Which had eight residents on its board. Not exactly fat cats?
I'm not talking about Grenfel tower or saying the fat cats make their money through rent. That apart, good point!
I mean that the eu migrants that work all over the capital can only afford to work so hard for such meagre pay because they live in slums. The fat cats getting rich are their employers.
Eventually they realise their labour is worth more, so more migrants are needed
That's far from the whole story, as you well know.
The story is that the elite play divide and rule with the poor by injecting masses of unskilled labour into the areas that can least cope with it, then watch from afar as the friction between the working classes is ratcheted up by competition for housing, jobs and resources
I think you're attributing deliberate, scheming malice where little, or none, exists. That doesn't mean the 'elite' are blameless: just that consequences are hard to judge before the event, and easier afterwards.
The 'elite' are not sitting around boardroom tables stroking white cats. They're just as incompetent as you or I. Which is part of the problem.
Hmm well it's not for us to guess their intentions, but they should have been more cautious if they weren't sure. It wasn't that hard to predict really
I'm still struggling, isam. How do I identify fellow members of the elite when I'm on the street? Is there a secret handshake I haven't been taught yet?
If you don't know, you're not part of the elite!
Blimmin' heck if jetsetting hedge fund managers aren't part of the global elite who on earth does that leave?!?
I think it's simple: people who are moderately successful and don't share isam's values are part of the 'elite'. I'm going to put together a small questionnaire so I can quickly adjudge whether people are secretly elite.
Camden council removing cladding from some blocks and appointing fire wardens and seeking legal advice as cladding 'not what was ordered' Big trouble brewing in builder land.
Camden do employ Project Managers and Building Control Officers. They should and would have checked what was being installed was correct. I have a feeling that Camden may be lying about this.
Council leader on Sky was very insistent and seemed genuine that they are taking legal advice but I guess we will see in time if a raft of suits are lodged.
As someone who does a lot of work for Councils their project managers snag our work in an incredibly detailed fashion. If non specified panels were fitted then the Project manager would have spotted it.
As the slums in London that house 4 migrants to a room show, the effect of mass importation of EU labour is to place people in abject poverty while they line the pocket of fat cats with their labour. If the migrants can only get by on those wages by living in dangerous shacks, how can people feel good encouraging it? And is it any wonder that British people used to living in non poverty conditions can't compete?
If people are working illegally then your efforts to link any of this to the EU are wide of the mark.
Behind every great fortune is a crime forgotten. The nice parts of London are built on the sweat of the exploited, legals and illegals
Which had eight residents on its board. Not exactly fat cats?
I'm not talking about Grenfel tower or saying the fat cats make their money through rent. That apart, good point!
I mean that the eu migrants that work all over the capital can only afford to work so hard for such meagre pay because they live in slums. The fat cats getting rich are their employers.
Eventually they realise their labour is worth more, so more migrants are needed
Yes, but they chose to live in those places and work in those conditions. And they presumably did so because they were the best options available to them.
Willing buyer, willing seller.
A fine line you walk there. Free market economics can be a nice disguise for exploitation.
I struggle to see how removing a choice from someone makes them better off.
Add that to the various minimum and living wages, I'm not sure your point "abject poverty" is well proven. I accept absolutely that the instances you pasted are very very far from acceptable for a large number of reasons.
Well I was talking about London!
The migrants are living in abject poverty. It's the only way they can afford to undercut the people who's jobs they take. I don't blame them & never have, the blame is entirely on the profit makers. You can't have a free market that requires people to live below a certain standard, without being morally bankrupt
laid at the door of any government policy.
An example would be - A job that used to pay £10ph and enabled a family to live to a certain standard is now done for £6.50ph by people that live 16 to a semi. If they didn't live like that, they couldn't work for £6.50ph.
Also the minimum hourly wage is not enough to live on if you can only get 15-20 hours a week on a zero hours contract. The employment figures are so great because many former breadwinners are doing those hours
Yes I understand those circumstances. I of course would like data but I'm not sure that's possible. I will have a dig around.
I think that's why Ursula Le Guin's short story is so apt. The people who benefit from the migrants toil are unaware of how they must live to deliver it.
The former breadwinners on part time hours does have some data, I'll try to find it
Camden council removing cladding from some blocks and appointing fire wardens and seeking legal advice as cladding 'not what was ordered' Big trouble brewing in builder land.
Or suppliers. It is not unknown in the building industry for materials supplied not to be the ones ordered. Sometimes this is mistakes, other times out-and-out fraud. Consumers are not the only people who can fall for fakers.
It may also depend on the documentation. There might be a certain amount of backside-covering going on. This is why documentation should have been secured on day one.
If someone did substitute materials just to save a few thousands (and for no other reasons), then they should face some severe jail time IMO.
Deviances need to be considered: where the builders/installers came across an issue ("We can't get the cladding in time') and the architect signs off a deviance from the original plans without telling the client ...
I have in the past worked on large scale building projects. I have to say some of the comment is ridiculous. As if the person specifying products on a 10 million pound project would change the product to save a few thousand pounds. The key things depend on what was specified. You may have a traditional specification that describes the product in great detail, and where changes to materials may be discussed. If however there is a performance specification, it may only say that the cladding must meet British standard xxxx, or building regulations, must be available in 3 colours etc that would give greater leeway for contractor to source and secure best value material. The problem only comes when regulations need reviewing.
The other thing is that the cladding could have had a minimum fire rating and then the client could be looking to achieve higher values on insulation. That would explain the situation to me. The client is trying to achieve the best possible u value and energy performance for the building as a whole. Two very similar products both meet the building regs but the slightly cheaper one has a better insulation value - It would be difficult to argue to use the fire rated product if both met the relevant fire safety standards.
People have done stupid things for sums much smaller than a few thousand. It might not be the person specifying the product, but someone else further down the line. And false product substitution does happen in the industry, though I'd hope it would have been picked up later.
But I agree it's unlikely.
Your second paragraph might be very pertinent.
As it happens, a few days ago I did say that it might be that it turns out that no-one did anything wrong according to regulations and laws. Which won't satisfy the baying mob.
If you want to fiddle a bit, Davey is 5 on Ladbrokes, Cable 1.64 on Betfair. Possible to back both, obviously higher stake on Cable, and be green(er) if either get it.
People have done stupid things for sums much smaller than a few thousand. It might not be the person specifying the product, but someone else further down the line. And false product substitution does happen in the industry, though I'd hope it would have been picked up later.
My experience of working in the trade many moons ago, the common chain of sub-contractor of sub-contractor of sub-contractor, who despite the big name on the site turn up with 3 guys in a battered white van. By the time it gets down to the little guy saving a few £1000 is a big proportion of their job, even if it is peanuts of the overall scheme.
(Also what about the insulation panels behind the cladding in many cases ?)
