a lot of plastic items are poisonous when burnt majority of garden furniture, toys, kitchenware is plastic which when burnt can release poisonous gases, it was an accident a very tragic one at that and i do think something is being done to help the victims of it, not saying more cant be done but something is happening.
regarding hotels its not feasable to put people in the reference to ba thats usually an overnight thing, but these people need to have kitchens and adeqaute washing facilities i doubt there's many councils in England that have enough empty property to Rehome at least 400 people.
I'm sure it will be very difficult for some local authorities to re-house large numbers of people at short notice. But, that's their job.
We all expect the fire service to deal with fires, even when there are more than usual. We expect hospitals to cope with high volumes of patients. In the same way, we should expect the Housing Departments of local authorities to handle fluctuations in demand for housing. It's their only job.
@Chizz i agree ( 1st time for everything i suppose )
but the fact of the matter is the here and now we haven't got the property at our disposal. the country as a whole is mass populated even more so in london, the 32 boroughs if they could put up 5 properies each that would be 160 properties, of course people establish homes but i do think if you are on housing benefits etc, then you should take what is offered to you, as you have virtually given nothing to the system and taken a lot ( this is people that are able and choose not to work ) there are of course people that are in need of housing and looking after and they should be the 1st rehomed as close as possible.
a lot of plastic items are poisonous when burnt majority of garden furniture, toys, kitchenware is plastic which when burnt can release poisonous gases, it was an accident a very tragic one at that and i do think something is being done to help the victims of it, not saying more cant be done but something is happening.
regarding hotels its not feasable to put people in the reference to ba thats usually an overnight thing, but these people need to have kitchens and adeqaute washing facilities i doubt there's many councils in England that have enough empty property to Rehome at least 400 people.
I'm sure it will be very difficult for some local authorities to re-house large numbers of people at short notice. But, that's their job.
We all expect the fire service to deal with fires, even when there are more than usual. We expect hospitals to cope with high volumes of patients. In the same way, we should expect the Housing Departments of local authorities to handle fluctuations in demand for housing. It's their only job.
@Chizz i agree ( 1st time for everything i suppose )
but the fact of the matter is the here and now we haven't got the property at our disposal. the country as a whole is mass populated even more so in london, the 32 boroughs if they could put up 5 properies each that would be 160 properties, of course people establish homes but i do think if you are on housing benefits etc, then you should take what is offered to you, as you have virtually given nothing to the system and taken a lot ( this is people that are able and choose not to work ) there are of course people that are in need of housing and looking after and they should be the 1st rehomed as close as possible.
Don't forget though, that most people on benefits are in work. And therefore, moving (say) from Kensington to Croydon, Bromley or Tower Hamlets might be entirely impractical. Notwithstanding the effect it will have on children being moved away from their school's catchment area.
Are we saying that local authorities should house people in safe, secure and warm homes, but if the home burns down the tenants can't stay in the area? I don't think that's acceptable at all. If you stick up a building, you need to make sure you have a contingency if it comes down.
Kensington and Chelsea have built up a surplus of hundreds of millions of pounds. Now is the time to use it.
a lot of plastic items are poisonous when burnt majority of garden furniture, toys, kitchenware is plastic which when burnt can release poisonous gases, it was an accident a very tragic one at that and i do think something is being done to help the victims of it, not saying more cant be done but something is happening.
regarding hotels its not feasable to put people in the reference to ba thats usually an overnight thing, but these people need to have kitchens and adeqaute washing facilities i doubt there's many councils in England that have enough empty property to Rehome at least 400 people.
I'm sure it will be very difficult for some local authorities to re-house large numbers of people at short notice. But, that's their job.
We all expect the fire service to deal with fires, even when there are more than usual. We expect hospitals to cope with high volumes of patients. In the same way, we should expect the Housing Departments of local authorities to handle fluctuations in demand for housing. It's their only job.
@Chizz i agree ( 1st time for everything i suppose )
but the fact of the matter is the here and now we haven't got the property at our disposal. the country as a whole is mass populated even more so in london, the 32 boroughs if they could put up 5 properies each that would be 160 properties, of course people establish homes but i do think if you are on housing benefits etc, then you should take what is offered to you, as you have virtually given nothing to the system and taken a lot ( this is people that are able and choose not to work ) there are of course people that are in need of housing and looking after and they should be the 1st rehomed as close as possible.
