Grenfell Tower Block Fire

[Richard]

Dave Rice wrote:

I was waiting for the EU to be blamed. Oh, you managed to get a swipe in at Labour too. What about all the responsible politicians since then too? It doesn’t seem to have stopped the French “In France, in the high-rise towers like Grenfell, we can only use non-flammable materials – they don’t burn, they don’t catch fire.” and they’re now reducing that to 28 metres and expecting to do that within weeks. http://news.sky.com/story/france-plans-new-cladding-law-after-grenfell-fire-disaster-10930623 “Following the fire, French housing association LMH removed the flammable cladding from other towers despite not being compelled by law at the time to do so. Damien Guth, the group’s technical director, said: “What we noticed, as well as experts, is that the plastic core inside the cladding was responsible for the rapid spread of fire. “This is what prompted us to replace the cladding on our tower blocks to avoid risk.” The company said it was a matter of ethics.” Why is France capable of spotting the bloody obvious and doing something about it, yet all we do is call for another inquiry that will take years? When we get to the bottom of this, if we ever do, it will be a home grown disaster of our own making. I may not have Drezha’s training but it seems obvious to me that cladding a building in flammable material cannot be a good idea.

A bit of a dog’s breakfast there. Please indicate how the French ensure that a domestic law can survive a legal challenge from any Tom Dick of Harry that the rules are above the EU requirements which trump national rules.

There is nothing to stop anyone or any company from exceeding the minimum standards, but changing the law is a different matter. Perhaps the french will do what they usually do and ignore any bit of the EU they do not like, even though they signed up to the rules currently in place.

I noted that it is a proposed law which they hope to pass in the future so pure puff, we should perhaps adopt the relevant BS standard the BRE developed in about 2005 (with any relevant updates such as sprinklers), for all current and new buildings, but it did give the French another chance of a cheap shot, no surprise there then.

Perhaps we should now review other failed old laws like the Human Wrongs Act and the European Court, (clowns) of Injustice ones; the money saved on legal costs and subsidies to terrorists might pay of all the updates we agree are needed, any takers

[Richard]

Dave, I have an apology to make, Peter Field from the Building Research Establishment (BRE) reported to MPs that the EN 13501 EU standard was woefully inadequate in 2000 not in 2005. So at least some knew that the EU standard, which automatically became the law of the UK was hopelessly flawed a long time ago. I will watch the effects of a unilateral move to introduce their own rules by the French with renewed interest. I was reminded by an ex-colleague this afternoon that EU procurement rules affect contracts. These rules could have been used against me while I was working, had I specified standards higher than the EU ones. Non compliant contractors could sue for unfair exclusion and tailoring the specification to exclude them. In fact one North American maker did try this route informally via a director when they could not meet contract specification requirements, but as it affected an essential requirement for inter operation they were successfully rebuffed.

[Dave Rice]

One things for sure, it’s a right old mess that needs sorting.

[Bob Williams]

The number of a**e-covers being applied, increases exponentially.

When the Thought Police arrive at your door, think -
I'm out.

[Author]

Posts