The quickest risk mitigation measure might be retrofitting sprinkler systems, but I suspect there will be industry capacity issues with both this and replacing cladding...
IMV the insulation panels behind the exterior cladding is still 'cladding'There need to be some deep, searching questions asked of many people, and perhaps even our entire planning/building/controls sector. ...
There are several companies claiming the costs of retrofitting sprinkler systems is not prohibitive (admittedly they are talking their own book, but even so this is maybe an order of magnitude less than replacing cladding). The difficulty of this, and the likely efficacy are clearly things government is in the best position to get assessed quickly.
I agree about the cladding - it's just that the vast majority of discussion and commentary has been about the exterior aluminium sandwich panels. 'Other things' might well have gone wrong, but it's very difficult to see that the rate the fire propagated up the building could be blamed on anything instead of the exterior cladding (& this has been documented in several other instances).
How would internal sprinklers be of benefit when it is the exterior cladding that is on fire?
I suspect the best low cost option, if cladding replacement isn't possible, is to have proper alarm and evacuation procedures.
Slows the spread of fire within the building - hopefully enough to allow evacuation. (This is what happened in the recent similar fire in Australia.) Some buildings have external sprinkler heads protecting the cladding itself.
Not having a combustible building exterior is ideal, but sealing with 600 plus tower blocks is going to take some time. One thing which might well have contributed to the disaster is the combustibility of UPVC window frames.
Or suppliers. It is not unknown in the building industry for materials supplied not to be the ones ordered. Sometimes this is mistakes, other times out-and-out fraud. Consumers are not the only people who can fall for fakers.
Yep, this was one of my earliest thoughts on seeing the pics of the Grenfell cladding on fire.
The government has said ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------- The Department for Communities and Local Government said: “Cladding using a composite aluminium panel with a polyethylene core would be non-compliant with current Building Regulations guidance. This material should not be used as cladding on buildings over 18m in height.”
As the slums in London that house 4 migrants to a room show, the effect of mass importation of EU labour is to place people in abject poverty while they line the pocket of fat cats with their labour. If the migrants can only get by on those wages by living in dangerous shacks, how can people feel good encouraging it? And is it any wonder that British people used to living in non poverty conditions can't compete?
If people are working illegally then your efforts to link any of this to the EU are wide of the mark.
Behind every great fortune is a crime forgotten. The nice parts of London are built on the sweat of the exploited, legals and illegals
Which had eight residents on its board. Not exactly fat cats?
I'm not talking about Grenfel tower or saying the fat cats make their money through rent. That apart, good point!
I mean that the eu migrants that work all over the capital can only afford to work so hard for such meagre pay because they live in slums. The fat cats getting rich are their employers.
Eventually they realise their labour is worth more, so more migrants are needed
Yes, but they chose to live in those places and work in those conditions. And they presumably did so because they were the best options available to them.
Willing buyer, willing seller.
A fine line you walk there. Free market economics can be a nice disguise for exploitation.
I struggle to see how removing a choice from someone makes them better off.
Well let's examine that statement, it won't take long.
A couple of examples:
Building regulations.
Basic food standards.
Both of these remove a choice from people to live in extremely cheap, leaky firetraps and eat sinews of poorly husbanded animal tissue scraped off the bottom of filthy machines that has no nutritional value.
The libertarian analysis of economic matters is fundamentally flawed.
Are you suggesting we remove building and food standards to increase 'choice'?
As the slums in London that house 4 migrants to a room show, the effect of mass importation of EU labour is to place people in abject poverty while they line the pocket of fat cats with their labour. If the migrants can only get by on those wages by living in dangerous shacks, how can people feel good encouraging it? And is it any wonder that British people used to living in non poverty conditions can't compete?
If people are working illegally then your efforts to link any of this to the EU are wide of the mark.
Behind every great fortune is a crime forgotten. The nice parts of London are built on the sweat of the exploited, legals and illegals
Which had eight residents on its board. Not exactly fat cats?
I'm not talking about Grenfel tower or saying the fat cats make their money through rent. That apart, good point!
I mean that the eu migrants that work all over the capital can only afford to work so hard for such meagre pay because they live in slums. The fat cats getting rich are their employers.
Eventually they realise their labour is worth more, so more migrants are needed
Yes, but they chose to live in those places and work in those conditions. And they presumably did so because they were the best options available to them.
Willing buyer, willing seller.
A fine line you walk there. Free market economics can be a nice disguise for exploitation.
I struggle to see how removing a choice from someone makes them better off.
Well let's examine that statement, it won't take long.
A couple of examples:
Building regulations.
Basic food standards.
Both of these remove a choice from people to live in extremely cheap, leaky firetraps and eat sinews of poorly husbanded animal tissue scraped off the bottom of filthy machines that has no nutritional value.
The libertarian analysis of economic matters is fundamentally flawed.
Are you suggesting we remove building and food standards to increase 'choice'?
If there are two sandwiches on sale, one of which follows food hygiene standards, and one which doesn't, then why shouldn't the consumer be allowed to choose between them?
The truth is Lamb would never have won as the stance of too many members on the EU makes Norman Lamb look like @isam of this parish on the matter. I'm hopeful that at least one other (Davey?) runs though so the Lib Dems can decide whether to be more Twickenham or Surbiton............
Which had eight residents on its board. Not exactly fat cats?
SNIP
Yes, but they chose to live in those places and work in those conditions. And they presumably did so because they were the best options available to them.
Willing buyer, willing seller.
A fine line you walk there. Free market economics can be a nice disguise for exploitation.
I struggle to see how removing a choice from someone makes them better off.
Well let's examine that statement, it won't take long.
A couple of examples:
Building regulations.
Basic food standards.
Both of these remove a choice from people to live in extremely cheap, leaky firetraps and eat sinews of poorly husbanded animal tissue scraped off the bottom of filthy machines that has no nutritional value.
The libertarian analysis of economic matters is fundamentally flawed.
Are you suggesting we remove building and food standards to increase 'choice'?
If there are two sandwiches on sale, one of which follows food hygiene standards, and one which doesn't, then why shouldn't the consumer be allowed to choose between them?
Because a) the consumer doesn't have perfect information and b) the state has some role in improving the health off its citizens and c) the state has some role in maintaining the welfare of animals.
Under your thinking, shops would be able to sell dog shit waffle sandwiches and flavour them with chocolate as 'chocolate-style waffles'.
As the slums in London that house 4 migrants to a room show, the effect of mass importation of EU labour is to place people in abject poverty while they line the pocket of fat cats with their labour. If the migrants can only get by on those wages by living in dangerous shacks, how can people feel good encouraging it? And is it any wonder that British people used to living in non poverty conditions can't compete?
If people are working illegally then your efforts to link any of this to the EU are wide of the mark.