Don't forget though, that most people on benefits are in work. And therefore, moving (say) from Kensington to Croydon, Bromley or Tower Hamlets might be entirely impractical. Notwithstanding the effect it will have on children being moved away from their school's catchment area.
Are we saying that local authorities should house people in safe, secure and warm homes, but if the home burns down the tenants can't stay in the area? I don't think that's acceptable at all. If you stick up a building, you need to make sure you have a contingency if it comes down.
Kensington and Chelsea have built up a surplus of hundreds of millions of pounds. Now is the time to use it.
disagree on most people on benefits are in work, but that's a different matter, there are certain areas that are more desirable than others for example the people coming to this country as refugees would want to live in bexley more than they would in durham, surely anywhere in this country is better and safer than where they have come from, no they should stay in the area but if temporary homes are offered and they are refused ( within say a 15/20 miles radius ) then that is making yourself homeless im afraid, the government shouldnt just simply hand the people the keys and give em the bus fare they should assist in getting them set up in there new homes.
a lot of plastic items are poisonous when burnt majority of garden furniture, toys, kitchenware is plastic which when burnt can release poisonous gases, it was an accident a very tragic one at that and i do think something is being done to help the victims of it, not saying more cant be done but something is happening.
regarding hotels its not feasable to put people in the reference to ba thats usually an overnight thing, but these people need to have kitchens and adeqaute washing facilities i doubt there's many councils in England that have enough empty property to Rehome at least 400 people.
I'm sure it will be very difficult for some local authorities to re-house large numbers of people at short notice. But, that's their job.
We all expect the fire service to deal with fires, even when there are more than usual. We expect hospitals to cope with high volumes of patients. In the same way, we should expect the Housing Departments of local authorities to handle fluctuations in demand for housing. It's their only job.
@Chizz i agree ( 1st time for everything i suppose )
but the fact of the matter is the here and now we haven't got the property at our disposal. the country as a whole is mass populated even more so in london, the 32 boroughs if they could put up 5 properies each that would be 160 properties, of course people establish homes but i do think if you are on housing benefits etc, then you should take what is offered to you, as you have virtually given nothing to the system and taken a lot ( this is people that are able and choose not to work ) there are of course people that are in need of housing and looking after and they should be the 1st rehomed as close as possible.
Don't forget though, that most people on benefits are in work. And therefore, moving (say) from Kensington to Croydon, Bromley or Tower Hamlets might be entirely impractical. Notwithstanding the effect it will have on children being moved away from their school's catchment area.
Are we saying that local authorities should house people in safe, secure and warm homes, but if the home burns down the tenants can't stay in the area? I don't think that's acceptable at all. If you stick up a building, you need to make sure you have a contingency if it comes down.
Kensington and Chelsea have built up a surplus of hundreds of millions of pounds. Now is the time to use it.
disagree on most people on benefits are in work, but that's a different matter, there are certain areas that are more desirable than others for example the people coming to this country as refugees would want to live in bexley more than they would in durham, surely anywhere in this country is better and safer than where they have come from, no they should stay in the area but if temporary homes are offered and they are refused ( within say a 15/20 miles radius ) then that is making yourself homeless im afraid, the government shouldnt just simply hand the people the keys and give em the bus fare they should assist in getting them set up in there new homes.
However, I completely disagree that someone refusing a property 15 miles from their home that's just burned down has made themselves intentionally homeless. You're perfectly entitled to your view that this might be the best policy. But I don't want my country to be one in which frightened, desperate people are welcomed, only to be punished when this homes are burned down.
The measure of a society is how well it treats those that have the least.
OK, we now have a number. 600 tower blocks have the same type of cladding. This is, surely, a national emergency.
You do realize that all those shiny buildings in Dubai are wrapped in combustible cladding with an outside temperature of over 100F in summer.
Tragic though it is, lets keep it in perspective a little. Perhaps sort out the internal wiring's, make sure Sprinkler,Fire Alarm and smoke alarms are working first.
OK, we now have a number. 600 tower blocks have the same type of cladding. This is, surely, a national emergency.
It's a national clusterfuck is what it is.
Remember after the mess G4S made of the security before the Olympics in 2012 and the army had to step in. They still asked for their fee even though they had spectacularly failed to deliver. This is modus operandi in the tendered world. Everyone who has been involved in handing stuff like this out is now going to be shitting themselves and if they aren't they fucking well should be. To put this right is going to be an enormous undertaking that the same people who made a buck off the back of the sub-sub-sub way of the world will want to still make a margin off and will argue they can't fulfill it if they don't get said margin.
