The Lemon Fool

watching the BBC its quite obvious that all RAAC issues are the fault of the Tories as they been in power 13 years

is anyone checking when the collapsing buildings ( are there many??) were in fact built
and who approved the building regs (assuming they were complied with)

I realise that additional facts might spoil headlines but surely its relevant?

Under History and Story of RAAC monabri yesterday morning produced a very interesting reference to the problems of using this material. This is not the 'fault of the Tories' It seems this material had significant advantages and when it was installed it was known to have a limited lifespan.

I admit that the timing of the announcement is unfortunate but not everything you know is 'the fault of the Tories'.

I suspect that additional facts might spoil your prejudice.

Dod

Dod101 wrote:Under History and Story of RAAC monabri yesterday morning produced a very interesting reference to the problems of using this material. This is not the 'fault of the Tories' It seems this material had significant advantages and when it was installed it was known to have a limited lifespan.

I admit that the timing of the announcement is unfortunate but not everything you know is 'the fault of the Tories'.

I suspect that additional facts might spoil your prejudice.

Dod

I suspect the post by that nice Mr Poodle is missing a "tongue-in-cheek" emoji.

Mr Poe's law strikes again!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law

Mike4 wrote:

Dod101 wrote:Under History and Story of RAAC monabri yesterday morning produced a very interesting reference to the problems of using this material. This is not the 'fault of the Tories' It seems this material had significant advantages and when it was installed it was known to have a limited lifespan.

I admit that the timing of the announcement is unfortunate but not everything you know is 'the fault of the Tories'.

I suspect that additional facts might spoil your prejudice.

Dod

I suspect the post by that nice Mr Poodle is missing a "tongue-in-cheek" emoji.

Mr Poe's law strikes again!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law

Dod, you may understand concrete but do you get iron .. y?

Regards

Howard

Mike4 wrote:I suspect the post by that nice Mr Poodle is missing a "tongue-in-cheek" emoji.

Not sure it's the tongue-in-cheek emoji.

That wasn't an ill-judged swipe against the Tories, it was against the BBC. Who may have given airtime to people who put forward a supposition - backed by plausible reasoning - that the announcement should have happened some weeks or months earlier to give school managements time to arrange temporary alternative premises.

Howard wrote:

Mike4 wrote:
I suspect the post by that nice Mr Poodle is missing a "tongue-in-cheek" emoji.

Mr Poe's law strikes again!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law

Dod, you may understand concrete but do you get iron .. y?

Regards

Howard

Ah ya ! I find it difficult to identify irony on these Boards, if indeed that was what it was.

Dod

mutantpoodle wrote:is anyone checking when the collapsing buildings ( are there many??) were in fact built
and who approved the building regs (assuming they were complied with).

I've heard assertions that 'we knew it had a limited life'.

Why the hell would you build with a material that had a 'limited life'?
The Romans didn't, the Victorians didn't.
And if you knew its life was limited, why was that knowledge not passed on, and where was the plan and the funds to rebuild?

Seems to me there is a multi-generational govt fault here.

Presumably this rubbish was also used in the private sector........

V8

If as a government you inherit a portfolio of public buildings with a known limited design life, and 13 years later you haven't addressed the problem, yes, you need to own it. Remember the "40 hospitals" lie?

88V8 wrote:

mutantpoodle wrote:is anyone checking when the collapsing buildings ( are there many??) were in fact built
and who approved the building regs (assuming they were complied with).

I've heard assertions that 'we knew it had a limited life'.

Why the hell would you build with a material that had a 'limited life'?
The Romans didn't, the Victorians didn't.
And if you knew its life was limited, why was that knowledge not passed on, and where was the plan and the funds to rebuild?

Seems to me there is a multi-generational govt fault here.

Presumably this rubbish was also used in the private sector........

V8

This could be far bigger than the cladding issue - we just do not know. Presumably, if it was deemed to be a preferably material for some purposes, it will have been used in a wide range of buildings both public and private. Flats, houses, offices, schools, hospitals - the use may have been in any large buildings, and anywhere. The possible repercussions hardly bear thinking about. Even my BTLs? - which could make them unsellable.

I seem to remember reading somewhere a long time back, that planning regs had shortened the useful lifetime of buildings. Maybe this was one factor which allowed this stuff to be used.

And you mention the Victorians - only last week I took a picture of myself standing outside my rather austere victorian infant/juniors school building. Built around 1880, still solid as a rock and has found an ongoing use, but not as a school. It's had a rather nice glass section and atrium put on to bring the appearance up to date - which will probably need replacing well before the main body of the building which could soldier on for ever in maintained properly.

Arb.

88V8 wrote:Why the hell would you build with a material that had a 'limited life'?
The Romans didn't, the Victorians didn't.

I can't speak for the Romans, but there are a fair number of Victorian built buildings still standing which are utterly unfit in modern terms for the purpose for which they were built - think schools, or those palatial insurance offices. So you don't second guess the future - build something that will work for x years and leave your successors to replace it as needed.

88V8 wrote:
And if you knew its life was limited, why was that knowledge not passed on, and where was the plan and the funds to rebuild?

Seems to me there is a multi-generational govt fault here.

Presumably this rubbish was also used in the private sector........

V8

Agreed. But I have the impression that life-span and adequate maintenance are intimately linked. Next guy's problem......

mutantpoodle wrote:watching the BBC its quite obvious that all RAAC issues are the fault of the Tories as they been in power 13 years

is anyone checking when the collapsing buildings ( are there many??) were in fact built
and who approved the building regs (assuming they were complied with)

I realise that additional facts might spoil headlines but surely its relevant?

