fire in London tower block

[Mallard60022]

You know what, apart from MPs doing stuff for votes, the way people on here describe Politicians is actually describing a huge number of the general population who are only in things for themselves and their 'mates'. So are most MPs not representing their constituants?

There, that should get me banned.

Phil

[rockershovel]

There are MPs and MPs. Sherry's MP stood up in the House the other day saying how wrong it was (or similar worthy sentiment) that inflammable materials had not been used on Grenfell Tower.

Just imagine having voted (Sherry didn't) for someone who doesn't know that flammable and inflammable are synonyms.

There's a piece on today's paper about the English Language Test, and the problems experienced by a lot of native English speakers in passing it. I don't doubt it, given the general standards of literacy in this country. Back in the 60s and 70s, all A Level students (at least, those not doing A Level English) did an exam called Use of English for the purpose of ensuring that anyone going to Higher Education had at least, completed the A Level English coursework.

 

Perhaps MPs might usefully be required to sit such a test? Or failing that, to buy a Thesaurus?

 

That said, flammable/inflammable is an odd one. Combustible/incombustible are opposites, after all, as are accessible/inaccessible and a lot more besides.

Edited June 25, 2017 by rockershovel

[rockershovel]

You know what, apart from MPs doing stuff for votes, the way people on here describe Politicians is actually describing a huge number of the general population who are only in things for themselves and their 'mates'. So are most MPs not representing their constituants?

There, that should get me banned.

Phil

Errmmm..... no, not really. AFAIK, no one in this street has elected me as a neighbour. Nobody pays me to live next door to them, and I certainly haven't taken any sort of oath to do so to the best of my ability. I don't get a rather splendid pension for it, or an 11% pay rise. Come to that, I don't stick leaflets in their doors telling them I am the best neighbour they could wish to have.

 

There are people in this street I feel no obligation to, in any shape or form, and there is no legal, constitutional or other reason I should lift a finger on their behalf, or they on mine. The analogy really doesn't bear scrutiny.... had you said "are they representative of their constituents", in the sense of being much like them, that would be another matter...

 

 

We are going through a major constitutional crisis, for reasons no one in Westminster seems willing or able to properly explain. A Referendum, which let's be quite clear, had NO legal effect, has produced a state of blind panic in which a lot of MPs suddenly see their cushty numbers, fading "comme les neiges de printemps". There was a clear and present opportunity and duty, to apply their educated judgement and say "what is this thing which the people have voted? In what does it consist, where does it lead? Should we act, and if so, how and why?"

 

They didn't do that. A plague on BOTH their houses.

Edited June 25, 2017 by rockershovel

[Arthur]

 

Do you mean completed the 'O' level English coursework? Seems unlikely that anyone doing other A levels would do the English Language A level course work too, that would, in essence, be an extra A level.

 

I did all science at A level in 1973 and don't recall doing a 'Use of English' exam, I already had the English Language 'O' level.

 

I also did General Studies as a fourth A level which was intended to give those doing arts subjects a bit of science, those doing science a bit of arts with some current affairs for all.

 

.

[petethemole]

I took 'Use of English' in '66 alongside 'A' level English Literature, which had no use of language component. All our Sixth Forms took it.

 

At that time 'flammable' was the American English form, while all safety warnings and literature in UK and generally on British made products used 'inflammable'. The meaning was understood as the alternative word was not in general use. The change to the former in official and general usage (when?) was bound to cause confusion, but I think, in practice, less than might have been expected. Younger generations have grown up with the 'simpler' usage. Sherry's MP is presumably on a par with the politician who once claimed it was a scandal that 50% of children were below average achievers.

[The Stationmaster]

I also took the 'Use of English' exam alongside my A Levels (which did not include either of the English main subjects) and I believe that was common practice at that time, certainly everyone in my school did that exam alongside A Levels each year.