Unfortunately for the 'data rules all' people of this world events like the tragedy in latimer road prove that some essential things like social housing cost what they cost. Same as healthcare, social care and the emergency services. I dearly hope everyone who has been involved in the streamlining (cut costs yet demand more) of these world's sees sense now but I'm not confident they will
OK, we now have a number. 600 tower blocks have the same type of cladding. This is, surely, a national emergency.
If the same number of people live in each of those blocks as Grenfell Tower then c360,000 need to be re-housed today. How would you plan to do that? The equivalent of refugee camps set up in the parks whilst remedial action is taken to get the cladding off? Even that will take time so won't be today!
Yes it is a national emergency if dangerous materials have been allowed to be used but a degree of realism needs to kick in here.
OK, we now have a number. 600 tower blocks have the same type of cladding. This is, surely, a national emergency.
You do realize that all those shiny buildings in Dubai are wrapped in combustible cladding with an outside temperature of over 100F in summer.
Tragic though it is, lets keep it in perspective a little. Perhaps sort out the internal wiring's, make sure Sprinkler,Fire Alarm and smoke alarms are working first.
Shiny buildings in Dubai don't worry me. People being expected to live in death-traps in England do.
Maybe other councils will follow the route taken by Reading, where a development of prefabricated flats is being built for short-term housing (as an alternative to B&B) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-36389202 using such property to house tenants displaced from their homes while remedial safety work is undertaken?
NB this site in Reading originally had mobile homes on it, used to house families who had lost their homes due to mortgage arrears/ negative equity in the 2007/8 financial crisis - this is another possible "quick fix" way councils could magic up extra housing in the short term. Where there is the political will, a way can be found!
OK, we now have a number. 600 tower blocks have the same type of cladding. This is, surely, a national emergency.
If the same number of people live in each of those blocks as Grenfell Tower then c360,000 need to be re-housed today. How would you plan to do that? The equivalent of refugee camps set up in the parks whilst remedial action is taken to get the cladding off? Even that will take time so won't be today!
Yes it is a national emergency if dangerous materials have been allowed to be used but a degree of realism needs to kick in here.
Very true, maybe they could equip every effected flat with a fire blanket and extinguisher in the mean time. That has to be a do-able interim solution to a problem that will take a long time to sort.
I know it's not the quickest solution, but perhaps it is time to rethink our housing policy and start moving away from trying to fit as many families as possible per square metre in unfit-for-purpose tenements built by predatory profiteering building firms and instead consider long term sustainable housing and community living. Certainly one of the major contributors to death in tower block fires is that most people cannot exit immediately unless they live on the ground floor.
OK, we now have a number. 600 tower blocks have the same type of cladding. This is, surely, a national emergency.
If the same number of people live in each of those blocks as Grenfell Tower then c360,000 need to be re-housed today. How would you plan to do that? The equivalent of refugee camps set up in the parks whilst remedial action is taken to get the cladding off? Even that will take time so won't be today!
Yes it is a national emergency if dangerous materials have been allowed to be used but a degree of realism needs to kick in here.
You seem quite relaxed about families expected to try to sleep tonight in an identified risky building. And that's a perfectly respectable position, given how difficult it would be to remedy the situation in a very short space of time.
How would I fix it given the chance? Well, my favourite option wouldn't be well received on here (especially by Ukippers) so I won't share it.
But I can make a suggestion which would speed up the process. There are about 600 tower blocks which are dangerous. There are about 600 MPs. So: house an MP on the top floor of each affected building until it's made safe. I'm sure that would accelerate the remedy.
OK, we now have a number. 600 tower blocks have the same type of cladding. This is, surely, a national emergency.
You do realize that all those shiny buildings in Dubai are wrapped in combustible cladding with an outside temperature of over 100F in summer.
Tragic though it is, lets keep it in perspective a little. Perhaps sort out the internal wiring's, make sure Sprinkler,Fire Alarm and smoke alarms are working first.
Shiny buildings in Dubai don't worry me. People being expected to live in death-traps in England do.
i think you are going a bit ott, every house in the uk would go up in flames if i threw a petrol bomb through the window, you know the fire triangle, preventative measures should be taken sprinklers, fire proof escape routes.
I know it's not the quickest solution, but perhaps it is time to rethink our housing policy and start moving away from trying to fit as many families as possible per square metre in unfit-for-purpose tenements built by predatory profiteering building firms and instead consider long term sustainable housing and community living. Certainly one of the major contributors to death in tower block fires is that most people cannot exit immediately unless they live on the ground floor.
