London Fire

Things seem to be getting bad there and people are apparently getting very frustrated. I guess there was an incident where some protesters over the fire attacked a man(including striking him hard on the side of his head) they thought was a conservative politician.

The guy will be okay, but it turns out the guy wasn't a politician and had actually been volunteering to help victims of the fire in the days before the attack.

So in the wake of this the authorities have been doing fire tests on the cladding of other tower blocks in London and across the country.

They are currently at 181 buildings tested....and 181 of them have failed fire tests.

Originally posted by jaden101
So in the wake of this the authorities have been doing fire tests on the cladding of other tower blocks in London and across the country.

They are currently at 181 buildings tested....and 181 of them have failed fire tests.

The Clash predicted this way back in 1977.

What is the fix, if any, are they talking about?

Originally posted by jaden101
So in the wake of this the authorities have been doing fire tests on the cladding of other tower blocks in London and across the country.

They are currently at 181 buildings tested....and 181 of them have failed fire tests.

They launched an official inquiry, corporate manslaughter charges are being considered, some buildings have been evacuated, and assume all of them will have to be re-clad.

Right now there is a lot of pressure on local council members to resign as they'd been handling the fallout piss poorly.

Oh, I hope the bastards get a good reaming.

Yeah, same.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
I assume heads are going to roll over this?

Who knows. I've dealt with health and safety legislation in the past and two people I know work in the field. They both believe that compliance to legislation is a box ticking exercise specifically designed to make liability when big problems occur very difficult to attribute. It'll be made even more complicated in this case due to contracting and sub-contracting the work. Finding a single person responsible for saying "don't use the fire resistant stuff....use the cheap stuff" will be almost impossible.

Originally posted by jaden101
Who knows. I've dealt with health and safety legislation in the past and two people I know work in the field. They both believe that compliance to legislation is a box ticking exercise specifically designed to make liability when big problems occur very difficult to attribute. It'll be made even more complicated in this case due to contracting and sub-contracting the work. Finding a single person responsible for saying "don't use the fire resistant stuff....use the cheap stuff" will be almost impossible.

"...specifically DESIGNED to make liability...difficult to attribute."

Are we talking about the people that are supposed to be regulating business/industry? Because the way that's worded, makes it sound like safety regulation is just a big scheme for industry to avoid having to pay for their ****ups.

I mean, if we're talking "specifically designed" to protect them from liability, that follows no one's really focusing on the good of the public here.. Just on keeping that public from being able to do much if enough of them die horribly in a fire.