Absolute cunts thread...

Discussion on LUFC and absolutely anything... welcome to the Dark Side
User avatar
Blackwhite
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2008 1:07 am
Location: Arse end of nowhere
Contact:

Re: Absolute cunts thread...

Postby Blackwhite » Wed Nov 06, 2019 12:03 pm

Phil LUFC wrote:
kennyb41 wrote:My immediate instinct would be to get the fck out of a burning building, but if i was high up and was fully aware of emergency evacuation proceedings prior to any fire I can't honestly say what i'd have done, suppose it would depend on what stage the fire was at when i was first aware of it and my immediate exit choices. I don't think many had any choice.

Mine too. But. The question would be how? I'd know the lifts were out of the question and I'd also know the stairwell could be a death trap if already compromised.

Didn't the regs get relaxed a while back so a tower could have only one emergency exit stairwell?
I got the impression they were moving towards a brave new world where Stay Put advice would be the excuse to not provide even one...
You know, I'm sick of following my dreams, man. I'm just going to ask where they're going and hook up with 'em later.

Yeboah
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 11:06 am

Re: Absolute cunts thread...

Postby Yeboah » Wed Nov 06, 2019 12:21 pm

Devi wrote:Fuck me you’re a piece of work, Yeboah. Defending the indefensible, even in light of their own apologies; continuing to sleight the actually involved via the medium of biased tweet - ‘stay out’ is and has been for years - recognised FB policy that has saved countless lives. It was the unregulated cladding that caused the instruction to be fatal, not the instruction itself, and certainly not any lack of common sense of the inhabitants.
Twat.


Nope, I'm just pointing out that there were other issues with the fire that were clearly more serious than what JRM said and the sheer stupidity of people like you who focus on that rather than what the fire service did/said that actually cost lives.

It is bizarre that people get constantly 'offended' by people who's opinion they wouldn't listen to anyway even if they were paid!

User avatar
kennyb41
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2017 7:10 am

Re: Absolute cunts thread...

Postby kennyb41 » Wed Nov 06, 2019 12:39 pm

Phil LUFC wrote:
kennyb41 wrote:My immediate instinct would be to get the fck out of a burning building, but if i was high up and was fully aware of emergency evacuation proceedings prior to any fire I can't honestly say what i'd have done, suppose it would depend on what stage the fire was at when i was first aware of it and my immediate exit choices. I don't think many had any choice.

Mine too. But. The question would be how? I'd know the lifts were out of the question and I'd also know the stairwell could be a death trap if already compromised.

If the building performs as designed the safest place to be would be inside your own apartment as the fire shouldn't spread beyond the apartment of origin.


Yes exactly, and if i was high up could definitely be panicking over best options and in confusion/two minds..." well we have been told to stay put " ..which under any normal fridge/1 apartment fire as footage from other high rise blocks has shown might be ok..but this was something else entirely with it's speed and ferocity and caught every fcker out.

Can't say i fully know what i'd have done, there must be loads of cases where people have heeded instructions and stayed put and single fires have been extinguished safely, but fck me if i'd have had the chance to escape Grenfell but didn't move coz of instuctions...fck me that's just dreadful.
Just coz you're paranoid doesn't mean people aren't after you....Show me a good loser and i'll show you a fcking loser...I owe I owe it's off to work I go.

User avatar
Phil LUFC
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2008 12:26 pm
Location: Scunthorpe

Re: Absolute cunts thread...

Postby Phil LUFC » Wed Nov 06, 2019 12:53 pm

Good instructions come from good quality data. Clearly the advice is very different if everyone knows the cladding isn't fit for purpose.

User avatar
eric olthwaite
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 10:14 pm
Location: Over there, behind that bush

Re: Absolute cunts thread...

Postby eric olthwaite » Wed Nov 06, 2019 12:59 pm

Sigh.

If anyone’s particularly interested:

Where did the stay put policy come from and where do we go now?
INSIGHT
31/10/19

BY PETER APPS
“Stay put had become an article of faith and to depart from it was unthinkable.” These are the words of Grenfell Inquiry judge Sir Martin Moore-Bick. Peter Apps looks at where the idea came from and where we go now.

The idea of ‘stay put’ developed in the UK in the early 1960s. British Standard Code of Practice 1962 was introduced as the first national standard for tall residential buildings. It required all blocks taller than 80 feet to provide one hour’s fire resistance to enable firefighters to battle flames inside the building.

The aim of the code was to ensure that each flat in a building would act as an individual compartment that would contain any fire for at least an hour. This principle of ‘compartmentation’ would enable firefighters to put out one fire in one flat rather than face a whole building ablaze.