[2750Papyrus]

The problem is that unless you:

 

understand the building regs, and,

understand the standards used in this project, and,

understand how to use standards, and,

are familiar with this design

 

then it is pretty much impossible to have any sort of meaningful opinion. Regulations invariably have general provisions to the effect that whatever you make has to be safe, therefore a failure like this has failed to meet regulations. Beyond that it gets much more complicated, as I've said earlier, the approvals for a material are inherently linked to the conditions of approval meaning that a material can be simultaneously approved for use and not approved for the way it has been used.

If looking at standards, most standards these days are either global or regional as the last thing suppliers want is to have to get separate approvals for national standards around the world. Bodies such as ISO promote global standards. What most don't really appreciate is that all an approval indicates is that the product has met the criteria for approval against the referenced standard, it does not mean the product is good, or is safe or anything else, it starts and ends with telling you whatever it is met the criteria for approval. The majority of the certificates I signed in my time stated that the design satisfied the rules referenced on the certificate, end of, I said nothing about whether the design was any good. Design engineers and constructors and regulators generally understand that but it is very clear that politicians and journalists don't. Standards are great, but unless you understand their limitations and what an approval actually means then they can end in tears.

I really think we need to let people who know what they're doing get on with things and for politicians to act like grown ups and realise that if you haven't got a clue what you're talking about then shut up.

 

Interesting.  Did your signature not certify that the design met the requirements of the product specification?  My late friend, who was our design signatory, required a record of the design (build standard), a structural design record and a compliance statement stating how compliance of the design with the requirement spec had been demonstrated.

[rockershovel]

I also took the 'Use of English' exam alongside my A Levels (which did not include either of the English main subjects) and I believe that was common practice at that time, certainly everyone in my school did that exam alongside A Levels each year.

That's the one. If memory serves it was rated AS Level, and you sat it in Lower Sixth - one year after O Level, one year before A Level

[Ashcombe]

There are MPs and MPs. Sherry's MP stood up in the House the other day saying how wrong it was (or similar worthy sentiment) that inflammable materials had not been used on Grenfell Tower.

Just imagine having voted (Sherry didn't) for someone who doesn't know that flammable and inflammable are synonyms.

Here is the link to my MP's speech where you'll hear exactly what he said and you might well notice another grammatical error in what he says about his new wife.

 

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/0784ef19-a1bb-49c0-9039-279b4b1fa664?in=21:37:21

[Horsetan]

You know what, apart from MPs doing stuff for votes, the way people on here describe Politicians is actually describing a huge number of the general population who are only in things for themselves and their 'mates'. So are most MPs not representing their constituents?....

This is why I said that politicos and the electorate deserve each other.

[Ashcombe]

This is why I said that politicos and the electorate deserve each other.

Whether or not we voted for them?

[hayfield]

 

We are going through a major constitutional crisis, for reasons no one in Westminster seems willing or able to properly explain. A Referendum, which let's be quite clear, had NO legal effect, has produced a state of blind panic in which a lot of MPs suddenly see their cushty numbers, fading "comme les neiges de printemps". There was a clear and present opportunity and duty, to apply their educated judgement and say "what is this thing which the people have voted? In what does it consist, where does it lead? Should we act, and if so, how and why?"

 

They didn't do that. A plague on BOTH their houses.

 

As usual we have gone off topic, with someone bringing in a personal hobby horse that has nothing to do with what we are talking about. I heard a very good tip from an Aussie on the radio, which was  "Build a bridge and get over it"

[Horsetan]

Whether or not we voted for them?

You can be sure that at least one section will have got the politicos they deserve. Are the peasants now revolting, or have they always been?

 

....I heard a very good tip from an Aussie on the radio, which was "Build a bridge and get over it"

...then burn it. Edited June 25, 2017 by Horsetan

[jjb1970]

Interesting.  Did your signature not certify that the design met the requirements of the product specification?  My late friend, who was our design signatory, required a record of the design (build standard), a structural design record and a compliance statement stating how compliance of the design with the requirement spec had been demonstrated.

