategies to … mislead the market”.
He also found the architects Studio E, the builders Rydon and Harley
Facades and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea’s building >>>>>>>>>>>>control department all bore responsibility for the blaze. >>>>>>>>>>>>
Studio E demonstrated “a cavalier attitude to the regulations >>>>>>>>>>>>affecting fire safety”. Its failure to recognise that the >>>>>>>>>>>>plastic-filled panels on the high-rise tower were dangerous was not >>>>>>>>>>>>the action of a “reasonably competent architect” and it “bears a >>>>>>>>>>>>very
significant degree of responsibility for the disaster”, the inquiry >>>>>>>>>>>>found.
The inquiry was highly critical of the tenant management >>>>>>>>>>>>organisation
(TMO), which was appointed by the local authority, the Royal Borough
of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC), to look after its thousands of >>>>>>>>>>>>homes
but, according to the report, consistently ignored residents’ views.
The TMO chief executive, Robert Black, established a “pattern of >>>>>>>>>>>>concealment … in relation to fire safety matters” and the TMO >>>>>>>>>>>>“treated
the demands of managing fire safety as an inconvenience” in “a >>>>>>>>>>>>betrayal of its statutory obligations to its tenants”, the report >>>>>>>>>>>>said.
After 400 days of evidence in an inquiry that has cost the UK >>>>>>>>>>>>taxpayer
more than £200m, Moore-Bick reserved some of his most damning >>>>>>>>>>>>conclusions for central government.
It regulates the safety of buildings but failed to tighten up >>>>>>>>>>>>ambiguous fire regulations while it was engaged in a “bonfire of red
tape” launched by the Conservative prime minister David Cameron from
2010 to 2016 in an attempt to boost the economy after the global >>>>>>>>>>>>financial crisis.
The inquiry found that the government was “well aware” of the risks >>>>>>>>>>>>posed by highly flammable cladding “but failed to act on what it >>>>>>>>>>>>knew”.
Eric Pickles, Cameron’s housing secretary until 2015, had >>>>>>>>>>>>“enthusiastically supported” the prime minister’s drive to slash >>>>>>>>>>>>regulations and it dominated his department’s thinking to the extent
that matters affecting fire safety and risk to life “were ignored, >>>>>>>>>>>>delayed or disregarded”, the inquiry concluded.
____________________________________________
Here in New Zealand, we have also seen fires in boarding houses >>>>>>>>>>>>-with
deaths through people not being able to get out. The last NZ >>>>>>>>>>>>government to have a "bonfire of regulations" led to the leaky homes
disaster. Should we be very afraid of what the expensive new >>>>>>>>>>>>ministry
set up for David Seymour will do?
Shame on you for using a disaster in the UK to make a spurious claim >>>>>>>>>>>about elimination of building safety regulations by the current >>>>>>>>>>>Government. Do you have any credible evidence that building safety >>>>>>>>>>>regulations are being loosened?
You make a good point, Crash - Seymour made a lot of noise about >>>>>>>>>>clearing the decks of regulation that was holding up industry. Since >>>>>>>>>>then we have learned that a whole department has been set up with a >>>>>>>>>>couple of well publicised reviews that have put nothing concrete >>>>>>>>>>forward yet . . .
done
for saying so.
Clearly you have no evidence that anything is amiss in this country. >>>>>>>>
you
have posted in this thread, which as we all know is pure political trash >>>>>>>talk.
Your twists and turns are pathetic and transparent.
silly is it not?
And I did not abuise you in the slightest. You see offense where there is >>>>>only
truth, that is sociopathic.
Your entire thread is deliberate mischief-making political hogwash.
It seems to me that Rich is yet to realise that the Grenfell disaster >>>>did not happen in NZ and there is no evidence that the causes of that >>>>disaster have any application here. Leaky Homes was a 90's thing and >>>>there is no evidence that any current proposals will result in
anything along those lines. This whole thread is based on >>>>anti-Government Political rhetoric and Rich is clearly confused by the >>>>difference between 'abuse' and 'rebuttal'.
The value of good regulations. Will this be good for us? Will there
be adequate assessment of international products? How much of higher >>>prices in New Zealand are due to transport costs, higher GST and
limited competition between suppliers?
https://whatsoninvers.nz/new-legislation-aims-to-cut-building-costs-in-new-zealand/
tiny bit.
try to keep on topic, Tony!
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 496 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 61:03:19 |
| Calls: | 9,762 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 13,744 |
| Messages: | 6,185,592 |