But to work, the principle has two key requirements. First, the building must have the necessary ‘passive fire protection’ to withstand the spread of flames. Second, access to the building must be clear enough that affected residents can escape and firefighters can get in quickly.

Partly because of this second requirement, the code considered fire alarms to be undesirable. The fear is that they could trigger unnecessary evacuations that impede firefighters’ access or even put residents in danger by exposing them to smoke.

There are many advocates for stay put, who point to data that shows it is successful in the vast majority of fires. National Fire Chiefs Council (NFCC) data shows that there were more than 57,000 fires in high rises between 2010 and 2017, but that only 216 (0.4%) required the evacuation of more than five residents.

But this confidence was first challenged on 3 July 2009. A fire in Lakanal House, south London, spread externally and internally in a serious failure of compartmentation. It killed six people, including three children. They had all been told to ‘stay put’.

Nevertheless, after this fire, stay put remained the default strategy – the Local Government Association published a guide in 2011, commissioned by government, written by fire experts and supported across the sector, that concluded it remained the safest option.

This guide took a strong line on stay put, advising building owners to “seek a second opinion” if risk assessors felt that stay put should not be adopted until the safety of the building had been proven.

It said: “Some enforcing authorities and fire risk assessors have been adopting a precautionary approach whereby, unless it can be proven that the standard of construction is adequate for ‘stay put’, the assumption should be that it is not. As a consequence, simultaneous evacuation has sometimes been adopted, and fire alarm systems fitted retrospectively, in blocks of flats designed to support a ‘stay put’ strategy.

“This is considered unduly pessimistic. Indeed, such an approach is not justified by experience or statistical evidence from fires in blocks of flats.”

However, further guidance to fire authorities – Generic risk assessment 3.2 – published by government in 2014 did warn that stay put “may become untenable due to unexpected fire spread”. It added that “if necessary”, building owners should “have a suitable emergency evacuation plan”.

The fire service faced heavy criticism in Grenfell Inquiry chair Sir Martin Moore-Bick’s report for not acting on this guidance. But, the truth is that the responsibility for developing a specific evacuation plan lay with the building owners, and in accordance with the official advice, most high rises owners did not create one.

Only a small percentage of fires in high rises spread beyond the flat of origin. But it does happen. The government says there have been 8,025 fires in buildings taller than four storeys since 2016/17. Of these, 156 affected at least two floors, with 72 affecting more than two. This is a rate of around one per week.

Why is this happening? Sometimes, it is likely to be an unavoidable consequence of the size of the fire. If a big fire bursts out of a window, ‘the Coanda effect’ means it can lick up the building and smash through the window of the floor above.

But fires also spread because compartmentation fails. Buildings now have much higher volumes of combustible materials on their external walls than they did in 1962 when stay put was established. As well as cladding, this material may include insulation systems, infill panels and balconies, all of which can provide a route up the building for a fire.

Compartmentation is also easily compromised inside a building: defective fire doors, vents, poorly installed pipes or damaged firebreaks can all enable smoke and flame to spread.

There is evidence of widespread problems with these features. Housing association Hyde conducted intrusive assessments of the fire risks in its 86 high rises, and it found problems in all of them.

One industry source says: “We have had 30 years of people throwing up buildings cheaply and quickly. That has created issues with fire performance that are pretty widespread.”

One of the concerns raised about stay put after Lakanal House was that the call handlers had applied it as a mantra. The victims were advised to stay put, even when they said smoke and flames were in their properties.

But this has never been what ‘stay put’ means. The advice is not stay put until the fire kills you – it is to stay put unless you are being affected by smoke and flame.

However, this means people must have an escape route – and that is not always a given.

High-rise residential buildings in the UK, such as Grenfell, have only one staircase. This is the result of the absence of any regulations requiring architects to include a second.

Paul Bussey, fire lead at AHMM Architects and a member of the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) Regulation and Standards Group, explains that official guidance only requires a building to have ‘alternative exits’. This has left room for interpretation.

Developers are reluctant to include second staircases in high rises. Staircases are expensive to build, remove from the ‘net lettable area’ (the parts of a building that can be sold) and act as a drag on profit margins. Developers have therefore taken the guidance to mean that a second door to a single staircase is an acceptable ‘alternative exit’.

But this creates a serious problem during a fire – firefighters will have to use the same staircase to tackle the blaze as the residents who are escaping it.