Tower blocks are perfectly safe if they are made with the correct materials and designed with fire safety as the number one priority. Grenfell House was neither. That has clearly got to be changed and remedial action on existing together with a root and branch overhaul of building regs for new builds.
Unless social engineering is part of the plan together with a huge investment in travel infrastructure then accept that people choose (and need) to live in big cities and space limitations mean that up is the only feasible solution.
Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.
And no, I am not relaxed about people living in unsafe housing - but calls for rehousing 'today' is just hyperbole.
I think part of the problem is the design of the building. A modern building can go up quickly but give residents much more safety - saw a programme on it. The example was a recent fire in Dubai where the design of the building meant converging to the centre of the building was very safe. So bringing Dubai into the discussion isn't relevant.
When I was with Rentokil and covered this area, I use to look after a contract for this estate including the sports center and public areas and I'm sure it was the offices on the lower floors of Grendfell that I had to reported to (Housing Officers and Social Workers etc.). The Housing Ass. who I worked for though and assumed run the whole estate was the Notting Hill Housing Trust, I don't understand why I haven't heard their name mentioned over the last couple of weeks
I can honestly say that in all the years of using Charlton forums I have never come across a thread with such polarised opinion and ridiculous judgmental assumptions.....most of them clearly made on purely political grounds. IMHO the crucial part of the matter is whether or not this material was passed as safe to use in The UK or not......... in the way it was. Were there outright restrictions on it being used for this type of project.....or only recommendations on how it should be used? My beef is looking to blame the authorities who gave this product an OK to be used in The UK at all......not those who unwittingly used it. Until then it's all guesswork as to whether or not the law has been broken or if there's any actual legal 'professional' blame that can be laid at anyone's door. My personal calculated guess is that laws have not been broken.....but like everyone else I'll have to wait and see, without jumping to political point winning assumptions.
Not just about law though is it. There are very pertinent moral questions that need to be asked as well.
I can honestly say that in all the years of using Charlton forums I have never come across a thread with such polarised opinion and ridiculous judgmental assumptions.....most of them clearly made on purely political grounds. IMHO the crucial part of the matter is whether or not this material was passed as safe to use in The UK or not......... in the way it was. Were there outright restrictions on it being used for this type of project.....or only recommendations on how it should be used? My beef is looking to blame the authorities who gave this product an OK to be used in The UK at all......not those who unwittingly used it. Until then it's all guesswork as to whether or not the law has been broken or if there's any actual legal 'professional' blame that can be laid at anyone's door. My personal calculated guess is that laws have not been broken.....but like everyone else I'll have to wait and see, without jumping to political point winning assumptions.
Not just about law though is it. There are very pertinent moral questions that need to be asked as well.
Combustible definition, capable of catching fire and burning;
so pretty much every property in the UK, the difference is sprinkler systems and adequate fire escapes should be in situ.
the flip side is a sprinkler system gets damaged and floods a load of peoples property through vandalism or damage then residents will want them removed, fire escapes need to be kept clear and have correct burn times if internal
You are kidding me right ?
Did you actually see the images of that burning building. The people living in blocks clad like Grenfell Tower are living in a tinder box.
Combustible definition, capable of catching fire and burning;
so pretty much every property in the UK, the difference is sprinkler systems and adequate fire escapes should be in situ.
the flip side is a sprinkler system gets damaged and floods a load of peoples property through vandalism or damage then residents will want them removed, fire escapes need to be kept clear and have correct burn times if internal
You are kidding me right ?
Did you actually see the images of that burning building. The people living in blocks clad like Grenfell Tower are living in a tinder box.
yes i did see the images and i work about 10 mins away so have been past it since a lot of times, and ive said sprinklers and robust fire escape systems should be in place i was just pointing out a possible reason for places not having them fitted
It is called finding an excuse not to do the best you can for people and their safety when it is in your power to do so. It is called ignoring all the warnings/reccomendations from higher ranking safety officers than you, it is called insensitive and I think it is absolutely outrageous given your job.
a lot of plastic items are poisonous when burnt majority of garden furniture, toys, kitchenware is plastic which when burnt can release poisonous gases, it was an accident a very tragic one at that and i do think something is being done to help the victims of it, not saying more cant be done but something is happening.
regarding hotels its not feasable to put people in the reference to ba thats usually an overnight thing, but these people need to have kitchens and adeqaute washing facilities i doubt there's many councils in England that have enough empty property to Rehome at least 400 people.
