Britain says 181 high-rise buildings have failed safety tests after London fire

[webfact]

Britain says 181 high-rise buildings have failed safety tests after London fire

 

Window cleaners work on a tower block on the Chalcots estate in Camden which has alumium cladding which the local council have decided to remove in light of the fire at the Grenfell Tower, in London, Britain, June 22, 2017. REUTERS/Hannah McKay/Files

 

LONDON (Reuters) - Some 181 high-rise buildings have failed safety tests carried out after a fire that killed at least 80 people in London last month, the British government said on Sunday.

 

Officials are conducting tests on some 600 high-rise buildings across England after fire ravaged the Grenfell tower block in west London on June 14.

 

The Department for Communities said in a statement that the cladding from 181 high-rise buildings in 51 local authority areas had failed tests.

 

(Reporting by Paul Sandle; Editing by Kevin Liffey)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-07-03

[Kerryd]

Kind of makes you wonder why they weren't inspected BEFORE the Grenfell fire. 

 

[Grouse]

It's not a safety test; it's a combustability test. You and I and a lump of wood would fail! They need a flammability test.

 

It's a cover up to deflect from the fact that Reynobond PE was used over 10m high which is against the regs and fire stops were not installed.

 

As usual, they think we the public are idiots.

[terryw]

One of the significant factors leading to this situation is an EU directive from 2001 which replaced previously tougher UK regulations.

 

The Minister responsible for implementing the directive was John Prescot.

[trogers]

23 minutes ago, terryw said:

One of the significant factors leading to this situation is an EU directive from 2001 which replaced previously tougher UK regulations.

 

The Minister responsible for implementing the directive was John Prescot.

Like sheep to the slaughter. Tougher regulations should never be replaced by lesser ones, even when joining a collective.

 

They are there for a reason.

[Grouse]

2 hours ago, terryw said:

One of the significant factors leading to this situation is an EU directive from 2001 which replaced previously tougher UK regulations.

 

The Minister responsible for implementing the directive was John Prescot.

Source would be appreciated!

 

Professional interest

[puck2]

3 hours ago, terryw said:

One of the significant factors leading to this situation is an EU directive from 2001 which replaced previously tougher UK regulations.

 

The Minister responsible for implementing the directive was John Prescot.

 

15 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Source would be appreciated!

 

Professional interest

Also my idea.  For me terryw is spreading alternative news = fake news.

 

I've read “History of fire safety legislation in the United Kingdom” in Wiki

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_fire_safety_legislation_in_the_United_Kingdom

 

Even with my limited English knowledge I interpret the content of Wiki that England lagged behind the EU regulations. Excerpts:

 

In the early 1990s, the government was required to implement several European directives including one on fire safety. This was at the height of deregulation and the government, architects, commerce and industry considered that fire brigades were too inflexible and demanded belt and braces solutions. They and the directive called for a new approach to fire safety and demanded a cheaper and more flexible system. They decided the prescriptive method used by the fire service should be replaced by a more flexible fire risk assessment approach and consequently the Fire Precautions (Workplace) Regulations 1997 (SI 1997/1840) was placed on the statute books using section 12 of the 1971 Act. They also wanted the responsibility of implementing the legislation to be removed from the fire service and placed on the employers, but the fire service would be the enforcing authority for the legislation. It was implemented using the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations, 1992 (MHSAW) (replaced in 1999).

<------->

The Fire Precautions (Workplace) (Amendment) Regulations 1999 (S.I. 1999/1877) were a result of European Communities Act 1972. They brought the UK legislation up to a standard that met the fire safety requirements of two health and safety European Directives, 89/391/EEC[15] and 89/654/EEC,[16] adopted in 1989. The amendments were laid before Parliament on 7 July 1999 and became law on 1 December 1999.

Edited July 3, 2017 by puck2

[Baerboxer]

6 hours ago, Kerryd said:

Kind of makes you wonder why they weren't inspected BEFORE the Grenfell fire. 

 

 

Indeed.

 

It also makes you wonder what standards were being required, and what approvals given without apparent inspections.

 

Some real underlying issues here.

[the guest]

UK is always in the news, for the wrong reasons !

[trogers]

1 hour ago, the guest said:

UK is always in the news, for the wrong reasons !

Not wrong in the eyes of the world community. Teaches the rest of the world on what not to do...

[terryw]

Read yesterdays  Daily Telegraph. 

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/01/grenfell-tragedy-cladding/

 

[ddavidovsky]

3 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Indeed.

 

It also makes you wonder what standards were being required, and what approvals given without apparent inspections.

 

Some real underlying issues here.

I don't think there was any secret about the type of panels used, and the buildings were inspected again shortly before the fire.

At bottom, seems like it was just deemed acceptable risk by everyone including the fire department who notified councils about the risk but didn't see fit to demand that they be replaced. Nobody knew a building could actually burn up from the outside in that way. Everyone probably thought 'fire resistant' panels were good enough, when it needed to be fire-proof.

Now they know.

[Grouse]

1 hour ago, ddavidovsky said:

I don't think there was any secret about the type of panels used, and the buildings were inspected again shortly before the fire.

At bottom, seems like it was just deemed acceptable risk by everyone including the fire department who notified councils about the risk but didn't see fit to demand that they be replaced. Nobody knew a building could actually burn up from the outside in that way. Everyone probably thought 'fire resistant' panels were good enough, when it needed to be fire-proof.

