Why I’m reluctant to bet on a LAB majority – pt1 – politicalbetting.com

rcs1000 said:

Come on, how bad is aerated concrete anyway?

Let's grow some balls people. We lived through Covid. We can live through a few collapsing ceilings here and there.

How many ceilings collapsed from water leaks in the last year vs RAAC?

LostPassword said:

RochdalePioneers said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

SandyRentool said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

SandyRentool said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

SandyRentool said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

SandyRentool said:

BlancheLivermore said:

I think we should renationalise Royal Mail

But The Crown should own it, rather than the government - “Royal” shouldn’t just be a deceptive trademark

It should be an NPO near monopoly; it could price itself cheap enough to take out all of the competition

I already deliver loads of Amazon parcels because we’re cheaper than getting their own drivers to do it

We’re obliged to deliver to every house on our routes every day; why have five more vans visiting your street every day delivering parcels?

Every other delivery van I’ve seen on my post routes has always left the engine running while they deliver their parcel. Why do they do this? Starting an engine takes one second

Well said.

I remember making the point about the inefficiency of multiple parcels vans right here a number of years ago, only to be castigated by the capitalist herd, telling me that I didn't understand the efficiencies of the free market.

Because multiple parcel vans are efficient. They mean that you can get whatever you want same or next day far quicker than getting it posted via Royal Mail.

If the alternative is instead of having a private parcel van that's doing 30-40 deliveries all in the same postcode area is each of those people makes a trip to the shops, then that's less efficient.

Nonsense. Five vans driving around five housing estates, delivering 20% of the parcels to each is a ridiculous set up when the alternative is one van delivering all of the parcels on each estate.

Why? If each van is full when it departs its depot, then the same number of vans is needed either way.

If the five vans are eg coming from five different depots, then how is it more efficient to unnecessarily move the goods to the one central depot, resort the goods yet again, then send out five vans still as a secondary step, now from another hub? How does that actually improve matters?

Sometimes what may seem inefficient above the surface can actually be supremely efficient below the surface, or vice-versa.

It's obvious. Each van travels five times the distance. More time, more fuel, more traffic. And there wouldn't be five depots with a single integrated delivery system.

Sometimes a well run, well regulated monopoly is best. Avoiding unnecessary duplication is a good thing.

No, its not obvious, you only think its obvious as you are superficially paying attention only to the top of the iceberg.

The iceberg effect is worth remembering for almost any business or industry. The visible bit you are seeing is only a tiny fraction of what is happening and what happens below the surface matters.

No, each van doesn't travel five times the distance. If the bulk of the distance is primarily between the depot and the relevant postcode area, then going to five neighbouring estates within the same postcode area is miniscule 'extra' mileage. Being efficient getting from A to B is the bulk of the relevant efficiency, not from B1 to B4.

I can get 4 different deliveries to my house in the same day. But if those 4 deliveries are coming from 4 different places - and if those vans are all filled with drop offs near to me - then each of those vans is operating efficiently.

But they wouldn't be coming from four different places if there was a monopoly provider.

Yes they would. Currently you have goods coming from all over the country, do you think they should all be in the same place? Would that be more efficient?

Take Widnes, in Liverpool City Region but in Warrington's postal area for the Royal Mail. There are sorting offices in Liverpool and Warrington.

If someone from Widnes orders a good from a business in Liverpool it is more efficient to send a full van from Liverpool to Widnes to drop off those goods.

What do you propose instead? Send the van from Liverpool, through and past Widnes into Warrington to have the goods resorted in Warrington before being sent out for a second time back into Widnes?

How is that "more" efficient?

Let me give you a real world example. I live 15 miles north of the Brewdog factory. I sometimes order products from them which goes via their hub in the central belt. That is significantly more efficient than being delivered to me directly.

It is very simple why that is the case. When you run a factory operation you need to ensure the smoothest possible dispatch of products out of the warehouse. That means a regular movement of stock, and to keep the logistics costs as low as possible you want the volume moved to be as high as possible.

My 48 pack of Punk IPA is produced and stacked onto a pallet which goes on a full vehicle down to a massive warehouse. From there volumes can be broken down into smaller orders, and ecommerce picks taken.

If Brewdog were still a small operation then of course you pick and dispatch from there. One project I have live at the moment is ecommerce fulfilment - I literally pick, pack and dispatch customer orders. That is efficient because there are a small and manageable number of orders. But if there were hundreds of orders then the operation would go to a specialist fulfilment house. So if I had an order to go to a nearby town it would then be more efficient for all the products to go to the fulfilment house and then be sent back.

Orkney brewery beer is better. Hope that helps.

And Black Isle.

29 degrees here in my part of the Lakes.

Almost too hot to sit outside.

noneoftheabove said:

rcs1000 said:

Come on, how bad is aerated concrete anyway?

Let's grow some balls people. We lived through Covid. We can live through a few collapsing ceilings here and there.

How many ceilings collapsed from water leaks in the last year vs RAAC?

Water leaks *are* a major issue with RAAC. It's that sensitive when it gets old, apparently. One collapse was due to a blocked gutter, nothing more.

Eabhal said:

Malmesbury said:

Eabhal said:

Malmesbury said:

Eabhal said:

The RAAC thing reminds us of the value of "red tape".

All the RAAC used was signed off, noted, tested etc.

See DTD683

I'm suggesting we need more.

Ah yes - another pile of paper will prove it’s safe next time. Perhaps if we photocopy the passwppets of everyone working on a project… twice. That’ll do it.

Do you work for the Boeing Starliner project?

"Don't make schools out of concrete that is liable to collapse" isn't too onerous, surely?

For 40 years it was not considered a risk

Big_G_NorthWales said:

noneoftheabove said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

noneoftheabove said:

RAAC was widely used in Europe and Japan too. How are they dealing with it?

Keegan said in the house yesterday that the UK were leading Europe and elsewhere in addressing the issue

Well we are certainly leading Europe in terms of closing down thousands of buildings with a current failure rate per year that is almost zero with a theoretical increase expected over time.

Are we leading Europe in terms of repairing and replacing said buildings? Or in terms of evaluating the risk in a sensible manner?

Evaluating risk apparently

I doubt it very much, given the way in which HMG's blase insouciance has suddenly given way to screaming panic, like a horde of the far-famed jubjub birds flying in ever-decreasing circles.

That's not a sign of competence in evaluating risk, chum.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Eabhal said:

Malmesbury said:

Eabhal said:

Malmesbury said:

Eabhal said:

The RAAC thing reminds us of the value of "red tape".

All the RAAC used was signed off, noted, tested etc.

See DTD683

I'm suggesting we need more.

Ah yes - another pile of paper will prove it’s safe next time. Perhaps if we photocopy the passwppets of everyone working on a project… twice. That’ll do it.

Do you work for the Boeing Starliner project?

"Don't make schools out of concrete that is liable to collapse" isn't too onerous, surely?

For 40 years it was not considered a risk

Not true. It was falling to bits in the 1980s. A known issue that early.

You souldn't believe what that nice Ms Keegan says, you know. The next thhing, she'll be offering you sweeties.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

Malmesbury said:

Eabhal said:

The RAAC thing reminds us of the value of "red tape".

All the RAAC used was signed off, noted, tested etc.

See DTD683

I'm suggesting we need more.

We need more fully-certified RAAC in place? Why?

Less red tape on planning and it'd be easier to replace buildings using RAAC with newer buildings built to better standards that don't.

You seen the Welsh tiktok guy pulling apart dodgy new builds?

A lack of red tape just means we'll go through this process again and again, with long term costs that far outweigh short term savings.

Have you seen the mouldy, damp-ridden squalor too many people are forced to live in as the chronic housing shortage caused by our planning red tape means there is simply no alternative between paying for that or being homeless?

Cut red tape, allow more new builds to be built, and competition would mean shit ones wouldn't sell - and damp-ridden rundown accommodation wouldn't be let either.

