London Tower Fire

[Montegriffo]

What the fuck?
This isn't about a building which was run down with no investment. The place just had a £9 million refurb. The difference between the flammable cladding (banned in the US and other countries)and a safe cladding was between 5k to 20k. The cost of a sprinkler system was a mere £200k. This is about mismanagement and ignoring the recommendations of a previous inquiry into tower block fires.
It's not about a lack of money it's criminal negligence on behalf of the management and their contractors.

[Smitty-48]

So this flammable cladding is legal in the UK? And sprinkler systems are not mandatory? What's the charge then?

What criminal negligence? You need to break a law to be charged with a crime.

Some "inquiry" made "recommendations"? Sorry, but that's not legislation, I recommend you show the law that they broke which directly resulted in the fire, because otherwise, you ain't got a case.

Y'all blubbering about "they need to enforce the regulations!" oh yeah, which ones were those? Can't enforce what is not mandated.

The British government has a law prohibiting posting a picture of a corpse on the internet, but they don't have a law against flammable cladding? What was it you said again, Monty? Something about people getting what they deserve?

If it's a private company, you can sue it, maybe make it go bankrupt, break up the assets and disperse them, but to secure the mens rea for a criminal conviction, they have to have knowingly broken a law of some sort, a "recommendation" ain't gonna get it done.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Oh, wait, Hanarchy, I just thought of a problem; she's rich.

I know how you Lefties cant abide them rich folk, I wouldn't want you to have to sully yourself from the moral heights of virtue, rolling around in my sister-in-law's Mercedes AMG.

S'cool... I been gold diggin' a sugar mama my whole adult life.

Once she gets wise and realizes she's been punching below her weight... Canada here I come!

[Smitty-48]

Oh, wait, Hanarchy, I just thought of a problem; she's rich.

I know how you Lefties cant abide them rich folk, I wouldn't want you to have to sully yourself from the moral heights of virtue, rolling around in my sister-in-law's Mercedes AMG.

S'cool... I been gold diggin' a sugar mama my whole adult life.

Once she gets wise and realizes she's been punching below her weight... Canada here I come!

Sugah Momma's is the only way to roll, homey, pearl white C63 AMG, 0-60 in four seconds flat, bup-bup... booyaka.

Like flammable cladding on a British towering inferno; ain't no law against it, or so I am told.

[Alexander PhiAlipson]

Deadly London Tower Fire Fueled By ‘Green Energy’ Rules
Saving the world one disaster at a time!

[Ex-California]

If the real estate is worth that much, then they should probably be moved elsewhere, the property sold, and the profits used to build smaller buildings for the former residents.

The idea that you should get to violate basic market forces just because you are poor is kind of dumb. I am not sure why anybody would defend it. If the property is worth so much, then they could sell it and provide the poor with better living accommodations elsewhere.

Its the exact same as the folly of rent control.

[Ex-California]

I don't know anything about the Grenfell tower neighborhood,

I'm not sure there's an elegant, principled argument against gentrification. One might make a romantic argument against it. It comes down to people don't like it when outsiders kick them out of their neighborhoods.

Someone rents in a low value neighborhood because it's the only thing they can afford, and the neighborhood is basically abandoned and ignored by the city. Over the years that person along with their neighbors put their energies into creating a solid community and culture, make things nice. Maybe the neighborhood starts getting a cool authentic vibe to it.

People with capital come along and see the value the residents have created. The outsiders start buying everything for cheap while creating a trendy commercial district right in people's back yards. Suddenly the city starts repaving the broken roads and sidewalks, something they always neglected before. Pretty soon the rents become ridiculously inflated and the residents have to scatter somewhere else and start all over again.

It seems like the businesses got all that value that other people created for basically nothing, they're opportunists, and they ruin everything, and that's why they're always searching for the next little neighborhood to gentrify, because nobody likes the tourist attractions they create, except the tourists of course, but they'll get bored with it anyway.

That's how the market works. Boo hoo.

[Montegriffo]

Deadly London Tower Fire Fueled By ‘Green Energy’ Rules
Saving the world one disaster at a time!

Adding insulation to an old building is a good idea for many reasons including reducing energy usage, saving money and increasing the comfort of the tenants. Using a cladding which is flammable and has been banned in several countries is a really bad idea.
Using a tragedy to push your ''fuck the environment'' agenda is sick. Fuck off.

[Fife]

More like a "fuck really bad ideas" agenda.

[Smitty-48]

More like a "fuck really bad ideas" agenda.

How about a stop trying to be all things to all people bloated public sector leviathan which is now so creaking under its fatuous complexity that it can throw a man in jail for posting a picture on the internet at the same time it is failing to pass simple legislation to outlaw towering inferno kindling agenda?

"Wot, flammable cladding? Well we'll make a recommendation on that, file that under nice to know, oh but post something which makes us look bad on the internet and we'll deep six you into an extrajudicial blackhole..."