Behind every great fortune is a crime forgotten. The nice parts of London are built on the sweat of the exploited, legals and illegals
Which had eight residents on its board. Not exactly fat cats?
I'm not talking about Grenfel tower or saying the fat cats make their money through rent. That apart, good point!
I mean that the eu migrants that work all over the capital can only afford to work so hard for such meagre pay because they live in slums. The fat cats getting rich are their employers.
Eventually they realise their labour is worth more, so more migrants are needed
Yes, but they chose to live in those places and work in those conditions. And they presumably did so because they were the best options available to them.
Willing buyer, willing seller.
A fine line you walk there. Free market economics can be a nice disguise for exploitation.
I struggle to see how removing a choice from someone makes them better off.
I think it's probably a good thing for individual welfare that it's illegal to sell your kidney, for example. Or would you argue for unrestricted organ trade ?
Willing buyer; willing seller is all very well, but given the potential for vast disparities in power between the two, such markets aren't always equitable. Which is one of the reasons a civilised society has a certain amount of regulation. Where you draw the line is, as ever, the question.
Which had eight residents on its board. Not exactly fat cats?
I'm not talking about Grenfel tower or saying the fat cats make their money through rent. That apart, good point!
I mean that the eu migrants that work all over the capital can only afford to work so hard for such meagre pay because they live in slums. The fat cats getting rich are their employers.
Eventually they realise their labour is worth more, so more migrants are needed
Yes, but they chose to live in those places and work in those conditions. And they presumably did so because they were the best options available to them.
Willing buyer, willing seller.
A fine line you walk there. Free market economics can be a nice disguise for exploitation.
I struggle to see how removing a choice from someone makes them better off.
Well let's examine that statement, it won't take long.
A couple of examples:
Building regulations.
Basic food standards.
Both value.
The libertarian analysis of economic matters is fundamentally flawed.
Are you suggesting we remove building and food standards to increase 'choice'?
If there are two sandwiches on sale, one of which follows food hygiene standards, and one which doesn't, then why shouldn't the consumer be allowed to choose between them?
Because eating dodgy sandwiches to save a bit of money is likely to increase costs for the rest of us further down the line. If someone had spent 10 pence more on a sandwich that did not give them food poisoning they would not now be in that queue at the doctors or taking up that hospital bed or sitting at home unproductive instead of being at work.
I am no expert but when seeing the appalling smoke given off in the blaze and the toxicity of the smoke I cannot see how sprinklers would have had an effect as the smoke and it's intensity would surely be the fatal aspect, not so much the fire.
However I am sure others have a better knowledge than me and I could of course be wrong
Camden council removing cladding from some blocks and appointing fire wardens and seeking legal advice as cladding 'not what was ordered' Big trouble brewing in builder land.
Or suppliers. It is not unknown in the building industry for materials supplied not to be the ones ordered. Sometimes this is mistakes, other times out-and-out fraud. Consumers are not the only people who can fall for fakers.
It may also depend on the documentation. There might be a certain amount of backside-covering going on. This is why documentation should have been secured on day one.
If someone did substitute materials just to save a few thousands (and for no other reasons), then they should face some severe jail time IMO.
Deviances need to be considered: where the builders/installers came across an issue ("We can't get the cladding in time') and the architect signs off a deviance from the original plans without telling the client ...
I have in the past worked on large scale building projects. I have to say some of the comment is ridiculous. As if the person specifying products on a 10 million pound project would change the product to save a few thousand pounds. The key things depend on what was specified. You may have a traditional specification that describes the product in great detail, and where changes to materials may be discussed. If however there is a performance specification, it may only say that the cladding must meet British standard xxxx, or building regulations, must be available in 3 colours etc that would give greater leeway for contractor to source and secure best value material. The problem only comes when regulations need reviewing.
The other thing is that the cladding could have had a minimum fire rating and then the client could be looking to achieve higher values on insulation. That would explain the situation to me. The client is trying to achieve the best possible u value and energy performance for the building as a whole. Two very similar products both meet the building regs but the slightly cheaper one has a better insulation value - It would be difficult to argue to use the fire rated product if both met the relevant fire safety standards.
Still, I have to go with sister rata who is currently a site project manager on a (clad) high rise build for a big corporate client - there is no way on earth that should have happened.
I've not chatted with her in more detail, but as a starting point, it is hard to disagree, really.
As the slums in London that house 4 migrants to a room show, the effect of mass importation of EU labour is to place people in abject poverty while they line the pocket of fat cats with their labour. If the migrants can only get by on those wages by living in dangerous shacks, how can people feel good encouraging it? And is it any wonder that British people used to living in non poverty conditions can't compete?
If people are working illegally then your efforts to link any of this to the EU are wide of the mark.
Behind every great fortune is a crime forgotten. The nice parts of London are built on the sweat of the exploited, legals and illegals
Which had eight residents on its board. Not exactly fat cats?
I'm not talking about Grenfel tower or saying the fat cats make their money through rent. That apart, good point!
I mean that the eu migrants that work all over the capital can only afford to work so hard for such meagre pay because they live in slums. The fat cats getting rich are their employers.
Eventually they realise their labour is worth more, so more migrants are needed
Yes, but they chose to live in those places and work in those conditions. And they presumably did so because they were the best options available to them.
Willing buyer, willing seller.
A fine line you walk there. Free market economics can be a nice disguise for exploitation.
I struggle to see how removing a choice from someone makes them better off.
Well let's examine that statement, it won't take long.
A couple of examples:
Building regulations.
Basic food standards.
Both of these remove a choice from people to live in extremely cheap, leaky firetraps and eat sinews of poorly husbanded animal tissue scraped off the bottom of filthy machines that has no nutritional value.
The libertarian analysis of economic matters is fundamentally flawed.
Are you suggesting we remove building and food standards to increase 'choice'?
If there are two sandwiches on sale, one of which follows food hygiene standards, and one which doesn't, then why shouldn't the consumer be allowed to choose between them?
There was that idea some years ago, that to boost sales, supermarkets should put above their seafood section: "Mercury-free Fish".
Which had eight residents on its board. Not exactly fat cats?
I'm not talking about Grenfel tower or saying the fat cats make their money through rent. That apart, good point!
I mean that the eu migrants that work all over the capital can only afford to work so hard for such meagre pay because they live in slums. The fat cats getting rich are their employers.
Eventually they realise their labour is worth more, so more migrants are needed
Yes, but they chose to live in those places and work in those conditions. And they presumably did so because they were the best options available to them.
Willing buyer, willing seller.
A fine line you walk there. Free market economics can be a nice disguise for exploitation.
I struggle to see how removing a choice from someone makes them better off.
Well let's examine that statement, it won't take long.
A couple of examples:
Building regulations.
Basic food standards.
Both value.
The libertarian analysis of economic matters is fundamentally flawed.