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

Malmesbury said:

Eabhal said:

The RAAC thing reminds us of the value of "red tape".

All the RAAC used was signed off, noted, tested etc.

See DTD683

I'm suggesting we need more.

We need more fully-certified RAAC in place? Why?

Less red tape on planning and it'd be easier to replace buildings using RAAC with newer buildings built to better standards that don't.

You seen the Welsh tiktok guy pulling apart dodgy new builds?

A lack of red tape just means we'll go through this process again and again, with long term costs that far outweigh short term savings.

Have you seen the mouldy, damp-ridden squalor too many people are forced to live in as the chronic housing shortage caused by our planning red tape means there is simply no alternative between paying for that or being homeless?

Cut red tape, allow more new builds to be built, and competition would mean shit ones wouldn't sell - and damp-ridden rundown accommodation wouldn't be let either.

"Let's build more mouldy damp-ridden houses to reduce the number of people living in mouldy damp-ridden houses"

The new builds in my home town have persistent issues with surface water flooding because the council failed to swaddle them in the red tape during construction.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Carnyx said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Eabhal said:

Malmesbury said:

Eabhal said:

Malmesbury said:

Eabhal said:

The RAAC thing reminds us of the value of "red tape".

All the RAAC used was signed off, noted, tested etc.

See DTD683

I'm suggesting we need more.

Ah yes - another pile of paper will prove it’s safe next time. Perhaps if we photocopy the passwppets of everyone working on a project… twice. That’ll do it.

Do you work for the Boeing Starliner project?

"Don't make schools out of concrete that is liable to collapse" isn't too onerous, surely?

For 40 years it was not considered a risk

Not true. It was falling to bits in the 1980s. A known issue that early.

You souldn't believe what that nice Ms Keegan says, you know. The next thhing, she'll be offering you sweeties.

It wasn't Keegan who made the comment, but it was in 1996 the industry was alerted to it and in 1997 the Blair government took office knowing the problem

Unfortunately Tony misheard that we had a massive problem with RAAC and the rest is history. And just like with RAAC, there was no rebuilding strategy for Iraq.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

Malmesbury said:

Eabhal said:

The RAAC thing reminds us of the value of "red tape".

All the RAAC used was signed off, noted, tested etc.

See DTD683

I'm suggesting we need more.

We need more fully-certified RAAC in place? Why?

Less red tape on planning and it'd be easier to replace buildings using RAAC with newer buildings built to better standards that don't.

You seen the Welsh tiktok guy pulling apart dodgy new builds?

A lack of red tape just means we'll go through this process again and again, with long term costs that far outweigh short term savings.

Have you seen the mouldy, damp-ridden squalor too many people are forced to live in as the chronic housing shortage caused by our planning red tape means there is simply no alternative between paying for that or being homeless?

Cut red tape, allow more new builds to be built, and competition would mean shit ones wouldn't sell - and damp-ridden rundown accommodation wouldn't be let either.

"Let's build more mouldy damp-ridden houses to reduce the number of people living in mouldy damp-ridden houses"

The new builds in my home town have persistent issues with surface water flooding because the council failed to swaddle them in the red tape during construction.

Are you in Somerset, by any chance?

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

Malmesbury said:

Eabhal said:

The RAAC thing reminds us of the value of "red tape".

All the RAAC used was signed off, noted, tested etc.

See DTD683

I'm suggesting we need more.

We need more fully-certified RAAC in place? Why?

Less red tape on planning and it'd be easier to replace buildings using RAAC with newer buildings built to better standards that don't.

You seen the Welsh tiktok guy pulling apart dodgy new builds?

A lack of red tape just means we'll go through this process again and again, with long term costs that far outweigh short term savings.

Have you seen the mouldy, damp-ridden squalor too many people are forced to live in as the chronic housing shortage caused by our planning red tape means there is simply no alternative between paying for that or being homeless?

Cut red tape, allow more new builds to be built, and competition would mean shit ones wouldn't sell - and damp-ridden rundown accommodation wouldn't be let either.

"Let's build more mouldy damp-ridden houses to reduce the number of people living in mouldy damp-ridden houses"

The new builds in my home town have persistent issues with surface water flooding because the council failed to swaddle them in the red tape during construction.

I'd love to see any development in the entire country that wasn't swaddled in red tape during and before construction. I call bullshit.

My new build I live in was built to very good standards and I can't complain. Better standards than my prior house I was letting, more energy efficient too.

RochdalePioneers said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

SandyRentool said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

SandyRentool said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

SandyRentool said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

SandyRentool said:

BlancheLivermore said:

I think we should renationalise Royal Mail

But The Crown should own it, rather than the government - “Royal” shouldn’t just be a deceptive trademark

It should be an NPO near monopoly; it could price itself cheap enough to take out all of the competition

I already deliver loads of Amazon parcels because we’re cheaper than getting their own drivers to do it

We’re obliged to deliver to every house on our routes every day; why have five more vans visiting your street every day delivering parcels?

Every other delivery van I’ve seen on my post routes has always left the engine running while they deliver their parcel. Why do they do this? Starting an engine takes one second

Well said.

I remember making the point about the inefficiency of multiple parcels vans right here a number of years ago, only to be castigated by the capitalist herd, telling me that I didn't understand the efficiencies of the free market.

Because multiple parcel vans are efficient. They mean that you can get whatever you want same or next day far quicker than getting it posted via Royal Mail.

If the alternative is instead of having a private parcel van that's doing 30-40 deliveries all in the same postcode area is each of those people makes a trip to the shops, then that's less efficient.

Nonsense. Five vans driving around five housing estates, delivering 20% of the parcels to each is a ridiculous set up when the alternative is one van delivering all of the parcels on each estate.

Why? If each van is full when it departs its depot, then the same number of vans is needed either way.

If the five vans are eg coming from five different depots, then how is it more efficient to unnecessarily move the goods to the one central depot, resort the goods yet again, then send out five vans still as a secondary step, now from another hub? How does that actually improve matters?

Sometimes what may seem inefficient above the surface can actually be supremely efficient below the surface, or vice-versa.

It's obvious. Each van travels five times the distance. More time, more fuel, more traffic. And there wouldn't be five depots with a single integrated delivery system.

Sometimes a well run, well regulated monopoly is best. Avoiding unnecessary duplication is a good thing.

No, its not obvious, you only think its obvious as you are superficially paying attention only to the top of the iceberg.

The iceberg effect is worth remembering for almost any business or industry. The visible bit you are seeing is only a tiny fraction of what is happening and what happens below the surface matters.

No, each van doesn't travel five times the distance. If the bulk of the distance is primarily between the depot and the relevant postcode area, then going to five neighbouring estates within the same postcode area is miniscule 'extra' mileage. Being efficient getting from A to B is the bulk of the relevant efficiency, not from B1 to B4.

I can get 4 different deliveries to my house in the same day. But if those 4 deliveries are coming from 4 different places - and if those vans are all filled with drop offs near to me - then each of those vans is operating efficiently.

But they wouldn't be coming from four different places if there was a monopoly provider.

Yes they would. Currently you have goods coming from all over the country, do you think they should all be in the same place? Would that be more efficient?

Take Widnes, in Liverpool City Region but in Warrington's postal area for the Royal Mail. There are sorting offices in Liverpool and Warrington.

If someone from Widnes orders a good from a business in Liverpool it is more efficient to send a full van from Liverpool to Widnes to drop off those goods.

What do you propose instead? Send the van from Liverpool, through and past Widnes into Warrington to have the goods resorted in Warrington before being sent out for a second time back into Widnes?

How is that "more" efficient?

Let me give you a real world example. I live 15 miles north of the Brewdog factory. I sometimes order products from them which goes via their hub in the central belt. That is significantly more efficient than being delivered to me directly.

It is very simple why that is the case. When you run a factory operation you need to ensure the smoothest possible dispatch of products out of the warehouse. That means a regular movement of stock, and to keep the logistics costs as low as possible you want the volume moved to be as high as possible.