Now they know.

Totally incorrect

 

Reynobond PE was only approved up to 10m

 

Celotex insulation requires fire stops

 

FR (and indeed A2 incombustible) panel options were available 

 

Gaol time! And huge professional indemnity claims. Obvious professional negligence.

[ddavidovsky]

2 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Totally incorrect

 

Reynobond PE was only approved up to 10m

 

Celotex insulation requires fire stops

 

FR (and indeed A2 incombustible) panel options were available 

 

Gaol time! And huge professional indemnity claims. Obvious professional negligence.

You're saying that the panels were used in secret - that there was some deception? I don't think so.

 

There are regulations, but I heard that in the UK these are discretionary and not legally binding - which in effect means that acceptable risk assessment is down to judgement. As I've argued elsewhere, professional misjudgements shouldn't be prosecuted - that's just scape-goating. The law regarding the regulations should be made clear. I suspect no one in this case actually thought there was any law-breaking.

[Grouse]

10 minutes ago, ddavidovsky said:

You're saying that the panels were used in secret - that there was some deception? I don't think so.

 

There are regulations, but I heard that in the UK these are discretionary and not legally binding - which in effect means that acceptable risk assessment is down to judgement. As I've argued elsewhere, professional misjudgements shouldn't be prosecuted - that's just scape-goating. The law regarding the regulations should be made clear. I suspect no one in this case actually thought there was any law-breaking.

Sorry but lack of rigour is no defence

 

The commercial people rely upon professional engineers to approve or otherwise.

 

I WANT to see the signatures on the drawings

 

I know "experts" are no longer appreciated. BUT as a professional engineer my signature and chop bind me. People rely upon my expertise.

 

You want "the law" to be made clear? To whom exactly? You think Joe Public would understand anything I do? Of course not. That's why we rely upon sign off of professionals.

 

 

[ddavidovsky]

2 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Sorry but lack of rigour is no defence

 

The commercial people rely upon professional engineers to approve or otherwise.

 

I WANT to see the signatures on the drawings

 

I know "experts" are no longer appreciated. BUT as a professional engineer my signature and chop bind me. People rely upon my expertise.

 

You want "the law" to be made clear? To whom exactly? You think Joe Public would understand anything I do? Of course not. That's why we rely upon sign off of professionals.

 

 

The law is always public and applies to everyone. I'm getting the impression that the law is not specific in this case. If so, then ipso facto it is discretionary and down to individual judgement. Learn and move on.  Seems that nobody can accept misfortune nowadays.

[Grouse]

8 minutes ago, ddavidovsky said:

The law is always public and applies to everyone. I'm getting the impression that the law is not specific in this case. If so, then ipso facto it is discretionary and down to individual judgement. Learn and move on.  Seems that nobody can accept misfortune nowadays.

This is NOT a case of misfortune 

 

This is a case of negligence

 

I am watching the case/cover up closely including facile combustibility tests.

 

Where is Boot Hill? 

[ddavidovsky]

8 minutes ago, Grouse said:

This is NOT a case of misfortune 

 

This is a case of negligence

 

I am watching the case/cover up closely including facile combustibility tests.

 

Where is Boot Hill? 

If the law is not precise, then it's a matter of professional misjudgement - and not by one individual but collectively by many at all levels. You can't prosecute everyone involved for something that has never before happened in human experience. They aren't criminals, just people doing a bad job. They should lose their jobs - that's punishment enough.

If you want to prosecute, then the law has to be explicit. Show me a specific law that has been broken (without trying to invent a new one), then you can prosecute away. If not, there's nothing to be gained by it except scape-goating.

 

Had a long discussion on this same issue recently re Hillsborough recently. My opinion is the same. This is beginning to sound like another torch and pitchfork witch-hunt.

[Grouse]

5 minutes ago, ddavidovsky said:

If the law is not precise, then it's a matter of professional misjudgement - and not by one individual but collectively by many at all levels. You can't prosecute everyone involved for something that has never before happened in human experience. They aren't criminals, just people doing a bad job. They should lose their jobs - that's punishment enough.

If you want to prosecute, then the law has to be explicit. Show me a specific law that has been broken (without trying to invent a new one), then you can prosecute away. If not, there's nothing to be gained by it except scape-goating.

 

Had a long discussion on this same issue recently re Hillsborough recently. My opinion is the same. This is beginning to sound like another torch and pitchfork witch-hunt.

Reasonable debating points

 

My position is that I am required to use my best endeavours to ensure that electrical installations are fit for purpose and are not hazardous. In my profession things are particularly tightly tied down. National codes and International standards are harmonised.

 

I assume (hope) construction materials and building practice are similarly tightly controlled. Colleagues tell me that they are! In which case Gaol looms for The scofflaws 

[puck2]

22 hours ago, terryw said:

Read yesterdays  Daily Telegraph. 

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/01/grenfell-tragedy-cladding/

 

If your „read this article“ should be an answer to the request: please confirm your pretences -->

 

On 3.7.2017 at 9:14 AM, terryw said:

One of the significant factors leading to this situation is an EU directive from 2001 which replaced previously tougher UK regulations.

 

The Minister responsible for implementing the directive was John Prescot.

then your statement is a shot in the air. It's a distraction from the subject of this thread: failed safety tests.