Are you suggesting we remove building and food standards to increase 'choice'?
If there are two sandwiches on sale, one of which follows food hygiene standards, and one which doesn't, then why shouldn't the consumer be allowed to choose between them?
Because eating dodgy sandwiches to save a bit of money is likely to increase costs for the rest of us further down the line. If someone had spent 10 pence more on a sandwich that did not give them food poisoning they would not now be in that queue at the doctors or taking up that hospital bed or sitting at home unproductive instead of being at work.
Also it's reasonable for the consumer to expect that, no matter how cheap his sandwich, he isn't going to get poisoned.
(Also what about the insulation panels behind the cladding in many cases ?)
The quickest risk mitigation measure might be retrofitting sprinkler systems, but I suspect there will be industry capacity issues with both this and replacing cladding...
IMV the insulation panels behind the exterior cladding is still 'cladding'There need to be some deep, searching questions asked of many people, and perhaps even our entire planning/building/controls sector. ...
There are several companies claiming the costs of retrofitting sprinkler systems is not prohibitive (admittedly they are talking their own book, but even so this is maybe an order of magnitude less than replacing cladding). The difficulty of this, and the likely efficacy are clearly things government is in the best position to get assessed quickly.
I agree about the cladding - it's just that the vast majority of discussion and commentary has been about the exterior aluminium sandwich panels. 'Other things' might well have gone wrong, but it's very difficult to see that the rate the fire propagated up the building could be blamed on anything instead of the exterior cladding (& this has been documented in several other instances).
How would internal sprinklers be of benefit when it is the exterior cladding that is on fire?
I suspect the best low cost option, if cladding replacement isn't possible, is to have proper alarm and evacuation procedures.
snip
One thing which might well have contributed to the disaster is the combustibility of UPVC window frames.
Or gas barbecues on balconies. And plastic furniture and any manner of combustible materials.
Very few buildings could ever be totally fireproof. Design, materials and equipment merely buy time for evacuation or the arrival of fire fighters.
(Also what about the insulation panels behind the cladding in many cases ?)
The quickest risk mitigation measure might be retrofitting sprinkler systems, but I suspect there will be industry capacity issues with both this and replacing cladding...
IMV the insulation perhaps even our entire planning/building/controls sector. ...
There are several companies claiming the coset assessed quickly.
I agree about the cladding - it's just that the vast majority of discussion and commentary has been about the exterior aluminium sandwich panels. 'Other things' might well have gone wrong, but it's very difficult to see that the rate the fire propagated up the building could be blamed on anything instead of the exterior cladding (& this has been documented in several other instances).
How would internal sprinklers be of benefit when it is the exterior cladding that is on fire?
I suspect the best low cost option, if cladding replacement isn't possible, is to have proper alarm and evacuation procedures.
snip
One thing which might well have contributed to the disaster is the combustibility of UPVC window frames.
Or gas barbecues on balconies. And plastic furniture and any manner of combustible materials.
Very few buildings could ever be totally fireproof. Design, materials and equipment merely buy time for evacuation or the arrival of fire fighters.
What amazes everyone is I think the speed with which the fire spread and its intensity.
Was it @TwistedFireStopper who said that if piping had been installed, perhaps it wasn't properly sealed in? Which accords with what some have said on here.
But then I am engaging in non-productive speculation which I dislike in others*.
*On such awful disasters, that is; I realise the entire premise of PB is non-productive speculation...
Which had eight residents on its board. Not exactly fat cats?
I'm not talking about Grenfel tower or saying the fat cats make their money through rent. That apart, good point!
I mean that the eu migrants that work all over the capital can only afford to work so hard for such meagre pay because they live in slums. The fat cats getting rich are their employers.
Eventually they realise their labour is worth more, so more migrants are needed
Yes, but they chose to live in those places and work in those conditions. And they presumably did so because they were the best options available to them.
Willing buyer, willing seller.
A fine line you walk there. Free market economics can be a nice disguise for exploitation.
I struggle to see how removing a choice from someone makes them better off.
Well let's examine that statement, it won't take long.
A couple of examples:
Building regulations.
Basic food standards.
Both of these remove a choice from people to live in extremely cheap, leaky firetraps and eat sinews of poorly husbanded animal tissue scraped off the bottom of filthy machines that has no nutritional value.
The libertarian analysis of economic matters is fundamentally flawed.
Are you suggesting we remove building and food standards to increase 'choice'?
If there are two sandwiches on sale, one of which follows food hygiene standards, and one which doesn't, then why shouldn't the consumer be allowed to choose between them?
You're assuming perfect information on the part of the consumer.
Oh, and its basic decency in an advanced society that we don't sell bad food to the public - if nothing else it costs lots of time off work for sick people!
Interesting comments on tower blocks. I've just been having a detailed conversation with a colleague about how much information would be wise to publish on this incident given the obvious current climate.
I personally think we should be very careful to make sure authorities know more about the problems than ISIS-loving saddoes with matches.
Which had eight residents on its board. Not exactly fat cats?
I'm not talking about Grenfel tower or saying the fat cats make their money through rent. That apart, good point!
I mean that the eu migrants that work all over the capital can only afford to work so hard for such meagre pay because they live in slums. The fat cats getting rich are their employers.
Eventually they realise their labour is worth more, so more migrants are needed
That's far from the whole story, as you well know.
The story is that the elite play divide and rule with the poor by injecting masses of unskilled labour into the areas that can least cope with it, then watch from afar as the friction between the working classes is ratcheted up by competition for housing, jobs and resources
I think you're attributing deliberate, scheming malice where little, or none, exists. That doesn't mean the 'elite' are blameless: just that consequences are hard to judge before the event, and easier afterwards.
The 'elite' are not sitting around boardroom tables stroking white cats. They're just as incompetent as you or I. Which is part of the problem.
Hmm well it's not for us to guess their intentions, but they should have been more cautious if they weren't sure. It wasn't that hard to predict really
I'm still struggling, isam. How do I identify fellow members of the elite when I'm on the street? Is there a secret handshake I haven't been taught yet?
If you don't know, you're not part of the elite!
Blimmin' heck if jetsetting hedge fund managers aren't part of the global elite who on earth does that leave?!?
I think it's simple: people who are moderately successful and don't share isam's values are part of the 'elite'. I'm going to put together a small questionnaire so I can quickly adjudge whether people are secretly elite.
You've self identified as elite and proscribed me a view. Socialist!
Can we have him back in government somehow? Not because of his stance on Brexit, just because he is sensible chap who did a good job as a minister.
We can't have sensible chaps in government, this isn't the 80s or 90s, the public went men of action who will do things like "break the US blockade of Cuba".