My 48 pack of Punk IPA is produced and stacked onto a pallet which goes on a full vehicle down to a massive warehouse. From there volumes can be broken down into smaller orders, and ecommerce picks taken.

If Brewdog were still a small operation then of course you pick and dispatch from there. One project I have live at the moment is ecommerce fulfilment - I literally pick, pack and dispatch customer orders. That is efficient because there are a small and manageable number of orders. But if there were hundreds of orders then the operation would go to a specialist fulfilment house. So if I had an order to go to a nearby town it would then be more efficient for all the products to go to the fulfilment house and then be sent back.

An excellent case study.

But, Punk IPA? Really?

Eabhal said:

Malmesbury said:

Eabhal said:

Malmesbury said:

Eabhal said:

The RAAC thing reminds us of the value of "red tape".

All the RAAC used was signed off, noted, tested etc.

See DTD683

I'm suggesting we need more.

Ah yes - another pile of paper will prove it’s safe next time. Perhaps if we photocopy the passwppets of everyone working on a project… twice. That’ll do it.

Do you work for the Boeing Starliner project?

"Don't make schools out of concrete that is liable to collapse" isn't too onerous, surely?

As I said before, no sane engineer signs off something as good for 30 years if it is likely to fail in 31. It was clearly believed to be safe, even if the concept is a bit odd.

Like asbestos and combustible insulation panels, we are just going to have to rip it out over time, but the question is really whether all RAAC is likely to collapse imminently, or whether there's been one or two incidents where something specific has gone wrong (eg water ingress).

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

Malmesbury said:

Eabhal said:

The RAAC thing reminds us of the value of "red tape".

All the RAAC used was signed off, noted, tested etc.

See DTD683

I'm suggesting we need more.

We need more fully-certified RAAC in place? Why?

Less red tape on planning and it'd be easier to replace buildings using RAAC with newer buildings built to better standards that don't.

You seen the Welsh tiktok guy pulling apart dodgy new builds?

A lack of red tape just means we'll go through this process again and again, with long term costs that far outweigh short term savings.

Have you seen the mouldy, damp-ridden squalor too many people are forced to live in as the chronic housing shortage caused by our planning red tape means there is simply no alternative between paying for that or being homeless?

Cut red tape, allow more new builds to be built, and competition would mean shit ones wouldn't sell - and damp-ridden rundown accommodation wouldn't be let either.

"Let's build more mouldy damp-ridden houses to reduce the number of people living in mouldy damp-ridden houses"

The new builds in my home town have persistent issues with surface water flooding because the council failed to swaddle them in the red tape during construction.

I'd love to see any development in the entire country that wasn't swaddled in red tape during and before construction. I call bullshit.

My new build I live in was built to very good standards and I can't complain. Better standards than my prior house I was letting, more energy efficient too.

You should invite this guy over for dinner

https://www.tiktok.com/@newhomequalitycontrol?_t=8fRKZiJezfE&_r=1

Cyclefree said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Cyclefree said:

On the Post Office:-

- Paula Vennells was appointed CEO in 2012. The then Secretary of State for Business was Vince Cable.
- She will appear before the inquiry.

The current session is to deal with the lawyers. This is actually very important because three very significant parts of this scandal relate to:-

(1) The failures of the in-house investigators and lawyers, both in investigating the supposed "frauds", bringing the prosecutions, in relation to disclosure, their understanding and use of expert evidence and their behaviour during the appeals. The role of the Law Commission also needs looking at because it came up with the decision (a catastrophically stupid one) that computer evidence should be automatically accepted as accurate unless proved otherwise. This effectively reverses the burden of proof and makes it very hard, if not impossible for a defendant in a trial on charges like these.

(2) The behaviour of judges and others in the criminal justice system. The role of David Neuberger, former Master of the Rolls and a Supreme Court judge needs some explaining, for instance.

(3) The behaviour of the lawyers, both internal and external, in relation to the compensation schemes and the inquiry.

There is much to inquire into and, IMO, to criticise. My profession has not come out of this well and the findings will have important consequences for in-house investigators.

The legal world's dirty little secret is that the behaviour of lawyers and judges in previous scandals and miscarriages of justice (from at least the Birmingham 6 case onwards but also including Operation Countryman re police corruption even earlier) has not always been what it should be, to put it mildly. This has tended to be overlooked because there have been bigger villains - the police, forensic experts etc., - but it is about time that the lawyers faced their moment of truth and I hope that this inquiry will enable that.

I should add that I know and have worked with at least one of the experts being called to give evidence in this latest phase. Nice, able people. But even nice able people can make stupid mistakes and bad errors of judgment, especially when put in a position when everyone else is doing this, this is what the client wants and there is no/no effective process enabling them to behave well.

Thanks, Cyclefree. I am learning more about this from you than from our heroic Press, and the media coverage. It is in my view the worst public scandal of my lifetime and I sense that the establishment is deliberately dragging its feet because it knows that any just settlement will be very, very expensive. It would also likely result in the imprisonment of many of those culpable. Never mind. As long as people are asking questions,there is hope.

Cable must answer questions, of course, but I don't suppose he was the one who trawled for suitable candidates. Prima facie, Vennells' qualifications at the time looked thin. Do you think we will find out how the selection process worked and what made her appear the strongest candidate?

To answer your last question, I doubt it.

It's worth noting that one of the organisations lobbying most strongly for the change the Law Commission recommended was ..... the Post Office. And they did it precisely in order to make it easier to prosecute fraud. They said this quite openly in their submission.

So they lobbied to change the law to get X, they bought a system to find X, then the system found X. No wonder no-one was asking the question as to whether this was all too good to be true.

But someone should have been re the Law Commission.

Where were all the civil liberties / criminal lawyers / MPs pointing out the consequences of reversing the burden of proof coupled with no legal aid to pay for computer experts?

And the internal investigators failed to challenge the evidence or, I'll bet, understand the systems. And the in-house prosecuting lawyers simply ignored their disclosure obligations in part because of the conflict of interest they were facing.

I have said this before and doubtless will say it again: conflicts of interest are at the heart of every scandal. And so it will prove here.

Noted with thanks, Cyclefree.

Please keep going.

Carnyx said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Carnyx said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Eabhal said:

Malmesbury said:

Eabhal said:

Malmesbury said:

Eabhal said:

The RAAC thing reminds us of the value of "red tape".

All the RAAC used was signed off, noted, tested etc.

See DTD683

I'm suggesting we need more.

Ah yes - another pile of paper will prove it’s safe next time. Perhaps if we photocopy the passwppets of everyone working on a project… twice. That’ll do it.

Do you work for the Boeing Starliner project?

"Don't make schools out of concrete that is liable to collapse" isn't too onerous, surely?

For 40 years it was not considered a risk

Not true. It was falling to bits in the 1980s. A known issue that early.

You souldn't believe what that nice Ms Keegan says, you know. The next thhing, she'll be offering you sweeties.

It wasn't Keegan who made the comment, but it was in 1996 the industry was alerted to it and in 1997 the Blair government took office knowing the problem

Just because you want to blame Labour for everything, including the blackfly on your roses, doesn't mnake it true.

This is what I posted some days back. Look at page 1. It says that there were failures, sometimes leading to demolition, in the 1980s.

https://www.cross-safety.org/sites/default/files/2019-05/failure-reinforced-autoclaved-aerated-concrete-planks.pdf

Even by your admission it was known when Blair took office

Indeed both labour and the conservatives have responsibility over this but also where is the SNP when even Christine Jardine attacked them in the house debate yesterday

By the way as a point of fact - we do not have backfly on our lovely roses

eek said:

Scott_xP said:

@SimonJonesNews

All performances have been suspended at The Orchard Theatre in Dartford due to concerns over RAAC.