Phil Murphy, a former firefighter and a high-rise residential building management consultant, says this can be particularly dangerous if the stairway fills with smoke. This can happen due to breaches of compartmentation, but also because firefighters typically wedge open doors to the stairwell to run their hoses through. When they open the door of the flat in which the fire started, smoke will start filling the communal stairwell.

If the fire does get out of control, communication is also a problem. With no alarms, how can residents be told to get out? At Grenfell, the firefighters relied on loudhailers and 999 calls.

Now this will all change. Sir Martin has ordered government to produce national guidance on evacuations. Building owners will be required to fit alarms and develop plans to evacuate the most vulnerable residents.

There are still some who believe stay put is the right approach. Colin Todd, managing director of CS Todd & Associates, says the policy protects people who are vulnerable and unable to escape. It also avoids putting firefighters at unnecessary risk.

He says the aim needs to be to fix buildings with flawed compartmentation, not to change the fire strategy: “If you had a situation where a car doesn’t have any brakes, you would focus on fixing the brakes, not changing the way we drive.”

But others do see the need for change.

Jan Taranczuk, a fire safety consultant, suggests a new approach called ‘stay put plus’. This would mean identifying flats that are particularly vulnerable to fire and installing additional fire safety measures, such as sprinklers or misters.

In Scotland, new regulations have recently come into force that require ‘manual alarms’ in new high rises. These can be controlled from ground level or an offsite monitoring suite, to enable firefighters to partially evacuate the parts of the building at risk – or to evacuate the whole building in phases.

There are also calls to move away from single staircases. Mr Bussey says RIBA is pushing for the government to introduce new regulations to either make second staircases mandatory in new builds or provide tax incentives to make them more attractive propositions.

But even if this was adopted, what about the hundreds of existing buildings with just one staircase?

Mr Murphy advocates a change to firefighting tactics to focus on ‘protecting the staircase’. This could involve new technology, such as smoke screens, which can cover communal doorways while hoses are run through.

Others suggest moving away from a standard approach of ‘stay put’ to a bespoke, block-by-block approach. The idea is that buildings would ‘earn’ stay put through intensive inspections of compartmentation.

For its part, a government spokesperson said: “We welcome the publication of the report from phase one of the independent public inquiry and will carefully consider its findings and recommendations in full.”

It is also worth noting that hundreds of blocks around the country have already dropped it. In May 2018, the NFCC published guidance suggesting that blocks known to have dangerous cladding adopt an evacuation strategy, backed by either a 24-hour waking watch or fire alarms.

Inside Housing recently visited one building in Plymouth that had adopted this approach. A full evacuation in an actual fire was accomplished in around 30 minutes, despite the building only having one staircase and several residents needing help to get out. Achieving this required knowledge of those residents, planning, communication and an alarm system, but it was done.

Stay put is also not global. In Australia, for example, most high rises are evacuated during fires and the installation and maintenance of alarm systems is a strict legal requirement.

Whatever the approach, it is clearly now time for change. Stay put works until it does not. Building failures may be rare, but they are no longer unheard of – and we need a plan for what to do when the next one happens. The lives of the people who live there could very well depend on it.

HM Collector Of Parcels

User avatar
the flying pig
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 8:24 am

Re: Absolute cunts thread...

Postby the flying pig » Wed Nov 06, 2019 1:08 pm

AndyPaul wrote:Usual shite about emergency services getting attacked by bottom feeders with fireworks. Ban them to the public and only for organised displays. We might not be able to stop the morons inbreeding but we can stop them getting fireworks.


i'd be up for an outright ban. no need for them in 2019.

User avatar
eric olthwaite
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 10:14 pm
Location: Over there, behind that bush

Re: Absolute cunts thread...

Postby eric olthwaite » Wed Nov 06, 2019 1:19 pm

the flying pig wrote:
AndyPaul wrote:Usual shite about emergency services getting attacked by bottom feeders with fireworks. Ban them to the public and only for organised displays. We might not be able to stop the morons inbreeding but we can stop them getting fireworks.


i'd be up for an outright ban. no need for them in 2019.


Why is 2019 relevant?

Speaking as someone who just spent 3 days wiring up ten thousand quids’ worth of professional display, you can guess what I think here.

But yes, fully agree that they shouldn’t be sold to anyone other than licensed users.
HM Collector Of Parcels

User avatar
the flying pig
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 8:24 am

Re: Absolute cunts thread...

Postby the flying pig » Wed Nov 06, 2019 1:21 pm

eric olthwaite wrote:
the flying pig wrote:
AndyPaul wrote:Usual shite about emergency services getting attacked by bottom feeders with fireworks. Ban them to the public and only for organised displays. We might not be able to stop the morons inbreeding but we can stop them getting fireworks.


i'd be up for an outright ban. no need for them in 2019.