 

No, merely that it satisfied the approval criteria of the referenced standard. Something to keep in mind is that most standards, rules, regulations etc establish minimum requirements, not design targets (although in practice many companies do limbo dance under these minimum requirements), it is not the purpose of standards to be a design manual.

 

I think you're talking about something we'd call a safety case in offshore energy, that looks at the overall risk profile and signs off that the design is safe to operate. That process will generally not question the various approvals which are collected in support of the application, although it will check that the standards used are appropriate.

 

I approved power and propulsion systems, that covers two things. The engines are approved as a standalone item and the certificates will clearly state the limits of approval and one of the biggest conditions is the additional integration approvals required when the engine is installed in a system. At system level there are a range of approvals necessary, my bit was torsional vibration calculations, but even here the design had to meet defined acceptance criteria, nothing more, nothing less. Responsibility for whether the design was anybody remains with the designer.

 

Something we did notice was that more and more companies now use class as their QA check. At one time if a classification society noted an error in the calculations provided and sent the documents back to be corrected, whoever was responsible for sending a duff design document for approval would be dragged over broken glass backwards and it was very rare. Nowadays it is quite normal to send the first submission back with a request to have another go.

 

One of the problems with standards and rules is that some lazy contract writers just include a catch all  "comply with......." then list a few rules and standards and believe that this covers everything. You can design something to secure all of the approvals listed and it can still be a dreadful design.

[jjb1970]

I'll be the odd one out here and say that most MP's are intelligent and informed individuals who for the most part are motivated by a genuine desire to do good. Whether they do good is debatable, but most MP's are quite genuine and are certainly not dumb. That means that me, the small government advocate who thinks that politics and politicians are something the world needs to the minimum degree strictly necessary and that they should butt out of most things they poke their noses into, has a higher opinion of politicians than people who seem to see the government as the answer to all things whilst seeing politicians as sleazy, self serving and corrupt idiots. Funny old world.

[OnTheBranchline]

I will say that it's a bit alarming that the recent terrorists attacks that have killed less people have given the government the ability to look up anyone's internet browsing history (which is basically the same as the government placing video cameras in your own house).

 

But when an easily preventable disaster which kills way more people happens, that's just bad luck for the people involved in the disaster. Especially if the people are in the lower income brackets.

 

Shows you where the government's priorities are.

Edited June 25, 2017 by OnTheBranchline

[4630]

...have given the government the ability to look up anyone's internet browsing history (which is basically the same as the government placing video cameras in your own house).

 

 

 

 

And you didn't think that they already had and probably used that power before these recent events?

 

Even if going the UK route via GCHQ would presumably require some oversight before the event, I'm sure that there's the possibility of 'back channel' communications with the NSA in the US.

[rockershovel]

As usual we have gone off topic, with someone bringing in a personal hobby horse that has nothing to do with what we are talking about. I heard a very good tip from an Aussie on the radio, which was  "Build a bridge and get over it"

Not at all. We live in a densely populated, heavily urbanised country. Really, an urban fire should be dealt with as a regrettable but largely foreseeable event by the relevant authorities. Instead, we have mud-slinging between various political figures, major questions about the implementation of building standards, and a rather complex and difficult issue about immigration status and tenancy in the background. The stench of lack of effective leadership hangs over the whole issue, as it does over so many aspects of public life.

[Mallard60022]

Not at all. We live in a densely populated, heavily urbanised country. Really, an urban fire should be dealt with as a regrettable but largely foreseeable event by the relevant authorities. Instead, we have mud-slinging between various political figures, major questions about the implementation of building standards, and a rather complex and difficult issue about immigration status and tenancy in the background. The stench of lack of effective leadership hangs over the whole issue, as it does over so many aspects of public life.

For once I agree largely with your statement, however an urban fire of this magnitude should be an unacceptable event not 'just' regrettable. However, yes, largely foreseeable by those in authority and that's what needs sorting out.

Phil

[APOLLO]

Not at all. We live in a densely populated, heavily urbanised country. 