@steve_hawkes

This is going to be the like the Horsemeat scandal of 2012/2013.. we'll end up finding RAAC in hospitals, barracks, museums..

I think Dartford have highlighted the scale of the problem in their notes / email

We’re sorry to announce that it has become necessary to suspend performances at The Orchard Theatre, Dartford with immediate effect.

When The Orchard Theatre was built in the early 1980s, reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete (RAAC) was considered a cheap and lightweight alternative to traditional concrete and the theatre was one of thousands of public buildings to use it during construction.

And because it's the 1980's it's all Thatcher's fault (I'm joking it's one of those things)..

Built in the early 1980s with a 30 year design life.

Forty years later, of course it is falling down!

Cyclefree said:

I have actually come inside because at 5:45 pm in the Lakes on 5 September it is TOO HOT to sit outside.

The good news is that you appear to have mastered time travel having come in at 5.45 and posted that you had done so at 5.44. Now you need to travel back and warn the postmasters that their bosses are a bunch of shits and it’s the software.

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

Malmesbury said:

Eabhal said:

The RAAC thing reminds us of the value of "red tape".

All the RAAC used was signed off, noted, tested etc.

See DTD683

I'm suggesting we need more.

We need more fully-certified RAAC in place? Why?

Less red tape on planning and it'd be easier to replace buildings using RAAC with newer buildings built to better standards that don't.

You seen the Welsh tiktok guy pulling apart dodgy new builds?

A lack of red tape just means we'll go through this process again and again, with long term costs that far outweigh short term savings.

Have you seen the mouldy, damp-ridden squalor too many people are forced to live in as the chronic housing shortage caused by our planning red tape means there is simply no alternative between paying for that or being homeless?

Cut red tape, allow more new builds to be built, and competition would mean shit ones wouldn't sell - and damp-ridden rundown accommodation wouldn't be let either.

I'm going to challenge you a little on this - what does "cut red tape" mean? Are you saying developments of a certain size should be automatically approved via delegated powers by Council Officers or there should be no application or consultation process at all and buildingn should just happen where there's some spare land?

Is the problem a lack of land - there is plenty banked by developers - or a lack of capacity in the construction industry and allied trades which means it's impossible for several projects to happen in an area simultaenously?

Neither of these are anything to do with "red tape" as such.

There is a defined public planning and consultation process for any major application - is it labour-intensive? Yes, I know this to be true - all sorts of assessments have to be undertaken and there's probably an argument for curtailing some of these but I'm not hearing any specifics from anyone. Do we for instance forego an Environmental Impact Assessment? I mean, is a colony of rare newts more important then our housing shortage? What about contamination of brownfield sites?

I found @IanB2

He lies. He’s not in the Alps. He’s anxiously truffle-hunting in Salop

Cyclefree said:

boulay said:

Cyclefree said:

I have actually come inside because at 5:45 pm in the Lakes on 5 September it is TOO HOT to sit outside.

The good news is that you appear to have mastered time travel having come in at 5.45 and posted that you had done so at 5.44. Now you need to travel back and warn the postmasters that their bosses are a bunch of shits and it’s the software.

My clocks are approximate. The precise time no longer matters to me.

Anyway if I'm going to time travel I will look for a handsome sex mad man to occupy me during the wee small hours. Not faff around tidying up scandals.

It’s about trust Cyclefree, Trust! If we can’t trust your posts about time then what is left? 😄

Leon said:

I found @IanB2

He lies. He’s not in the Alps. He’s anxiously truffle-hunting in Salop

I had a girlfriend from Shropshire, whenever we were in France they immediately knew she was a Shropshire girl as they would shout “Salop” as she walked past. Which was weird.

SandyRentool said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Carnyx said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Eabhal said:

Malmesbury said:

Eabhal said:

Malmesbury said:

Eabhal said:

The RAAC thing reminds us of the value of "red tape".

All the RAAC used was signed off, noted, tested etc.

See DTD683

I'm suggesting we need more.

Ah yes - another pile of paper will prove it’s safe next time. Perhaps if we photocopy the passwppets of everyone working on a project… twice. That’ll do it.

Do you work for the Boeing Starliner project?

"Don't make schools out of concrete that is liable to collapse" isn't too onerous, surely?

For 40 years it was not considered a risk

Not true. It was falling to bits in the 1980s. A known issue that early.

You souldn't believe what that nice Ms Keegan says, you know. The next thhing, she'll be offering you sweeties.

It wasn't Keegan who made the comment, but it was in 1996 the industry was alerted to it and in 1997 the Blair government took office knowing the problem

That would be the Blair government that instigated a school building programme. The building programme cancelled by the Tories in 2010.

And it's not just RAAC, either, as some of us have pointed out.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2023/sep/05/more-than-half-of-dilapidated-english-schools-were-refused-rebuilding-money

That's not something BigG can blame on Labour.

'More than half of English schools that are so dilapidated they are at risk of partial closure were refused money under the government’s school rebuilding scheme, Department for Education (DfE) statistics show.

It has also emerged that under the programme, intended to rebuild 500 schools in England over a 10-year period from 2020, only four were completed in 2021.

[...]
Under the most recent full data published by the DfE, of 1,105 schools that applied to be rebuilt, 300 had been selected and 797 refused, with eight dropping out.

Of those turned down, 356 applied under a DfE-set metric called “exceptional case”, which means the school leaders believe the condition of their blocks is “so severe as to risk imminent closure, or a block is already closed”.'

Cyclefree said:

boulay said:

Cyclefree said:

I have actually come inside because at 5:45 pm in the Lakes on 5 September it is TOO HOT to sit outside.

The good news is that you appear to have mastered time travel having come in at 5.45 and posted that you had done so at 5.44. Now you need to travel back and warn the postmasters that their bosses are a bunch of shits and it’s the software.

My clocks are approximate. The precise time no longer matters to me.

Anyway if I'm going to time travel I will look for a handsome sex mad man to occupy me during the wee small hours. Not faff around tidying up scandals.

I usually need a wee in the small hours. Close enough?

Eabhal said:

Malmesbury said:

Eabhal said:

Malmesbury said:

Eabhal said:

The RAAC thing reminds us of the value of "red tape".

All the RAAC used was signed off, noted, tested etc.

See DTD683

I'm suggesting we need more.

Ah yes - another pile of paper will prove it’s safe next time. Perhaps if we photocopy the passwppets of everyone working on a project… twice. That’ll do it.

Do you work for the Boeing Starliner project?

"Don't make schools out of concrete that is liable to collapse" isn't too onerous, surely?

RAAC was considered just ticketyboo when it was used. Just as DTD683 was considered the dog racing undercarriage of aluminium alloys when they were building planes out of it.

All specified, certified and lovely.

Sadly God or the Laws of Physics or whatever disregarded all the documentation.

Despite earnest attempts by civil servants and politicians, both materials refused to fix themselves. In an act of grotesque insubordination to Proper Process.

The problem we have now is nothing to do with documentation. It is a response, as Herman Kahn noted, to a problem that is Just Too Big.

He noted that when a problem of fact became too big for the politicians/systems etc to deal with, their response was to deny it was a problem, hide it and persecute anyone who bought up the issue.

Birmingham City Council is the largest authority in my experience to issue a section 114 notice.

A 114 notice doesn't mean the council is "bankrupt" per se but it puts a check on all non-essential spending. In truth, many Councils have a "star chamber" of officers and members who will scrutinise even relatively small expenditure.

The implementation of an Oracle IT system is apparently about £80 million of the problem but the main issue seems to be the settlement of equal pay claims which dates back to a case which went to the Supreme Court over a decade ago.

“Consistent Signs of Erosion in Black and Hispanic Support for Biden: It’s a weakness that could manifest itself as low Democratic turnout even if Trump and Republicans don’t gain among those groups.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/05/upshot/biden-trump-black-hispanic-voters.html

williamglenn said:

“Consistent Signs of Erosion in Black and Hispanic Support for Biden: It’s a weakness that could manifest itself as low Democratic turnout even if Trump and Republicans don’t gain among those groups.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/05/upshot/biden-trump-black-hispanic-voters.html

They can't be complacent about it, even though they will hope such support will rebound in the event Trump is indeed convicted.