I'm sure it will be very difficult for some local authorities to re-house large numbers of people at short notice. But, that's their job.
We all expect the fire service to deal with fires, even when there are more than usual. We expect hospitals to cope with high volumes of patients. In the same way, we should expect the Housing Departments of local authorities to handle fluctuations in demand for housing. It's their only job.
@Chizz i agree ( 1st time for everything i suppose )
but the fact of the matter is the here and now we haven't got the property at our disposal. the country as a whole is mass populated even more so in london, the 32 boroughs if they could put up 5 properies each that would be 160 properties, of course people establish homes but i do think if you are on housing benefits etc, then you should take what is offered to you, as you have virtually given nothing to the system and taken a lot ( this is people that are able and choose not to work ) there are of course people that are in need of housing and looking after and they should be the 1st rehomed as close as possible.
I do agree there needs to be a bit of perspective here, we don't know the cause yet.
There will be millions of people including some on here that work in buildings made of polystyrene composite panels, that should be next in the list to look at
Comments
but the fact of the matter is the here and now we haven't got the property at our disposal. the country as a whole is mass populated even more so in london, the 32 boroughs if they could put up 5 properies each that would be 160 properties, of course people establish homes but i do think if you are on housing benefits etc, then you should take what is offered to you, as you have virtually given nothing to the system and taken a lot ( this is people that are able and choose not to work ) there are of course people that are in need of housing and looking after and they should be the 1st rehomed as close as possible.
Are we saying that local authorities should house people in safe, secure and warm homes, but if the home burns down the tenants can't stay in the area? I don't think that's acceptable at all. If you stick up a building, you need to make sure you have a contingency if it comes down.
Kensington and Chelsea have built up a surplus of hundreds of millions of pounds. Now is the time to use it.
However, I completely disagree that someone refusing a property 15 miles from their home that's just burned down has made themselves intentionally homeless. You're perfectly entitled to your view that this might be the best policy. But I don't want my country to be one in which frightened, desperate people are welcomed, only to be punished when this homes are burned down.
The measure of a society is how well it treats those that have the least.
Tragic though it is, lets keep it in perspective a little. Perhaps sort out the internal wiring's, make sure Sprinkler,Fire Alarm and smoke alarms are working first.
Remember after the mess G4S made of the security before the Olympics in 2012 and the army had to step in. They still asked for their fee even though they had spectacularly failed to deliver. This is modus operandi in the tendered world. Everyone who has been involved in handing stuff like this out is now going to be shitting themselves and if they aren't they fucking well should be. To put this right is going to be an enormous undertaking that the same people who made a buck off the back of the sub-sub-sub way of the world will want to still make a margin off and will argue they can't fulfill it if they don't get said margin.
Unfortunately for the 'data rules all' people of this world events like the tragedy in latimer road prove that some essential things like social housing cost what they cost. Same as healthcare, social care and the emergency services. I dearly hope everyone who has been involved in the streamlining (cut costs yet demand more) of these world's sees sense now but I'm not confident they will
Yes it is a national emergency if dangerous materials have been allowed to be used but a degree of realism needs to kick in here.
NB this site in Reading originally had mobile homes on it, used to house families who had lost their homes due to mortgage arrears/ negative equity in the 2007/8 financial crisis - this is another possible "quick fix" way councils could magic up extra housing in the short term. Where there is the political will, a way can be found!
How would I fix it given the chance? Well, my favourite option wouldn't be well received on here (especially by Ukippers) so I won't share it.
But I can make a suggestion which would speed up the process. There are about 600 tower blocks which are dangerous. There are about 600 MPs. So: house an MP on the top floor of each affected building until it's made safe. I'm sure that would accelerate the remedy.
http://news.camden.gov.uk/camden-set-to-remove-cladding-from-chalcots-estate-tower-blocks/
Unless social engineering is part of the plan together with a huge investment in travel infrastructure then accept that people choose (and need) to live in big cities and space limitations mean that up is the only feasible solution.
Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.
And no, I am not relaxed about people living in unsafe housing - but calls for rehousing 'today' is just hyperbole.
You are kidding me right ?
Did you actually see the images of that burning building. The people living in blocks clad like Grenfell Tower are living in a tinder box.
Let's ban all vehicles.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b08w4n0w/newsnight-20062017
From 30.16
There will be millions of people including some on here that work in buildings made of polystyrene composite panels, that should be next in the list to look at