Why is 2019 relevant?

Speaking as someone who just spent 3 days wiring up ten thousand quids’ worth of professional display, you can guess what I think here.

But yes, fully agree that they shouldn’t be sold to anyone other than licensed users.


yeah, i think big public displays are great. it's little scrotes firing them at passers-by that i can't abide, that & pet-scaring nitwits setting off ear-splitting ones from the back yard of their tiny terraced house.

BTW, quick back-of-the envelope thing, what's the approximate cost per minute of putting on a big public display?

User avatar
Tycipa
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 4:39 pm

Re: Absolute cunts thread...

Postby Tycipa » Wed Nov 06, 2019 1:21 pm

eric olthwaite wrote:Sigh.

If anyone’s particularly interested:



That's a cracking read, well written and covers the points well. Cheers for posting Eric. Why the sigh?
The fact that we are not taking care of the planet, our children will pay the consequences. With football it will be the same because we're destroying football and in the future we'll see the negative effects. Those who have power are responsible for it.

User avatar
eric olthwaite
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 10:14 pm
Location: Over there, behind that bush

Re: Absolute cunts thread...

Postby eric olthwaite » Wed Nov 06, 2019 1:30 pm

Tycipa wrote:
eric olthwaite wrote:Sigh.

If anyone’s particularly interested:



That's a cracking read, well written and covers the points well. Cheers for posting Eric. Why the sigh?


Just because it’s been done to death a bit somewhere else on here. Think you work in construction / PM or the like IIRC? As I’m sure you’re aware, there are so many levels of complexity to do with building ownership, management, changes to thermal performance and fire regs that it all can’t be reduced to people - especially people as stupid as politicians - saying ‘They should just have done this’ as if it would have fixed anything.
HM Collector Of Parcels

Professor Weeto
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 12:49 pm

Re: Absolute cunts thread...

Postby Professor Weeto » Wed Nov 06, 2019 1:44 pm

eric olthwaite wrote:
Tycipa wrote:
eric olthwaite wrote:Sigh.

If anyone’s particularly interested:



That's a cracking read, well written and covers the points well. Cheers for posting Eric. Why the sigh?


Just because it’s been done to death a bit somewhere else on here. Think you work in construction / PM or the like IIRC? As I’m sure you’re aware, there are so many levels of complexity to do with building ownership, management, changes to thermal performance and fire regs that it all can’t be reduced to people - especially people as stupid as politicians - saying ‘They should just have done this’ as if it would have fixed anything.


Thanks for all the info, Eric.

While I would never claim any expertise in these areas, I know for a fact that the same cladding as Grenfell was being pushed for use on Kirklees high-rises, at least, and those pushing it (can't 100% remember who but there was definite pressure due that cladding's cheapness) were told in no uncertain terms that it was not safe for that size of building. Something similar, anyway - my dad was one of the main social housing guys for Kirklees at the time and was fucking furious that anyone was even consdering it.

Obviously those in Grenfell weren't afforded the luxury of having their lives considered when that decision was made down there.

Sorry, I know that's not really what the current conversation is about but the still prevalent idea that this was some kind of unavoidable accident really boils my piss.

User avatar
Tycipa
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 4:39 pm

Re: Absolute cunts thread...

Postby Tycipa » Wed Nov 06, 2019 1:57 pm

eric olthwaite wrote:
Just because it’s been done to death a bit somewhere else on here.


Words we use, we shouldn't. Bloody language! Just shows how easy it is to make a statement some would take issue with. I don't btw but it just stood out so I thought I'd be a smartarse and mention it.

eric olthwaite wrote:you work in construction / PM or the like IIRC?


Did, that's all behind me thankfully. Never met a developer that provided more than what the regs required.

Unfortunately we have to wait for a Bradford, Zeebrugge, Grenfell to happen before we do something about the underlying problems. As our tall building building stock gets older the issues will only get worse. I'd advocate building owners holding regular escape routines for their tenants but I'm sure their insurers would tell them that that might be an admission of liability and to tread more than carefully about implementing such measures. Let's face it, fire's in buildings tend to burn out rather than be put out.

Oh and fully agree, certain cunts (JRM) should keep their traps shut.
The fact that we are not taking care of the planet, our children will pay the consequences. With football it will be the same because we're destroying football and in the future we'll see the negative effects. Those who have power are responsible for it.

User avatar
eric olthwaite
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 10:14 pm
Location: Over there, behind that bush

Re: Absolute cunts thread...