This stretch of road over the fells is, quite simply, one of the most beautiful in England.

https://www.cyclefree.co.uk/the-way-home/

Malmesbury said:

Eabhal said:

Malmesbury said:

Eabhal said:

Malmesbury said:

Eabhal said:

The RAAC thing reminds us of the value of "red tape".

All the RAAC used was signed off, noted, tested etc.

See DTD683

I'm suggesting we need more.

Ah yes - another pile of paper will prove it’s safe next time. Perhaps if we photocopy the passwppets of everyone working on a project… twice. That’ll do it.

Do you work for the Boeing Starliner project?

"Don't make schools out of concrete that is liable to collapse" isn't too onerous, surely?

RAAC was considered just ticketyboo when it was used. Just as DTD683 was considered the dog racing undercarriage of aluminium alloys when they were building planes out of it.

All specified, certified and lovely.

Sadly God or the Laws of Physics or whatever disregarded all the documentation.

Despite earnest attempts by civil servants and politicians, both materials refused to fix themselves. In an act of grotesque insubordination to Proper Process.

The problem we have now is nothing to do with documentation. It is a response, as Herman Kahn noted, to a problem that is Just Too Big.

He noted that when a problem of fact became too big for the politicians/systems etc to deal with, their response was to deny it was a problem, hide it and persecute anyone who bought up the issue.

That is why, to be serious for a moment, whatever system you have should aim to catch problems when they are small and opportunities to learn and improve rather than allow them to grow ever larger into Crises to Be Managed.

The systems we have now do the precise opposite.

Cyclefree said:

This stretch of road over the fells is, quite simply, one of the most beautiful in England.

https://www.cyclefree.co.uk/the-way-home/

Beautiful

But a little bleak for me as a permanent home. Ditto the Hebrides which are even more beautiful - but even bleaker. I prefer the lushness further south

I’m just north of Shrewsbury now - Upton Magna - so I’m on that fascinating borderland where the south imperceptibly becomes the north

Shrewsbury feels definitely south to me yet 29m north west of here is Crewe. Definitely north

So somewhere along that 29 miles….. Britain completely changes

Cyclefree said:

Malmesbury said:

Eabhal said:

Malmesbury said:

Eabhal said:

Malmesbury said:

Eabhal said:

The RAAC thing reminds us of the value of "red tape".

All the RAAC used was signed off, noted, tested etc.

See DTD683

I'm suggesting we need more.

Ah yes - another pile of paper will prove it’s safe next time. Perhaps if we photocopy the passwppets of everyone working on a project… twice. That’ll do it.

Do you work for the Boeing Starliner project?

"Don't make schools out of concrete that is liable to collapse" isn't too onerous, surely?

RAAC was considered just ticketyboo when it was used. Just as DTD683 was considered the dog racing undercarriage of aluminium alloys when they were building planes out of it.

All specified, certified and lovely.

Sadly God or the Laws of Physics or whatever disregarded all the documentation.

Despite earnest attempts by civil servants and politicians, both materials refused to fix themselves. In an act of grotesque insubordination to Proper Process.

The problem we have now is nothing to do with documentation. It is a response, as Herman Kahn noted, to a problem that is Just Too Big.

He noted that when a problem of fact became too big for the politicians/systems etc to deal with, their response was to deny it was a problem, hide it and persecute anyone who bought up the issue.

That is why, to be serious for a moment, whatever system you have should aim to catch problems when they are small and opportunities to learn and improve rather than allow them to grow ever larger into Crises to Be Managed.

The systems we have now do the precise opposite.

Why, exactly so.

Please stop talking common sense.

It will come up in any interview for a high end job, and you’ll get turned down for having subject matter expertise and possessing skills in arse-elbow differentiation.

We can’t have Top People like that, you know.

Taz said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

Malmesbury said:

Eabhal said:

The RAAC thing reminds us of the value of "red tape".

All the RAAC used was signed off, noted, tested etc.

See DTD683

I'm suggesting we need more.

We need more fully-certified RAAC in place? Why?

Less red tape on planning and it'd be easier to replace buildings using RAAC with newer buildings built to better standards that don't.

You seen the Welsh tiktok guy pulling apart dodgy new builds?

A lack of red tape just means we'll go through this process again and again, with long term costs that far outweigh short term savings.

He’s also on YouTube as well.

Every other word is ‘shocking’.

Poorly made crap, there’s red tape already, it gets signed off.

There was next to no red tape when building an Edwardian semis. Certainly compared to modern houses.

Red tape is just a guarantee of piles of paper. It doesn’t have a magical quality of protection anything.

I am intimately familiar with the piles of paper generated by building buildings. 99% of the pages are pre-printed filler that no one reads. Lost in the pile is the actual useful information. On some occasions I have seen people employed to read the manure pile, to extract a single page of A4 which contains the actual bits which convey information.

Leon said:

boulay said:

Leon said:

I found @IanB2

He lies. He’s not in the Alps. He’s anxiously truffle-hunting in Salop

I had a girlfriend from Shropshire, whenever we were in France they immediately knew she was a Shropshire girl as they would shout “Salop” as she walked past. Which was weird.

Droll

It’s fucking beautiful is Shropshire. Just gorgeous. Quite hard to reconcile my day with these depictions of an entire nation falling down

That guy found £300 of truffles in half an hour

This woman has built a magnificent organic multi-acre vegetable garden in four years



This dude is aiming to become a master Brewer at the Ludlow Taproom where I had one of the best pork pies of my life



I know it’s sunny. I know this is a relatively favoured corner of the UK - but it’s not THAT favoured. And it all seems notably pleasant, rather affluent, peaceful

Is Shropshire becoming a sort of arts & crafts Silicon Valley?

Carnyx said:

Malmesbury said:

JosiasJessop said:

Malmesbury said:

Eabhal said:

Malmesbury said:

Eabhal said:

Malmesbury said:

Eabhal said:

The RAAC thing reminds us of the value of "red tape".

All the RAAC used was signed off, noted, tested etc.

See DTD683

I'm suggesting we need more.

Ah yes - another pile of paper will prove it’s safe next time. Perhaps if we photocopy the passwppets of everyone working on a project… twice. That’ll do it.

Do you work for the Boeing Starliner project?

"Don't make schools out of concrete that is liable to collapse" isn't too onerous, surely?

RAAC was considered just ticketyboo when it was used. Just as DTD683 was considered the dog racing undercarriage of aluminium alloys when they were building planes out of it.

All specified, certified and lovely.

Sadly God or the Laws of Physics or whatever disregarded all the documentation.

Despite earnest attempts by civil servants and politicians, both materials refused to fix themselves. In an act of grotesque insubordination to Proper Process.

The problem we have now is nothing to do with documentation. It is a response, as Herman Kahn noted, to a problem that is Just Too Big.

He noted that when a problem of fact became too big for the politicians/systems etc to deal with, their response was to deny it was a problem, hide it and persecute anyone who bought up the issue.

My dad built houses and buildings. He said the worst thing you could do was let architects subject you to their dreams. They would read up on new materials or structure types, and look for some gullible client to come along to 'sell' that dream to - and pay for it. These dreams were always more expensive and troublesome for the client than something that used well-understood materials and techniques. Always avoid 'wonder' materials.

"Don't pay for an architect's dream," was something he used to say.

Yes.

But in this case a material turned out to have problems after being certified and used according to guidelines etc.

This wasn’t a mad architects dream. Though god knows we’ve had enough of those.

Come to think of it, do you think they used any RAAC at Poundbry?

TBF if the guidelines specified a finite lifetime in the first place, then exceeding it was not a great idea.

But…. But… A Study Was Done!!