As the slums in London that house 4 migrants to a room show, the effect of mass importation of EU labour is to place people in abject poverty while they line the pocket of fat cats with their labour. If the migrants can only get by on those wages by living in dangerous shacks, how can people feel good encouraging it? And is it any wonder that British people used to living in non poverty conditions can't compete?
If people are working illegally then your efforts to link any of this to the EU are wide of the mark.
Behind every great fortune is a crime forgotten. The nice parts of London are built on the sweat of the exploited, legals and illegals
Which had eight residents on its board. Not exactly fat cats?
I'm not talking about Grenfel tower or saying the fat cats make their money through rent. That apart, good point!
I mean that the eu migrants that work all over the capital can only afford to work so hard for such meagre pay because they live in slums. The fat cats getting rich are their employers.
Eventually they realise their labour is worth more, so more migrants are needed
Yes, but they chose to live in those places and work in those conditions. And they presumably did so because they were the best options available to them.
Willing buyer, willing seller.
A fine line you walk there. Free market economics can be a nice disguise for exploitation.
I struggle to see how removing a choice from someone makes them better off.
It is not necessarily a case of being "better off", I simply lack the time to perform a full investigation of sandwich options at lunch. I have a life I need to live. You may get a kick from poring over the minutae of everyday things, but I would prefer to be able to buy ANY sandwich safe in the knowledge that the d*mn will not kill me or make me throw up on the following day.
A shame. Lamb running would have made this an interesting contest. I would have liked him as leader, he seems to be where the LD long term strategy should be aiming, although I can see the shorter term situation puts the LDs as a soft/no Brexit party principally looking to gain labour tactical votes and some Tory europhile remainers.
Cable will hopefully get the LDs more airtime and recognition, and prepping Swinson to take over at a later date. Shame that it looks like it will be a coronation for Cable though - it didn't exactly work out for the tories, I would have preferred to see Cable properly tested beforehand.
I am no expert but when seeing the appalling smoke given off in the blaze and the toxicity of the smoke I cannot see how sprinklers would have had an effect as the smoke and it's intensity would surely be the fatal aspect, not so much the fire.
However I am sure others have a better knowledge than me and I could of course be wrong
I'm pretty uninformed too, but I think I can see what is happening here.
Basically, there's a sprinkler lobby who filled the newsvoid in the immediate aftermath of the tragedy. They probably have a point - in that sprinklers would have been effective in other (apparently similar) previous fires that cost/endangered lives.
It's not clear they would have made the blindest bit of difference in Grenfell though - the basic problem appears to be that the building was covered in fuel.
As the slums in London that house 4 migrants to a room show, the effect of mass importation of EU labour is to place people in abject poverty while they line the pocket of fat cats with their labour. If the migrants can only get by on those wages by living in dangerous shacks, how can people feel good encouraging it? And is it any wonder that British people used to living in non poverty conditions can't compete?
If people are working illegally then your efforts to link any of this to the EU are wide of the mark.
Behind every great fortune is a crime forgotten. The nice parts of London are built on the sweat of the exploited, legals and illegals
Which had eight residents on its board. Not exactly fat cats?
I'm not talking about Grenfel tower or saying the fat cats make their money through rent. That apart, good point!
I mean that the eu migrants that work all over the capital can only afford to work so hard for such meagre pay because they live in slums. The fat cats getting rich are their employers.
Eventually they realise their labour is worth more, so more migrants are needed
Yes, but they chose to live in those places and work in those conditions. And they presumably did so because they were the best options available to them.
Willing buyer, willing seller.
A fine line you walk there. Free market economics can be a nice disguise for exploitation.
I struggle to see how removing a choice from someone makes them better off.
You take someone doing ok ish in Eastern Europe, get them to work their bollocks off for minimum wage here, undercutting the people here who did the job previously. So a job that used to pay for a semi decent house and lifestyle now pays for a room share in a hostel. I guess you are giving the migrant a long term opportunity, but it needs a never ending flow to make it work
Can we have him back in government somehow? Not because of his stance on Brexit, just because he is sensible chap who did a good job as a minister.
We can't have sensible chaps in government, this isn't the 80s or 90s, the public went men of action who will do things like "break the US blockade of Cuba".
I know, its bloody scary. You can have weak and wobbley May, Team Twat and their loony band of marxists or a sensible liberal bloke...
I am no expert but when seeing the appalling smoke given off in the blaze and the toxicity of the smoke I cannot see how sprinklers would have had an effect as the smoke and it's intensity would surely be the fatal aspect, not so much the fire.
However I am sure others have a better knowledge than me and I could of course be wrong
I'm pretty uninformed too, but I think I can see what is happening here.
Basically, there's a sprinkler lobby who filled the newsvoid in the immediate aftermath of the tragedy. They probably have a point - in that sprinklers would have been effective in other, previous fires that cost/endangered lives.
It's not clear they would have made the blindest bit of difference in Grenfell - the building was covered in fuel.
And to be fair that is why the enquiry is needed.
Too many politicians are trying to weaponise this tragedy
A shame. Lamb running would have made this an interesting contest. I would have liked him as leader, he seems to be where the LD long term strategy should be aiming, although I can see the shorter term situation puts the LDs as a soft/no Brexit party principally looking to gain labour tactical votes and some Tory europhile remainers.
Cable will hopefully get the LDs more airtime and recognition, and prepping Swinson to take over at a later date. Shame that it looks like it will be a coronation for Cable though - it didn't exactly work out for the tories, I would have preferred to see Cable properly tested beforehand.
Would Ed Davey pose a real challenge?
I didn't think much of Davey at energy, though I'm far more in favour of renewables etc than I was then. Nevertheless I haven't heard his pitch for leader, and I'm prepared to have an open mind on both him and Vince at this point in time.
A coronation for Sir Vince would be a dreadful move. Ideas need a public hearing, and he needs a contest. Hopefully Davey will run now. Or Brake !
I can see why Corbyn and McDonnell are resonating with the poor. The exploitation of workers, forcing them to live in appalling conditions or else, sets up a clash between the employer and employee that fits the Marxist dialectic explanation of progress to a tee (I think)
I see your point, but since Corbyn wants Brexit AND complete FoM, he would make things many times worse.
Corbyn or someone like him is likely to win eventually.
(Also what about the insulation panels behind the cladding in many cases ?)
The quickest risk mitigation measure might be retrofitting sprinkler systems, but I suspect there will be industry capacity issues with both this and replacing cladding...
IMV the insulation perhaps even our entire planning/building/controls sector. ...
snip
snip
One thing which might well have contributed to the disaster is the combustibility of UPVC window frames.
Or gas barbecues on balconies. And plastic furniture and any manner of combustible materials.
Very few buildings could ever be totally fireproof. Design, materials and equipment merely buy time for evacuation or the arrival of fire fighters.
What amazes everyone is I think the speed with which the fire spread and its intensity.