Postby eric olthwaite » Wed Nov 06, 2019 2:01 pm

the flying pig wrote:BTW, quick back-of-the envelope thing, what's the approximate cost per minute of putting on a big public display?


The one I do - which is probably on a par with / bigger than most London Bonfire night displays - goes off, I guess, at maybe £500/minute? But that’s zero cost other than supply.

I would think that something like London NYE costs £100-200k from the proper sort of people, for 20 mins or so?
HM Collector Of Parcels

Eddies Boots
Joined: Thu May 08, 2008 5:07 am
Location: Arizona

Re: Absolute cunts thread...

Postby Eddies Boots » Wed Nov 06, 2019 4:34 pm

Thanks for the long post eric.

This explain a lot
There are many advocates for stay put, who point to data that shows it is successful in the vast majority of fires. National Fire Chiefs Council (NFCC) data shows that there were more than 57,000 fires in high rises between 2010 and 2017, but that only 216 (0.4%) required the evacuation of more than five residents.


It is also worth noting that hundreds of blocks around the country have already dropped it. In May 2018, the NFCC published guidance suggesting that blocks known to have dangerous cladding adopt an evacuation strategy, backed by either a 24-hour waking watch or fire alarms.


Known to have dangerous cladding? I assume a government should be focused on working out how to get this fixed, and making sure it can't happen again. Its not a free-market issue.

Yeboah
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 11:06 am

Re: Absolute cunts thread...

Postby Yeboah » Wed Nov 06, 2019 4:59 pm

eric olthwaite wrote:
the flying pig wrote:
AndyPaul wrote:Usual shite about emergency services getting attacked by bottom feeders with fireworks. Ban them to the public and only for organised displays. We might not be able to stop the morons inbreeding but we can stop them getting fireworks.


i'd be up for an outright ban. no need for them in 2019.


Why is 2019 relevant?

Speaking as someone who just spent 3 days wiring up ten thousand quids’ worth of professional display, you can guess what I think here.

But yes, fully agree that they shouldn’t be sold to anyone other than licensed users.



On balance are fireworks more dangerous than say.. Alcohol?

User avatar
kennyb41
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2017 7:10 am

Re: Absolute cunts thread...

Postby kennyb41 » Wed Nov 06, 2019 5:12 pm

They are when i'm pissed Yeb.
Just coz you're paranoid doesn't mean people aren't after you....Show me a good loser and i'll show you a fcking loser...I owe I owe it's off to work I go.

User avatar
Blackwhite
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2008 1:07 am
Location: Arse end of nowhere
Contact:

Re: Absolute cunts thread...

Postby Blackwhite » Wed Nov 06, 2019 5:53 pm

I'd missed his thread but it's worth a read, right on every point inc. JRM = Pussyhole.

You know, I'm sick of following my dreams, man. I'm just going to ask where they're going and hook up with 'em later.

User avatar
eric olthwaite
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 10:14 pm
Location: Over there, behind that bush

Re: Absolute cunts thread...

Postby eric olthwaite » Wed Nov 06, 2019 6:23 pm

Tycipa wrote:
eric olthwaite wrote:
Just because it’s been done to death a bit somewhere else on here.


Words we use, we shouldn't. Bloody language! Just shows how easy it is to make a statement some would take issue with. I don't btw but it just stood out so I thought I'd be a smartarse and mention it.



Fair cop, guv :oops:
HM Collector Of Parcels

User avatar
jackos
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 7:49 am
Location: Stockholm

Re: Absolute cunts thread...

Postby jackos » Wed Nov 06, 2019 6:48 pm

Devi wrote:Fuck me you’re a piece of work, Yeboah.
Twat.


We know this. He's a troll. So why continue to feed his ego by responding to his provocation. He'll never fuck off of Ballers continue to react.

In Internet slang, a troll is a person who starts quarrels or upsets people on the Internet to distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses and normalizing tangential discussion, whether for the troll's amusement or a specific gain.

User avatar
Blackwhite
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2008 1:07 am
Location: Arse end of nowhere
Contact:

Re: Absolute cunts thread...

Postby Blackwhite » Wed Nov 06, 2019 6:59 pm

jackos wrote:We know this. He's a troll. So why continue to feed his ego by responding to his provocation. He'll never fuck off of Ballers continue to react.

Yeah, this. Unless we can get Portadown to pick him in a month.
You know, I'm sick of following my dreams, man. I'm just going to ask where they're going and hook up with 'em later.


Return to “The Square Ball”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 52 guests