Are you saying that just because the material disobeyed the paperwork, we should reward the insubordination of the material by treating Reality as important?

Malmesbury said:

Cyclefree said:

Malmesbury said:

Eabhal said:

Malmesbury said:

Eabhal said:

Malmesbury said:

Eabhal said:

The RAAC thing reminds us of the value of "red tape".

All the RAAC used was signed off, noted, tested etc.

See DTD683

I'm suggesting we need more.

Ah yes - another pile of paper will prove it’s safe next time. Perhaps if we photocopy the passwppets of everyone working on a project… twice. That’ll do it.

Do you work for the Boeing Starliner project?

"Don't make schools out of concrete that is liable to collapse" isn't too onerous, surely?

RAAC was considered just ticketyboo when it was used. Just as DTD683 was considered the dog racing undercarriage of aluminium alloys when they were building planes out of it.

All specified, certified and lovely.

Sadly God or the Laws of Physics or whatever disregarded all the documentation.

Despite earnest attempts by civil servants and politicians, both materials refused to fix themselves. In an act of grotesque insubordination to Proper Process.

The problem we have now is nothing to do with documentation. It is a response, as Herman Kahn noted, to a problem that is Just Too Big.

He noted that when a problem of fact became too big for the politicians/systems etc to deal with, their response was to deny it was a problem, hide it and persecute anyone who bought up the issue.

That is why, to be serious for a moment, whatever system you have should aim to catch problems when they are small and opportunities to learn and improve rather than allow them to grow ever larger into Crises to Be Managed.

The systems we have now do the precise opposite.

Why, exactly so.

Please stop talking common sense.

It will come up in any interview for a high end job, and you’ll get turned down for having subject matter expertise and possessing skills in arse-elbow differentiation.

We can’t have Top People like that, you know.

Well, that's me told. And why I will never be a Top Person.

I wish someone had told me before. Why I could by now be the Dido Harding of my generation - with titles and money and friends like Matt Hanco..... oh, no .....

Cyclefree said:

Leon said:

Cyclefree said:

This stretch of road over the fells is, quite simply, one of the most beautiful in England.

https://www.cyclefree.co.uk/the-way-home/

Beautiful

But a little bleak for me as a permanent home. Ditto the Hebrides which are even more beautiful - but even bleaker. I prefer the lushness further south

I’m just north of Shrewsbury now - Upton Magna - so I’m on that fascinating borderland where the south imperceptibly becomes the north

Shrewsbury feels definitely south to me yet 29m north west of here is Crewe. Definitely north

So somewhere along that 29 miles….. Britain completely changes

There is a lot of lushness around the coast - see Grange for instance which easily grows tropical plants.

I have lemon and fig trees growing and fruiting successfully. Other parts are fantastically g
It's just that this particular stretch is - for me - beautiful no matter what the weather or time of day. There is a stillness about it, an almost architectural, abstract quality to the landscape and colours and shapes - and that combination of sky and sea, of horizons and remoteness and hiding away is magical.

It took me time to appreciate it. But now my heart lifts when I reach that road and start the descent home.

Happy is the person that loves their home! Good for you

I still love London, although I sometimes hate it, as well. But that has always been the case

London is like a girlfriend that drives you mad and you are about to leave her, then she will do something amazing that no one else can do - and you know you can’t leave her (yet!)/or live anywhere else, not full time

My idea life would actually be itinerant, I have now realised. You think I would have realised this before, after 37 years of travel writing, but anyway. I’ve now realised this is the case. I am happiest when I am on the move, but I also need that anchor, my bolt hole in London, to come back to in times of stress or exhaustion or just for some downtime and strolls on Primrose Hill

I’m just not Homo domesticus; I am not a farmer. I hunt and forage, One of Bruce Chatwin’s nomads

JosiasJessop said:

Malmesbury said:

Eabhal said:

Malmesbury said:

Eabhal said:

Malmesbury said:

Eabhal said:

The RAAC thing reminds us of the value of "red tape".

All the RAAC used was signed off, noted, tested etc.

See DTD683

I'm suggesting we need more.

Ah yes - another pile of paper will prove it’s safe next time. Perhaps if we photocopy the passwppets of everyone working on a project… twice. That’ll do it.

Do you work for the Boeing Starliner project?

"Don't make schools out of concrete that is liable to collapse" isn't too onerous, surely?

RAAC was considered just ticketyboo when it was used. Just as DTD683 was considered the dog racing undercarriage of aluminium alloys when they were building planes out of it.

All specified, certified and lovely.

Sadly God or the Laws of Physics or whatever disregarded all the documentation.

Despite earnest attempts by civil servants and politicians, both materials refused to fix themselves. In an act of grotesque insubordination to Proper Process.

The problem we have now is nothing to do with documentation. It is a response, as Herman Kahn noted, to a problem that is Just Too Big.

He noted that when a problem of fact became too big for the politicians/systems etc to deal with, their response was to deny it was a problem, hide it and persecute anyone who bought up the issue.

My dad built houses and buildings. He said the worst thing you could do was let architects subject you to their dreams. They would read up on new materials or structure types, and look for some gullible client to come along to 'sell' that dream to - and pay for it. These dreams were always more expensive and troublesome for the client than something that used well-understood materials and techniques. Always avoid 'wonder' materials.

"Don't pay for an architect's dream," was something he used to say.

Taken as a whole we need innovators and dreamers in industries, to help develop them and prevent stagnation. But on an individual level we probably just want something that provably works. And certainly not ones leaning a bit hard on the artistic vision side of things over functional building side.

Cyclefree said:

Malmesbury said:

Cyclefree said:

Malmesbury said:

Eabhal said:

Malmesbury said:

Eabhal said:

Malmesbury said:

Eabhal said:

The RAAC thing reminds us of the value of "red tape".

All the RAAC used was signed off, noted, tested etc.

See DTD683

I'm suggesting we need more.

Ah yes - another pile of paper will prove it’s safe next time. Perhaps if we photocopy the passwppets of everyone working on a project… twice. That’ll do it.

Do you work for the Boeing Starliner project?

"Don't make schools out of concrete that is liable to collapse" isn't too onerous, surely?

RAAC was considered just ticketyboo when it was used. Just as DTD683 was considered the dog racing undercarriage of aluminium alloys when they were building planes out of it.

All specified, certified and lovely.

Sadly God or the Laws of Physics or whatever disregarded all the documentation.

Despite earnest attempts by civil servants and politicians, both materials refused to fix themselves. In an act of grotesque insubordination to Proper Process.

The problem we have now is nothing to do with documentation. It is a response, as Herman Kahn noted, to a problem that is Just Too Big.

He noted that when a problem of fact became too big for the politicians/systems etc to deal with, their response was to deny it was a problem, hide it and persecute anyone who bought up the issue.

That is why, to be serious for a moment, whatever system you have should aim to catch problems when they are small and opportunities to learn and improve rather than allow them to grow ever larger into Crises to Be Managed.

The systems we have now do the precise opposite.

Why, exactly so.

Please stop talking common sense.

It will come up in any interview for a high end job, and you’ll get turned down for having subject matter expertise and possessing skills in arse-elbow differentiation.

We can’t have Top People like that, you know.

Well, that's me told. And why I will never be a Top Person.

I wish someone had told me before. Why I could by now be the Dido Harding of my generation - with titles and money and friends like Matt Hanco..... oh, no .....

The training starts here

Q1 You are sitting next to a BBC journalist at a dinner. He asks you questions about a scandal involving your organisation. Do you

1) make up some bollocks, composed of made up nonsense and confidential information.
2) put polonium in his coffee
3) scratch your nose in a knowing fashion, suggest that the entre was better at the dinner two weeks ago, and ask after his daughters latest exam results.

On topic, every private indicator I had on my list for a Labour majority I've now ticked off (bar none) and so that's what I expect to happen.

I should probably pile on, even at current prices, but I don't have the cash.

