Grenfell Tower

[vinteuil]

On this one they are closed (mostly), usually because they have become vitriolic:

http://www.for3.org/forums/forumdisp...ersions-closed

... this one seems to require my password. But it thinks my (I think correct) password is incorrect. What should I do?

[Lat-Literal]

On this forum discussions can be continued:

http://www.for3.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?77-Diversions-Forum

On this one they are closed (mostly), usually because they have become vitriolic:

http://www.for3.org/forums/forumdisp...ersions-closed

Oh right - thank you.

That is somewhat better.

People make efforts as well as making mistakes.

The worst of it is/was a sense of erasure.

But that clarification helps.

[french frank]

What should I do?

Try it again. I think there was some point when it appeared to make sense to give it a password. I don't remember why (I can only think it was shame that outsiders might see what passes for enlightened discussion here ).

[ahinton]

It has been suggested in various quarters that the quality of cladding used in the refurbishment of Grenfell Tower was at least partially to blame for the incident; Philip Hammond - not a notable "leftie" - is one who has now thrown his hat into the ring and publicly inveighed against it.

It has also been suggested in various quarters that cladding was installed on the building's exterior with a view to improving its appearance for the benefit of wealthy people who live within eyeshot of it, neither seem obviously credible. The primary intended purpose of such cladding is insulation and the expectation of its use is a reduction of both the building's carbon footprint and the energy bills paid by its mostly far from wealthy residents. Is it really credible that, had this cladding been of sufficiently high standard to withstand the effects of what happened four days ago, its appearance would have been less appealing to the wealthy neighbours of its residents? That, to my mind, takes a lot of believing; if any such cladding incidentally improved the exterior appearance of the building, I imagine that its quality and effectiveness or otherwise would have made no appreciable difference.

Accusing those wealthy neighbours of indirect partial responsiblity for the event (as I have heard uttered) likewise seems rather less than credible, since they did not commission the refurbishment work which was instead the responsbility of the local authority, even though it was actually arranged by one of its subcontractors.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

I have never been able to locate the forum basement, genuinely, and would welcome a route map.

If you find your way there, do take care. The heir of Slytherin lurks.

[Cockney Sparrow]

Also - anyone looking for, "The referendum debate" thread (which I think remained almost entirely civilised, IIRC) will find it here (where there appears to be a wide variety of threads, not sure what the criteria are for being moved there). (It does show up on an advanced search)

Forum --> Radio 3 Messageboards --> Announcements

http://www.for3.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?33-Announcements

[David-G]

It has been suggested in various quarters that the quality of cladding used in the refurbishment of Grenfell Tower was at least partially to blame for the incident; Philip Hammond - not a notable "leftie" - is one who has now thrown his hat into the ring and publicly inveighed against it.

It has also been suggested in various quarters that cladding was installed on the building's exterior with a view to improving its appearance for the benefit of wealthy people who live within eyeshot of it, neither seem obviously credible. The primary intended purpose of such cladding is insulation and the expectation of its use is a reduction of both the building's carbon footprint and the energy bills paid by its mostly far from wealthy residents. Is it really credible that, had this cladding been of sufficiently high standard to withstand the effects of what happened four days ago, its appearance would have been less appealing to the wealthy neighbours of its residents? That, to my mind, takes a lot of believing; if any such cladding incidentally improved the exterior appearance of the building, I imagine that its quality and effectiveness or otherwise would have made no appreciable difference.

Accusing those wealthy neighbours of indirect partial responsiblity for the event (as I have heard uttered) likewise seems rather less than credible, since they did not commission the refurbishment work which was instead the responsbility of the local authority, even though it was actually arranged by one of its subcontractors.

I agree.

But even if a part of the purpose of the cladding was to improve the sightliness of the building, surely the principal beneficiaries of this beautification were the residents of the estate. And improving people's visual environment is a worthy aim.

[ahinton]

I agree.

But even if a part of the purpose of the cladding was to improve the sightliness of the building, surely the principal beneficiaries of this beautification were the residents of the estate. And improving people's visual environment is a worthy aim.

Be that as it may or may not, the suggestion that it was installed for the benefit of wealthy neighbours to improve their view seems nonsense when they'd not be able to tell by looking at it from a comfortable distance whether or not it was well constructed from good quality legal fireproof materials.

[oddoneout]

Be that as it may or may not, the suggestion that it was installed for the benefit of wealthy neighbours to improve their view seems nonsense when they'd not be able to tell by looking at it from a comfortable distance whether or not it was well constructed from good quality legal fireproof materials.

If the neighbours were just concerned with looks then the finer details of the method and materials of such an improvement would be of no concern to them would they? In any case, as I understand it the questions are around the material, and method of installation, used to provide the insulation behind the exterior face.

[Serial_Apologist]

For Lat's information", threads don't go AWOL. They may be moved down to the basement where most discussions can be continued if people wish, and a few are closed for discussion but may still be read. If you can't find them, ask a Host for the url. The basement is primarily for the benefit of the majority of the forum members who get fed up with the same few members chewing the same bone for weeks on end and therefore dominating the What's New? list. Why removal to the basement should make continuance of the discussions less attractive to participants, I have no idea.

My guess would be that that is because shunting them off into a difficult to access corner makes them feel rather like smokers made to gather in a guilty group illicitly indulging out of eyesight from the proper and decent folk who just don't talk or even want to think about such things in the civilised antechambers of Radio 3.

[mahlerei]

Who'd have thunk it?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40330789

[David-G]

An interesting blog post from someone who seems to have some technical knowledge:

http://raedwald.blogspot.co.uk/2017/06/grenfell-tower.html

[Lat-Literal]

Who'd have thunk it?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40330789

An interesting blog post from someone who seems to have some technical knowledge:

http://raedwald.blogspot.co.uk/2017/...ell-tower.html

Far too soon, I feel, although certain points lean towards explaining the spread/rapidity. I could look at the names of the ex MPs mentioned and say that one was quite good in my humble opinion, one was ok to good and one was more often than not in "personality" sweary etc-ugly. I won't be specific. It would be something of a surprise, debatable and not especially meaningful. Governments are more than any one person. As for the origins of the fire, what rings out so loudly among all of the chatter is the silence on one possibility that for several reasons is unmentionable. It is to the credit of all those involved in analysis that it should remain so for now. The security of other tower dwellers depends on it.

[MrGongGong]

As for the origins of the fire, what rings out so loudly among all of the chatter is the silence on one possibility that for several reasons is unmentionable. It is to the credit of all those involved in analysis that it should remain so for now. The security of other tower dwellers depends on it.

What on earth are you referring to ?

[Lat-Literal]

What on earth are you referring to ?

Well, quite obviously, I cannot possibly say.

It is, I suggest, responsible to note the silence rather than ignoring the silence as the media have done on one possible point and then to nod and to say nothing more.