Was it @TwistedFireStopper who said that if piping had been installed, perhaps it wasn't properly sealed in? Which accords with what some have said on here.
But then I am engaging in non-productive speculation which I dislike in others*.
*On such awful disasters, that is; I realise the entire premise of PB is non-productive speculation...
It's likely that the fire started and spread for multiple reasons; take away one and it may never have happened.
A National Trust property in Surrey was largely destroyed a couple of years ago, the conflagration taking hold in a matter of minutes. Traced to a fault in a fusebox that had existed since its manufacture sometime in the 20th century. It was pure chance that a disabled lift had been sited next to the faulty equipment, the flames being funnelled up the shaft towards the roof. And just coincidence that strong winds were blowing from such a direction that the fire was then forced from one end of the structure to the other. That day the holes in the cheese just happened to line up.
Interesting comments on tower blocks. I've just been having a detailed conversation with a colleague about how much information would be wise to publish on this incident given the obvious current climate.
I personally think we should be very careful to make sure authorities know more about the problems than ISIS-loving saddoes with matches.
Sadly you're right. I'm expecting to see police watchmen outside all the buildings that have been named today, some idiot (jihadist, drunk or high, makes no difference) is going to try something stupid.
Has a libertarian party ever won a national election anywhere?
Probably not. They are, IMO, a sandwich short of a picnic an E Coli outbreak.....
The public don't vote for disunited parties, and libertarian parties are violently split on whether 90% or all of government should be abolished.
I had a libertarian friend who was extremely opposed to traffic lights. He felt they were a dangerous infringement on his civil liberties.
The existence and administration around nationality phased my closest libertarian acquaintance most. He found his passport most offensive. And the army, for that matter.
Which had eight residents on its board. Not exactly fat cats?
SNIP
Yes, but they chose to live in those places and work in those conditions. And they presumably did so because they were the best options available to them.
Willing buyer, willing seller.
A fine line you walk there. Free market economics can be a nice disguise for exploitation.
I struggle to see how removing a choice from someone makes them better off.
Well let's examine that statement, it won't take long.
A couple of examples:
Building regulations.
Basic food standards.
Both of these remove a choice from people to live in extremely cheap, leaky firetraps and eat sinews of poorly husbanded animal tissue scraped off the bottom of filthy machines that has no nutritional value.
The libertarian analysis of economic matters is fundamentally flawed.
Are you suggesting we remove building and food standards to increase 'choice'?
If there are two sandwiches on sale, one of which follows food hygiene standards, and one which doesn't, then why shouldn't the consumer be allowed to choose between them?
Because a) the consumer doesn't have perfect information and b) the state has some role in improving the health off its citizens and c) the state has some role in maintaining the welfare of animals.
Under your thinking, shops would be able to sell dog shit waffle sandwiches and flavour them with chocolate as 'chocolate-style waffles'.
They probably do sell such things.
After all, shops sell weasel vomit and cat excrement as coffee.
Mr. Meeks, sometimes matched odds are very peculiar. Ages ago, I had a lay set up on one gender or other to win Strictly at about 1.2, and it got matched. Last race, the hedge at evens (lay) for Raikkonen to get fastest lap was matched.
Has a libertarian party ever won a national election anywhere?
Probably not. They are, IMO, a sandwich short of a picnic an E Coli outbreak.....
The public don't vote for disunited parties, and libertarian parties are violently split on whether 90% or all of government should be abolished.
I had a libertarian friend who was extremely opposed to traffic lights. He felt they were a dangerous infringement on his civil liberties.
There is probably another libertarian out there somewhere who feels that cyclists are an infringement on his driving and should be knocked off as you go past.
Personal responsibility is all well and good, but the standards are rather variable....
Which had eight residents on its board. Not exactly fat cats?
SNIP
Yes, but they chose to live in those places and work in those conditions. And they presumably did so because they were the best options available to them.
Willing buyer, willing seller.
A fine line you walk there. Free market economics can be a nice disguise for exploitation.
I struggle to see how removing a choice from someone makes them better off.
Well let's examine that statement, it won't take long.
A couple of examples:
Building regulations.
Basic food standards.
Both of these remove a choice from people to live in extremely cheap, leaky firetraps and eat sinews of poorly husbanded animal tissue scraped off the bottom of filthy machines that has no nutritional value.
The libertarian analysis of economic matters is fundamentally flawed.
Are you suggesting we remove building and food standards to increase 'choice'?
If there are two sandwiches on sale, one of which follows food hygiene standards, and one which doesn't, then why shouldn't the consumer be allowed to choose between them?
Because a) the consumer doesn't have perfect information and b) the state has some role in improving the health off its citizens and c) the state has some role in maintaining the welfare of animals.
Under your thinking, shops would be able to sell dog shit waffle sandwiches and flavour them with chocolate as 'chocolate-style waffles'.
They probably do sell such things.
After all, shops sell weasel vomit and cat excrement as coffee.
David Miliband was last matched for next Labour leader on Betfair at 13.
Who ARE these people who back him? I am utterly mystified how anyone could think him value at under 100.
You'd hope they are people that have laid him shorter and are cashing in on the time value of money given the next contest is likely years away.
Though they probably are not.
Surely you'd just identify a few other runners and riders that you'd lay instead to reduce your Miliband (D) exposure indirectly? I'd hate to be putting money on David Miliband at a price that I was morally certain was ridiculous.
Has a libertarian party ever won a national election anywhere?
Probably not. They are, IMO, a sandwich short of a picnic an E Coli outbreak.....
The public don't vote for disunited parties, and libertarian parties are violently split on whether 90% or all of government should be abolished.
I had a libertarian friend who was extremely opposed to traffic lights. He felt they were a dangerous infringement on his civil liberties.
The existence and administration around nationality phased my closest libertarian acquaintance most. He found his passport most offensive. And the army, for that matter.
EDIT: think he must have been a 100%er.
Easily fixed. When he next boards an international flight or ship, tell to throw away that pesky passport and liberate himself from the shackles of authoritarianism. He might even find something worth being offended about as he attempts foreign passport control
David Miliband was last matched for next Labour leader on Betfair at 13.
Who ARE these people who back him? I am utterly mystified how anyone could think him value at under 100.
Probably the same people who had Ruth Davidson at 6 or thereabouts for next Con leader a few days ago.
You can have Lembit as LD leader at 500/1 on Ladbrokes. He was last heard of doing the occasional stand-in slot on the morning phone-in show on Radio Kent.
David Miliband was last matched for next Labour leader on Betfair at 13.
Who ARE these people who back him? I am utterly mystified how anyone could think him value at under 100.
Probably the same people who had Ruth Davidson at 6 or thereabouts for next Con leader a few days ago.
You can have Lembit as LD leader at 500/1 on Ladbrokes. He was last heard of doing the occasional stand-in slot on the morning phone-in show on Radio Kent.