Malmesbury said:

Carnyx said:

Malmesbury said:

JosiasJessop said:

Malmesbury said:

Eabhal said:

Malmesbury said:

Eabhal said:

Malmesbury said:

Eabhal said:

The RAAC thing reminds us of the value of "red tape".

All the RAAC used was signed off, noted, tested etc.

See DTD683

I'm suggesting we need more.

Ah yes - another pile of paper will prove it’s safe next time. Perhaps if we photocopy the passwppets of everyone working on a project… twice. That’ll do it.

Do you work for the Boeing Starliner project?

"Don't make schools out of concrete that is liable to collapse" isn't too onerous, surely?

RAAC was considered just ticketyboo when it was used. Just as DTD683 was considered the dog racing undercarriage of aluminium alloys when they were building planes out of it.

All specified, certified and lovely.

Sadly God or the Laws of Physics or whatever disregarded all the documentation.

Despite earnest attempts by civil servants and politicians, both materials refused to fix themselves. In an act of grotesque insubordination to Proper Process.

The problem we have now is nothing to do with documentation. It is a response, as Herman Kahn noted, to a problem that is Just Too Big.

He noted that when a problem of fact became too big for the politicians/systems etc to deal with, their response was to deny it was a problem, hide it and persecute anyone who bought up the issue.

My dad built houses and buildings. He said the worst thing you could do was let architects subject you to their dreams. They would read up on new materials or structure types, and look for some gullible client to come along to 'sell' that dream to - and pay for it. These dreams were always more expensive and troublesome for the client than something that used well-understood materials and techniques. Always avoid 'wonder' materials.

"Don't pay for an architect's dream," was something he used to say.

Yes.

But in this case a material turned out to have problems after being certified and used according to guidelines etc.

This wasn’t a mad architects dream. Though god knows we’ve had enough of those.

Come to think of it, do you think they used any RAAC at Poundbry?

TBF if the guidelines specified a finite lifetime in the first place, then exceeding it was not a great idea.

But…. But… A Study Was Done!!

Are you saying that just because the material disobeyed the paperwork, we should reward the insubordination of the material by treating Reality as important?

This is where a proper paper/electronic trail is important.

If RAAC passed all tests and was approved fairly then perhaps we should look at the tests rather than the material, and consider the lessons. Was the 30 year life known at the time, or is that a retrospective analysis?

The Grenfell cladding was found to be dangerous when tested, but used anyway, so the trail of blame goes elsewhere.

https://www.insidehousing.co.uk/news/catastrophic-fire-test-in-2002-meant-government-should-have-had-no-doubt-at-all-that-grenfell-cladding-should-not-be-used-74354

StillWaters said:

williamglenn said:

The latest from Putin: "The Western masters placed an ethnic Jew, a person with Jewish roots, at the head of Ukraine and this is how, in my opinion, they cover up the anti-human essence that is the foundation of the modern Ukrainian state."

https://x.com/k_sonin/status/1699089739356266749

Wow. I’ve heard Putin say some eye opening things but that one’s really special

Not that he has his eye mostly on the US market, but it's like he cannot quite believe how many of them support him and wants to test them.

Carnyx said:

noneoftheabove said:

rcs1000 said:

Come on, how bad is aerated concrete anyway?

Let's grow some balls people. We lived through Covid. We can live through a few collapsing ceilings here and there.

How many ceilings collapsed from water leaks in the last year vs RAAC?

Water leaks *are* a major issue with RAAC. It's that sensitive when it gets old, apparently. One collapse was due to a blocked gutter, nothing more.

Not quite - it was water pooling on a flat roof because of a blocked gutter.

That will bring down any roof eventually

Leon said:

Cyclefree said:

Leon said:

Cyclefree said:

This stretch of road over the fells is, quite simply, one of the most beautiful in England.

https://www.cyclefree.co.uk/the-way-home/

Beautiful

But a little bleak for me as a permanent home. Ditto the Hebrides which are even more beautiful - but even bleaker. I prefer the lushness further south

I’m just north of Shrewsbury now - Upton Magna - so I’m on that fascinating borderland where the south imperceptibly becomes the north

Shrewsbury feels definitely south to me yet 29m north west of here is Crewe. Definitely north

So somewhere along that 29 miles….. Britain completely changes

There is a lot of lushness around the coast - see Grange for instance which easily grows tropical plants.

I have lemon and fig trees growing and fruiting successfully. Other parts are fantastically g
It's just that this particular stretch is - for me - beautiful no matter what the weather or time of day. There is a stillness about it, an almost architectural, abstract quality to the landscape and colours and shapes - and that combination of sky and sea, of horizons and remoteness and hiding away is magical.

It took me time to appreciate it. But now my heart lifts when I reach that road and start the descent home.

Happy is the person that loves their home! Good for you

I still love London, although I sometimes hate it, as well. But that has always been the case

London is like a girlfriend that drives you mad and you are about to leave her, then she will do something amazing that no one else can do - and you know you can’t leave her (yet!)/or live anywhere else, not full time

My idea life would actually be itinerant, I have now realised. You think I would have realised this before, after 37 years of travel writing, but anyway. I’ve now realised this is the case. I am happiest when I am on the move, but I also need that anchor, my bolt hole in London, to come back to in times of stress or exhaustion or just for some downtime and strolls on Primrose Hill

I’m just not Homo domesticus; I am not a farmer. I hunt and forage, One of Bruce Chatwin’s nomads

Most of my early life was spent on the move - between Italy and Ireland and France and England. So until I was adult I never really entirely fitted in anywhere. And that feeling of being an outsider - on the edge of a group, sort of part of it but not really - and an observer has never ever left me.

It is one of the reasons I became an investigator - because observing and seeing things that seemed odd and having to understand the codes of places and groups I was apart from - is something that I've been doing since birth. It's quite lonely as a child and teenager but later you realise it's a great quality to have if you use it right. Both my parents were the same so I probably learnt some of it from them too.

The place I feel the greatest sense of childhood home is Naples. London is where I have lived the longest and I have enjoyed it. But what makes this place home for me is that we built it - not just bought and redecorated - and there is something very rooting about doing that. You have carved out your own Eden, in your own mind anyway. It also reminds me very strongly of the place in Ireland where my father's family came from - not so much the landscape as the feel of the place. Plus I had to spend a year in a barn halfway up a mountainside during Covid so that changed my feelings about urban landscapes quite profoundly.

I do not travel like you. But I never feel entirely at home anywhere. I like that feeling though. Being on the edge looking in.

Foxy said:

Malmesbury said:

Carnyx said:

Malmesbury said:

JosiasJessop said:

Malmesbury said:

Eabhal said:

Malmesbury said:

Eabhal said:

Malmesbury said:

Eabhal said:

The RAAC thing reminds us of the value of "red tape".

All the RAAC used was signed off, noted, tested etc.

See DTD683

I'm suggesting we need more.

Ah yes - another pile of paper will prove it’s safe next time. Perhaps if we photocopy the passwppets of everyone working on a project… twice. That’ll do it.

Do you work for the Boeing Starliner project?

"Don't make schools out of concrete that is liable to collapse" isn't too onerous, surely?

RAAC was considered just ticketyboo when it was used. Just as DTD683 was considered the dog racing undercarriage of aluminium alloys when they were building planes out of it.

All specified, certified and lovely.

Sadly God or the Laws of Physics or whatever disregarded all the documentation.

Despite earnest attempts by civil servants and politicians, both materials refused to fix themselves. In an act of grotesque insubordination to Proper Process.

The problem we have now is nothing to do with documentation. It is a response, as Herman Kahn noted, to a problem that is Just Too Big.

He noted that when a problem of fact became too big for the politicians/systems etc to deal with, their response was to deny it was a problem, hide it and persecute anyone who bought up the issue.