 

Try driving over Woodhead in winter with a snowstorm brewing up, you might as well be in Siberia !!

 

Brit15

[Andy Hayter]

Not at all. We live in a densely populated, heavily urbanised country.

 

 

When I left the UK in the mid 90s, the mobile phone companies of the time proudly proclaimed that they covered more than 90% of the population.  However they covered less than 50% of the land area (IIRC it was actually less than 40%).

 

I don't think things have changed so much since then.  So 90%+ of the populations in less than half of the country does not make a heavily urbanised country, but rather a country with concentrated pockets of urbanisation..

[96701]

Try driving over Woodhead in winter with a snowstorm brewing up, you might as well be in Siberia !!

 

Brit15

The great myth of urban Britain.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18623096

 

Extracts to save you having to read all of it.

 

Having looked at all the information, they calculated that "6.8% of the UK's land area is now classified as urban" (a definition that includes rural development and roads, by the way).

 

The urban landscape accounts for 10.6% of England, 1.9% of Scotland, 3.6% of Northern Ireland and 4.1% of Wales.

Put another way, that means almost 93% of the UK is not urban. But even that isn't the end of the story because urban is not the same as built on.

In urban England, for example, the researchers found that just over half the land (54%) in our towns and cities is greenspace - parks, allotments, sports pitches and so on.

Furthermore, domestic gardens account for another 18% of urban land use; rivers, canals, lakes and reservoirs an additional 6.6%.

Their conclusion?

In England, "78.6% of urban areas is designated as natural rather than built". Since urban only covers a tenth of the country, this means that the proportion of England's landscape which is built on is…

 

… 2.27%.

Edited June 25, 2017 by 96701

[Bernard Lamb]

As usual we have gone off topic, with someone bringing in a personal hobby horse that has nothing to do with what we are talking about. I heard a very good tip from an Aussie on the radio, which was  "Build a bridge and get over it"

So far this thread has been free of ultra right wingers such as you. When somebody makes an honest comment there is no need to jump in with you sarky remarks. I did try to point out the attitude of our main political parties regarding spending on their own behalf and spending public money. I agree. A plague on both their houses. A prominent Labour spokesman is now using the word murder.

Bernard

[pete_mcfarlane]

... has a higher opinion of politicians than people who seem to see the government as the answer to all things whilst seeing politicians as sleazy, self serving and corrupt idiots. Funny old world.

The problem I have with the argument that all politicians are corrupt, at least in the UK and similar societies with low levels of real corruption, is that it's normally heard most from those on the political fringes (in both directions) selling themselves as an alternative to traditional mainstream politicians. Everyone else is corrupt, so vote for me and I'll fix all your problems with some childishly simple solutions.

 

The great myth of urban Britain.

 

I've long suspected that myth comes at least in part from Londoners who never leave the centre of the universe, and don't realise that most of the country isn't continuously built on in the same way as the area inside the M25. 

[rockershovel]

To cut across the various manipulations of statistics, above, here's some data showing 82.5% of the UK population living in urban areas

 

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/urban-population-percent-of-total-wb-data.html

 

Predictions indicate 90% plus by 2030. The fact that Woodhead is pretty much, uninhabitable isn't really the issue (and I've BEEN to Siberia, and Woodhead doesn't begin to approach its climate). Nor is "supposing" that "things haven't changed much since the 90s". Even places like Saddleworth Moor (one of the most miserable places I know) are put to use, as are areas like the Fens which only subsist above sea level by continuous pumping. Even in places like the Northern Dales, where (to borrow Steinbeck's aphorism) they pretty much "farm both sides of the same acre", try working out how many places are more than a mile from a habitation, or metalled road.

 

We live in a country with one of the highest population densities in the Western Hemisphere, virtually no natural landscape remaining, and its population heavily concentrated in urban developments. I recently travelled through the Nottingham/Derby conurbation, and was amazed at how the two are now pretty much continuous.

Edited June 25, 2017 by rockershovel