David Miliband was last matched for next Labour leader on Betfair at 13.
Who ARE these people who back him? I am utterly mystified how anyone could think him value at under 100.
Probably the same people who had Ruth Davidson at 6 or thereabouts for next Con leader a few days ago.
Shush.
Ruth's still layable at 19, for anyone who thinks there will be a contest in the coming months.
I just had a week off from politics, but seem to recall George Osborne being well in the single figures in the aftermath of the election too. Don't they know that Con, Lab and LD parties all select their leaders from the House of Commons?
if you have backed Lamb with Bet365 they do let you cash out your bets on this market. he's still 10/3 so depending on the price you took you might get out ok.
It's likely that the fire started and spread for multiple reasons; take away one and it may never have happened.
A National Trust property in Surrey was largely destroyed a couple of years ago, the conflagration taking hold in a matter of minutes. Traced to a fault in a fusebox that had existed since its manufacture sometime in the 20th century. It was pure chance that a disabled lift had been sited next to the faulty equipment, the flames being funnelled up the shaft towards the roof. And just coincidence that strong winds were blowing from such a direction that the fire was then forced from one end of the structure to the other. That day the holes in the cheese just happened to line up.
When I was flying, it was told to me that, based on aviation accident analysis, you could manage two things going wrong in-flight at once, but if a third thing went wrong then you were in real trouble / dead.
That seems to hold true in other areas of life too.
Which had eight residents on its board. Not exactly fat cats?
SNIP
Yes, but they chose to live in those places and work in those conditions. And they presumably did so because they were the best options available to them.
Willing buyer, willing seller.
A fine line you walk there. Free market economics can be a nice disguise for exploitation.
I struggle to see how removing a choice from someone makes them better off.
Well let's examine that statement, it won't take long.
A couple of examples:
Building regulations.
Basic food standards.
Both of these remove a choice from people to live in extremely cheap, leaky firetraps and eat sinews of poorly husbanded animal tissue scraped off the bottom of filthy machines that has no nutritional value.
The libertarian analysis of economic matters is fundamentally flawed.
Are you suggesting we remove building and food standards to increase 'choice'?
If there are two sandwiches on sale, one of which follows food hygiene standards, and one which doesn't, then why shouldn't the consumer be allowed to choose between them?
Because a) the consumer doesn't have perfect information and b) the state has some role in improving the health off its citizens and c) the state has some role in maintaining the welfare of animals.
Under your thinking, shops would be able to sell dog shit waffle sandwiches and flavour them with chocolate as 'chocolate-style waffles'.
They probably do sell such things.
After all, shops sell weasel vomit and cat excrement as coffee.
It's likely that the fire started and spread for multiple reasons; take away one and it may never have happened.
A National Trust property in Surrey was largely destroyed a couple of years ago, the conflagration taking hold in a matter of minutes. Traced to a fault in a fusebox that had existed since its manufacture sometime in the 20th century. It was pure chance that a disabled lift had been sited next to the faulty equipment, the flames being funnelled up the shaft towards the roof. And just coincidence that strong winds were blowing from such a direction that the fire was then forced from one end of the structure to the other. That day the holes in the cheese just happened to line up.
When I was flying, it was told to me that, based on aviation accident analysis, you could manage two things going wrong in-flight at once, but if a third thing went wrong then you were in real trouble / dead.
That seems to hold true in other areas of life too.
As in when the flight attendants run out of whisky, gin and vodka.
David Miliband was last matched for next Labour leader on Betfair at 13.
Who ARE these people who back him? I am utterly mystified how anyone could think him value at under 100.
Probably the same people who had Ruth Davidson at 6 or thereabouts for next Con leader a few days ago.
Rubio sub even backers xD
I have a theory.
The whole logic of the non-trump GOP candidate campaigns and the betting markets was that the party decides.
Trump - and his team - were the only ones (well, and PB) who didn't read the exciting new "this is how to become the GOP candidate" instruction manual.
It's likely that the fire started and spread for multiple reasons; take away one and it may never have happened.
A National Trust property in Surrey was largely destroyed a couple of years ago, the conflagration taking hold in a matter of minutes. Traced to a fault in a fusebox that had existed since its manufacture sometime in the 20th century. It was pure chance that a disabled lift had been sited next to the faulty equipment, the flames being funnelled up the shaft towards the roof. And just coincidence that strong winds were blowing from such a direction that the fire was then forced from one end of the structure to the other. That day the holes in the cheese just happened to line up.
When I was flying, it was told to me that, based on aviation accident analysis, you could manage two things going wrong in-flight at once, but if a third thing went wrong then you were in real trouble / dead.
That seems to hold true in other areas of life too.
The Swiss Cheese model of aviation accidents, as I recall
David Miliband was last matched for next Labour leader on Betfair at 13.
Who ARE these people who back him? I am utterly mystified how anyone could think him value at under 100.
Probably the same people who had Ruth Davidson at 6 or thereabouts for next Con leader a few days ago.
Shush.
Ruth's still layable at 19, for anyone who thinks there will be a contest in the coming months.
I just had a week off from politics, but seem to recall George Osborne being well in the single figures in the aftermath of the election too. Don't they know that Con, Lab and LD parties all select their leaders from the House of Commons?
BF often has oddities. I mean, Greg Clarke is on 2 to be Tory leader at the moment.
As the slums in London that house 4 migrants to a room show, the effect of mass importation of EU labour is to place people in abject poverty while they line the pocket of fat cats with their labour. If the migrants can only get by on those wages by living in dangerous shacks, how can people feel good encouraging it? And is it any wonder that British people used to living in non poverty conditions can't compete?
If people are working illegally then your efforts to link any of this to the EU are wide of the mark.
Behind every great fortune is a crime forgotten. The nice parts of London are built on the sweat of the exploited, legals and illegals
Which had eight residents on its board. Not exactly fat cats?
I'm not talking about Grenfel tower or saying the fat cats make their money through rent. That apart, good point!
I mean that the eu migrants that work all over the capital can only afford to work so hard for such meagre pay because they live in slums. The fat cats getting rich are their employers.
Eventually they realise their labour is worth more, so more migrants are needed
Yes, but they chose to live in those places and work in those conditions. And they presumably did so because they were the best options available to them.
Willing buyer, willing seller.
A fine line you walk there. Free market economics can be a nice disguise for exploitation.
I struggle to see how removing a choice from someone makes them better off.
It is not necessarily a case of being "better off", I simply lack the time to perform a full investigation of sandwich options at lunch. I have a life I need to live. You may get a kick from poring over the minutae of everyday things, but I would prefer to be able to buy ANY sandwich safe in the knowledge that the d*mn will not kill me or make me throw up on the following day.