If that was a jibe against the BBC, it is a rather pathetic one. I've heard no one say it was the fault of the Tories in particularly - but that the material might have been used anywhere between the 50's and late 90's. Than covers a lot of governments, regulators and opportunities to pick up on the possible problems. No doubt, analysis of whos watch it happened on will go back and forth for a long time, but all the BBC coverage has been neutral, from what I've heard. Of course, the revelation about this was badly timed as regards schools and parents and that, to some extent, must surely come down to the current administration.

My feelings go out to all parents, but also particularly to Head teachers who have suddenly been dumped with this problem very much at the last moment.

Arb

88V8 wrote:

mutantpoodle wrote:is anyone checking when the collapsing buildings ( are there many??) were in fact built
and who approved the building regs (assuming they were complied with).

I've heard assertions that 'we knew it had a limited life'.

Why the hell would you build with a material that had a 'limited life'?
The Romans didn't, the Victorians didn't.

But lot of countries do, I think.

I've an idea the timber framed buildings they put up in the USA and in the cold countries like Sweden are expected to be routinely demolished and replaced, after something like 50 years of use.

Japan and Korea of course, and in so many places the site is more valuable than the building. Upping costs to futureproof and fail to predict is the worst outcome.

Mike4 wrote:

88V8 wrote:I've heard assertions that 'we knew it had a limited life'.

Why the hell would you build with a material that had a 'limited life'?
The Romans didn't, the Victorians didn't.

But lot of countries do, I think.

I've an idea the timber framed buildings they put up in the USA and in the cold countries like Sweden are expected to be routinely demolished and replaced, after something like 50 years of use.

Umm, there's a fair number of colonial (I.e. pre 1776) timber framed houses in New England still standing and in use.

Arborbridge wrote:

mutantpoodle wrote:watching the BBC its quite obvious that all RAAC issues are the fault of the Tories as they been in power 13 years

is anyone checking when the collapsing buildings ( are there many??) were in fact built
and who approved the building regs (assuming they were complied with)

I realise that additional facts might spoil headlines but surely its relevant?

If that was a jibe against the BBC, it is a rather pathetic one. I've heard no one say it was the fault of the Tories in particularly - but that the material might have been used anywhere between the 50's and late 90's. Than covers a lot of governments, regulators and opportunities to pick up on the possible problems. No doubt, analysis of whos watch it happened on will go back and forth for a long time, but all the BBC coverage has been neutral, from what I've heard. Of course, the revelation about this was badly timed as regards schools and parents and that, to some extent, must surely come down to the current administration.

My feelings go out to all parents, but also particularly to Head teachers who have suddenly been dumped with this problem very much at the last moment.

Arb

All parties share the blame for prevaricating and not dealing with a known problem sooner. However something really should have been done urgently when the risks were highlighted in 2018 by a Kent School's roof collapsing because of the problem.

From the latest reports it also seems that many other buildings including hospitals are facing the same problem with this concrete as the schools.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2023/sep/02/uk-concrete-crisis-raac-problems-could-extend-to-hospitals-and-courts-experts-say

Chris Goodier, a professor of construction engineering and materials at Loughborough University, said “the scale of the problem is much bigger than schools”.

Matthew Byatt, the head of the Institution of Structural Engineers, said any high-rise buildings with flat roofs constructed between the late 1960s and early 1990s could contain Raac.

Ministers have so far refused to publish the names of the affected schools or 34 other public buildings identified as containing Raac.

They include 24 hospitals, seven court buildings and four Department for Work and Pensions facilities. Harrow crown court was reportedly forced to close last week because of the presence of Raac.

There have been repeated calls for action, including from councils, on the material after a primary school roof collapsed in Kent in 2018.

mc2fool wrote:

Mike4 wrote:But lot of countries do, I think.

I've an idea the timber framed buildings they put up in the USA and in the cold countries like Sweden are expected to be routinely demolished and replaced, after something like 50 years of use.

Umm, there's a fair number of colonial (I.e. pre 1776) timber framed houses in New England still standing and in use.

I might make a similar comment about Sweden. Decent-quality timber, including softwood, has a longer lifetime than - it seems - most post-1945 construction materials.

UncleEbenezer wrote:

mc2fool wrote:Umm, there's a fair number of colonial (I.e. pre 1776) timber framed houses in New England still standing and in use.

I might make a similar comment about Sweden. Decent-quality timber, including softwood, has a longer lifetime than - it seems - most post-1945 construction materials.

Notwithstanding a few glory projects I can't think of many buildings that have not just been built with what they could get hold of at the cost needed.
One thing helping the longevity of wooden buildings is they are expected to get regular maintenance as if things go wrong they can do so quickly

WOW

apologies...it was never my intention to be so misunderstood

I was simply (imo) suggesting that if we believed the BBC then it was entirely the fault of the Tories

and obviously these days almost nobody does believe them...or should I say 'it'


as for there views being neutral...well I havent heard a single suggestion on BBC that this problem is anything but current.

I do fully agree that actions should have been taken FAR EARLIER

mutantpoodle wrote:WOW

apologies...it was never my intention to be so misunderstood

I was simply (imo) suggesting that if we believed the BBC then it was entirely the fault of the Tories

and obviously these days almost nobody does believe them...or should I say 'it'


as for there views being neutral...well I havent heard a single suggestion on BBC that this problem is anything but current.

I do fully agree that actions should have been taken FAR EARLIER

...and for not acting earlier, then we should blame the Tories, according to a civil servant who worked in the Education Department:

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2 ... er-reveals

A senior civil service whistleblower has told the Observer that Tory ministers and their political advisers were “dangerously complacent” about crumbling school buildings constructed with aerated concrete, and that they were more concerned with saving money than improving safety.

FD

re my last post

apologies again

its ............THEIR....