My dad built houses and buildings. He said the worst thing you could do was let architects subject you to their dreams. They would read up on new materials or structure types, and look for some gullible client to come along to 'sell' that dream to - and pay for it. These dreams were always more expensive and troublesome for the client than something that used well-understood materials and techniques. Always avoid 'wonder' materials.

"Don't pay for an architect's dream," was something he used to say.

Yes.

But in this case a material turned out to have problems after being certified and used according to guidelines etc.

This wasn’t a mad architects dream. Though god knows we’ve had enough of those.

Come to think of it, do you think they used any RAAC at Poundbry?

TBF if the guidelines specified a finite lifetime in the first place, then exceeding it was not a great idea.

But…. But… A Study Was Done!!

Are you saying that just because the material disobeyed the paperwork, we should reward the insubordination of the material by treating Reality as important?

This is where a proper paper/electronic trail is important.

If RAAC passed all tests and was approved fairly then perhaps we should look at the tests rather than the material, and consider the lessons. Was the 30 year life known at the time, or is that a retrospective analysis?

The Grenfell cladding was found to be dangerous when tested, but used anyway, so the trail of blame goes elsewhere.

https://www.insidehousing.co.uk/news/catastrophic-fire-test-in-2002-meant-government-should-have-had-no-doubt-at-all-that-grenfell-cladding-should-not-be-used-74354

You could have speculated that having voids in concrete - particularly reinforced concrete - might be a bad idea. I was definitely taught that it was.

We have enough problems with standard reinforced concrete falling apart when the rebar rusts. It just isn't a very good material for protecting steel without a lot of care (see: Genoa motorway bridge).

Perhaps someone thought they could make it watertight, or that it would make a good material if installed somewhere dry. Perhaps they thought that crack propagation from voids wouldn't be a problem. Who knows.

I'm sure it was tested, but probably not over 30 years. Fire is much easier to test for and there was no excuse for the panels.

Foxy said:

Malmesbury said:

Carnyx said:

Malmesbury said:

JosiasJessop said:

Malmesbury said:

Eabhal said:

Malmesbury said:

Eabhal said:

Malmesbury said:

Eabhal said:

The RAAC thing reminds us of the value of "red tape".

All the RAAC used was signed off, noted, tested etc.

See DTD683

I'm suggesting we need more.

Ah yes - another pile of paper will prove it’s safe next time. Perhaps if we photocopy the passwppets of everyone working on a project… twice. That’ll do it.

Do you work for the Boeing Starliner project?

"Don't make schools out of concrete that is liable to collapse" isn't too onerous, surely?

RAAC was considered just ticketyboo when it was used. Just as DTD683 was considered the dog racing undercarriage of aluminium alloys when they were building planes out of it.

All specified, certified and lovely.

Sadly God or the Laws of Physics or whatever disregarded all the documentation.

Despite earnest attempts by civil servants and politicians, both materials refused to fix themselves. In an act of grotesque insubordination to Proper Process.

The problem we have now is nothing to do with documentation. It is a response, as Herman Kahn noted, to a problem that is Just Too Big.

He noted that when a problem of fact became too big for the politicians/systems etc to deal with, their response was to deny it was a problem, hide it and persecute anyone who bought up the issue.

My dad built houses and buildings. He said the worst thing you could do was let architects subject you to their dreams. They would read up on new materials or structure types, and look for some gullible client to come along to 'sell' that dream to - and pay for it. These dreams were always more expensive and troublesome for the client than something that used well-understood materials and techniques. Always avoid 'wonder' materials.

"Don't pay for an architect's dream," was something he used to say.

Yes.

But in this case a material turned out to have problems after being certified and used according to guidelines etc.

This wasn’t a mad architects dream. Though god knows we’ve had enough of those.

Come to think of it, do you think they used any RAAC at Poundbry?

TBF if the guidelines specified a finite lifetime in the first place, then exceeding it was not a great idea.

But…. But… A Study Was Done!!

Are you saying that just because the material disobeyed the paperwork, we should reward the insubordination of the material by treating Reality as important?

This is where a proper paper/electronic trail is important.

If RAAC passed all tests and was approved fairly then perhaps we should look at the tests rather than the material, and consider the lessons. Was the 30 year life known at the time, or is that a retrospective analysis?

The Grenfell cladding was found to be dangerous when tested, but used anyway, so the trail of blame goes elsewhere.

https://www.insidehousing.co.uk/news/catastrophic-fire-test-in-2002-meant-government-should-have-had-no-doubt-at-all-that-grenfell-cladding-should-not-be-used-74354

It’s been in use for a long time. Since before WWII, IIRC

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/sep/04/raac-crisis-who-knew-what-when-crumbling-concrete-england

Flatlander said:

Foxy said:

Malmesbury said:

Carnyx said:

Malmesbury said:

JosiasJessop said:

Malmesbury said:

Eabhal said:

Malmesbury said:

Eabhal said:

Malmesbury said:

Eabhal said:

The RAAC thing reminds us of the value of "red tape".

All the RAAC used was signed off, noted, tested etc.

See DTD683

I'm suggesting we need more.

Ah yes - another pile of paper will prove it’s safe next time. Perhaps if we photocopy the passwppets of everyone working on a project… twice. That’ll do it.

Do you work for the Boeing Starliner project?

"Don't make schools out of concrete that is liable to collapse" isn't too onerous, surely?

RAAC was considered just ticketyboo when it was used. Just as DTD683 was considered the dog racing undercarriage of aluminium alloys when they were building planes out of it.

All specified, certified and lovely.

Sadly God or the Laws of Physics or whatever disregarded all the documentation.

Despite earnest attempts by civil servants and politicians, both materials refused to fix themselves. In an act of grotesque insubordination to Proper Process.

The problem we have now is nothing to do with documentation. It is a response, as Herman Kahn noted, to a problem that is Just Too Big.

He noted that when a problem of fact became too big for the politicians/systems etc to deal with, their response was to deny it was a problem, hide it and persecute anyone who bought up the issue.

My dad built houses and buildings. He said the worst thing you could do was let architects subject you to their dreams. They would read up on new materials or structure types, and look for some gullible client to come along to 'sell' that dream to - and pay for it. These dreams were always more expensive and troublesome for the client than something that used well-understood materials and techniques. Always avoid 'wonder' materials.

"Don't pay for an architect's dream," was something he used to say.

Yes.

But in this case a material turned out to have problems after being certified and used according to guidelines etc.

This wasn’t a mad architects dream. Though god knows we’ve had enough of those.

Come to think of it, do you think they used any RAAC at Poundbry?

TBF if the guidelines specified a finite lifetime in the first place, then exceeding it was not a great idea.

But…. But… A Study Was Done!!

Are you saying that just because the material disobeyed the paperwork, we should reward the insubordination of the material by treating Reality as important?

This is where a proper paper/electronic trail is important.

If RAAC passed all tests and was approved fairly then perhaps we should look at the tests rather than the material, and consider the lessons. Was the 30 year life known at the time, or is that a retrospective analysis?

The Grenfell cladding was found to be dangerous when tested, but used anyway, so the trail of blame goes elsewhere.

https://www.insidehousing.co.uk/news/catastrophic-fire-test-in-2002-meant-government-should-have-had-no-doubt-at-all-that-grenfell-cladding-should-not-be-used-74354

You could have speculated that having voids in concrete - particularly reinforced concrete - might be a bad idea. I was definitely taught that it was.

We have enough problems with standard reinforced concrete falling apart when the rebar rusts. It just isn't a very good material for protecting steel without a lot of care (see: Genoa motorway bridge).

Perhaps someone thought they could make it watertight, or that it would make a good material if installed somewhere dry. Perhaps they thought that crack propagation from voids wouldn't be a problem. Who knows.

I'm sure it was tested, but probably not over 30 years. Fire is much easier to test for and there was no excuse for the panels.

Interestingly, AIUI from what I've read the rebar used had to have a special anti-rust coating, because the concrete was so much more porous than 'standard' concrete.