Plus the fact that it gives you the chance to moan and complain when things don't turn out the way you wanted them. It is funny that those who want to give up as much freedom and choice as they can to authority are then the first to complain when authority takes them at their word and does stuff they don't like.
It's likely that the fire started and spread for multiple reasons; take away one and it may never have happened.
A National Trust property in Surrey was largely destroyed a couple of years ago, the conflagration taking hold in a matter of minutes. Traced to a fault in a fusebox that had existed since its manufacture sometime in the 20th century. It was pure chance that a disabled lift had been sited next to the faulty equipment, the flames being funnelled up the shaft towards the roof. And just coincidence that strong winds were blowing from such a direction that the fire was then forced from one end of the structure to the other. That day the holes in the cheese just happened to line up.
When I was flying, it was told to me that, based on aviation accident analysis, you could manage two things going wrong in-flight at once, but if a third thing went wrong then you were in real trouble / dead.
That seems to hold true in other areas of life too.
The Swiss Cheese model of aviation accidents, as I recall
Comments
So it's Cable. Or maybe Davey.
.....
*sighs*
The former breadwinners on part time hours does have some data, I'll try to find it
Edit, here it is!
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/money/2017/jan/13/low-paid-men-in-uk-four-times-more-likely-to-be-working-part-time-than-in-1990s
But I agree it's unlikely.
Your second paragraph might be very pertinent.
As it happens, a few days ago I did say that it might be that it turns out that no-one did anything wrong according to regulations and laws. Which won't satisfy the baying mob.
Reduced my Betfair red on Cable a smidge.
(This is what happened in the recent similar fire in Australia.)
Some buildings have external sprinkler heads protecting the cladding itself.
Not having a combustible building exterior is ideal, but sealing with 600 plus tower blocks is going to take some time.
One thing which might well have contributed to the disaster is the combustibility of UPVC window frames.
Yep, this was one of my earliest thoughts on seeing the pics of the Grenfell cladding on fire.
The government has said ..........
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Department for Communities and Local Government said: “Cladding using a composite aluminium panel with a polyethylene core would be non-compliant with current Building Regulations guidance. This material should not be used as cladding on buildings over 18m in height.”
Reynobond PE, understood to have been used on the Grenfell Tower, is made with a polyethylene core.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/16/experts-urge-ban-on-use-of-combustible-materials-in-tower-blocks
A couple of examples:
Building regulations.
Basic food standards.
Both of these remove a choice from people to live in extremely cheap, leaky firetraps and eat sinews of poorly husbanded animal tissue scraped off the bottom of filthy machines that has no nutritional value.
The libertarian analysis of economic matters is fundamentally flawed.
Are you suggesting we remove building and food standards to increase 'choice'?
"The Baby Boom Bites Back"
I'm hopeful that at least one other (Davey?) runs though so the Lib Dems can decide whether to be more Twickenham or Surbiton............
Under your thinking, shops would be able to sell dog shit waffle sandwiches and flavour them with chocolate as 'chocolate-style waffles'.
Or would you argue for unrestricted organ trade ?
Willing buyer; willing seller is all very well, but given the potential for vast disparities in power between the two, such markets aren't always equitable. Which is one of the reasons a civilised society has a certain amount of regulation.
Where you draw the line is, as ever, the question.
However I am sure others have a better knowledge than me and I could of course be wrong
I've not chatted with her in more detail, but as a starting point, it is hard to disagree, really.
Very few buildings could ever be totally fireproof. Design, materials and equipment merely buy time for evacuation or the arrival of fire fighters.
We had to gnaw on the red hot rocks spewed out by the volcano next door.
Was it @TwistedFireStopper who said that if piping had been installed, perhaps it wasn't properly sealed in? Which accords with what some have said on here.
But then I am engaging in non-productive speculation which I dislike in others*.
*On such awful disasters, that is; I realise the entire premise of PB is non-productive speculation...
Oh, and its basic decency in an advanced society that we don't sell bad food to the public - if nothing else it costs lots of time off work for sick people!
We had to chip cold hard granite, and grind it into a barely edible powder.
From a quarry half a days' walk up the mosquito infested valley.
Mr. Urquhart, I'd back that. Damned shame the likes of Laws, Alexander, Lamb and Webb aren't in government.
And Boris is the Foreign Secretary. *sighs*
I personally think we should be very careful to make sure authorities know more about the problems than ISIS-loving saddoes with matches.
Cable will hopefully get the LDs more airtime and recognition, and prepping Swinson to take over at a later date. Shame that it looks like it will be a coronation for Cable though - it didn't exactly work out for the tories, I would have preferred to see Cable properly tested beforehand.
Would Ed Davey pose a real challenge?
If we were lucky!
Cold granite powder? Luxury.
If the LDs want to win back Conservative voters in any number they need to stop calling us evil and drop the undemocratic Brexit stance.
Basically, there's a sprinkler lobby who filled the newsvoid in the immediate aftermath of the tragedy. They probably have a point - in that sprinklers would have been effective in other (apparently similar) previous fires that cost/endangered lives.
It's not clear they would have made the blindest bit of difference in Grenfell though - the basic problem appears to be that the building was covered in fuel.
Also, you can back Davey at 5 on Ladbrokes if you like. (Cable was 1.64 on Betfair, so you could back both to further engreenify one's book).
Too many politicians are trying to weaponise this tragedy
A coronation for Sir Vince would be a dreadful move. Ideas need a public hearing, and he needs a contest. Hopefully Davey will run now. Or Brake !
Best be prepared.
A National Trust property in Surrey was largely destroyed a couple of years ago, the conflagration taking hold in a matter of minutes. Traced to a fault in a fusebox that had existed since its manufacture sometime in the 20th century. It was pure chance that a disabled lift had been sited next to the faulty equipment, the flames being funnelled up the shaft towards the roof. And just coincidence that strong winds were blowing from such a direction that the fire was then forced from one end of the structure to the other. That day the holes in the cheese just happened to line up.
He felt they were a dangerous infringement on his civil liberties.
Who ARE these people who back him? I am utterly mystified how anyone could think him value at under 100.
Edit: Mind you, I've just noticed the tense of your first sentence.
EDIT: think he must have been a 100%er.
After all, shops sell weasel vomit and cat excrement as coffee.
These things are quite odd.
Though they probably are not.
Personal responsibility is all well and good, but the standards are rather variable....
I just had a week off from politics, but seem to recall George Osborne being well in the single figures in the aftermath of the election too. Don't they know that Con, Lab and LD parties all select their leaders from the House of Commons?
That seems to hold true in other areas of life too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kopi_Luwak
The whole logic of the non-trump GOP candidate campaigns and the betting markets was that the party decides.
Trump - and his team - were the only ones (well, and PB) who didn't read the exciting new "this is how to become the GOP candidate" instruction manual.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_cheese_model