|
|
Schools.
Sept 7, 2023 6:54:52 GMT
via mobile
Post by andrewbrown on Sept 7, 2023 6:54:52 GMT
Use of RAAC is stopped as concerns emerge 1994: Concerns about the risks of using RAAC in public buildings started to appear in research. 1996: Excessive cracking and corrosion was found in some roof planks that had been designed before 1980. The finding - from a former government-owned research laboratory called the Building Research Establishment - led to the use of RAAC being effectively stopped. However, the report also said: "There is no evidence so far to suggest that RAAC planks pose a safety hazard to building users". Well it doesnt quite say that all use of RAAC stopped in 1996 does it? No, it says it effectively stopped. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Sept 7, 2023 6:58:56 GMT
Well it doesnt quite say that all use of RAAC stopped in 1996 does it? No, it says it effectively stopped. Yes - but the question is when. The State doesnt work that fast and a finding of excessive cracking in 1996 means that by the time they have had all the meetings, reports and comments on the reports it could be years later that regulations change to prevent use of RAAC. |
|
|
|
Schools.
Sept 7, 2023 7:34:23 GMT
via mobile
Post by andrewbrown on Sept 7, 2023 7:34:23 GMT
No, it says it effectively stopped. Yes - but the question is when. The State doesnt work that fast and a finding of excessive cracking in 1996 means that by the time they have had all the meetings, reports and comments on the reports it could be years later that regulations change to prevent use of RAAC. In which case you would have evidence of schools built into the new millennium. If you do, I'm quite happy to withdraw my accusation to Jonksy. I've found zero. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2023 8:04:47 GMT
And just how many did Labour keep inspecting? How the feck you can turn this into a political point scoring exercise is beyond me. Agreed. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Sept 7, 2023 8:17:27 GMT
It's a direct quote from the authoritative 1999 civil engineer led report as already linked to. Do keep up Sadly facts are inconvenient,both colours of governments have known of public sector buildings containing RAAC since 1994 but only started to monitor their condition and manage the potential risks in 2018. In other words the risks were known but ignored. Untrue Labour started the monitoring in 1999 after that report. How else do you think that list of 17 schools needing repairs and approved for such was put together? You know the list the Tories canned. |
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on Sept 7, 2023 8:18:13 GMT
The problems Andrew Is that it wasn’t stopped on a whim,the risks were real and known they were effectively ignored and it all comes back to short term thinking and policy. It’s easy to point the finger at the tories because they were effectively in government for the greater part of time this material was used but that’s a mistake in that others were in part culpable,labour of course for their time in power and the Lib Dem’s to a lesser extent as part of a coalition. The focus is on the last few years and I’m no apologist for the tories but the longer term is the reality,laughably if we’re going to judge on the last few years will the snp in Scotland and labour in Wales held equally to account? it seems not it’s all Rishi’s fault. I totally agree, no one comes out of this smelling of roses. I wasn't trying to exonerate Labour, contrary to popular opinion, but merely correct Jonsky's incorrect point that Labour's PFI was responsible for these buildings when that clearly isn't true. I'm also with you on the short term thinking of politicians. I wish there a lot more of politicians of all parties working together on longer term goals, things like energy policy and health, housing and immigration, rather than just government of the day playing with things, only for the next government to reorganise it. Unfortunately the way that our politics works is very adversarial. You can see it on almost every thread on here, everything is designed to divide people into two groups. It's almost like two groups of rival supporters lobbing bricks at each other, you have to be one side or the other. But of course it isn't true, politics is more a 3-dimensional scale. There's a really good example on this thread where I've pointed out Jonsky's error on Labour's PFI projects, and both Jonksy and Fairsociety have therefore jumped to the conclusion that this makes me a Labour supporter. Simply not true and not a logical conclusion from what I've said, but simply their thinking that if you don't agree with us you must be for the enemy. Just look at all the threads on here that just descend into abuse, just throwing the words "righties", "lefties", "Nazis", "woke snowflake", "Remoaner", "Brexiteer". Either people want to "pull up the drawbridge" or "let them all in". But those two positions don't reflect anyone's opinion accurately. It's not good and it's not conducive to constructive conversation. Yes in the heat of the moment it can become purely adversarial,tbh it wasn’t really aimed at you but making that very point. I have a feeling that the health service or what remains of it would be better if it were run by a cross party body with some of the general poulation involved but certainly not clapped out politicians or their friends. The problems we face are often down to endless initiatives or reforms which usually do little or even make things worse and on top waste a lot of public money that could be better used. I am afraid we live in times where when things go wrong a spokesman is rolled out to tell us “lessons have been learnt” when experience tells us nothing of the sort actually is. We have initiatives for this or that and training where on the surface is projected as a solution and so often it isn’t but is cynical window dressing and in cases moving the responsibility from those higher up the ladder onto those at the bottom. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Sept 7, 2023 8:19:25 GMT
Rubbish, you've been given the timelines of RAAC building and PFI. No apology that they use 4 digit year numbers that may have left some struggling to understand. The first PFI built school opened in 1999 (Barnhill) it is not affected by RAAC which by then was out of use. The only rubbish is the excuses in support of blair and labour. Even the links that your side of the fence provided have been total rubbish and DO NOT support your stance. They supposedly officialy stopped using RAAC in 1999 but we now know it was still being used in public buildings well into the 2000's when people were noticing the decay of these buildings and it was obviouse the cause. feel free to evidence that ' still being used in public buildings well into the 2000's' just so we know you didn't make it up out of thin air |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Sept 7, 2023 8:29:08 GMT
Yes - but the question is when. The State doesnt work that fast and a finding of excessive cracking in 1996 means that by the time they have had all the meetings, reports and comments on the reports it could be years later that regulations change to prevent use of RAAC. In which case you would have evidence of schools built into the new millennium. If you do, I'm quite happy to withdraw my accusation to Jonksy. I've found zero. I dont have any evidence that is why I am asking - and it appears you have no evidence either. |
|
|
|
Schools.
Sept 7, 2023 8:35:49 GMT
via mobile
Post by jonksy on Sept 7, 2023 8:35:49 GMT
The only rubbish is the excuses in support of blair and labour. Even the links that your side of the fence provided have been total rubbish and DO NOT support your stance. They supposedly officialy stopped using RAAC in 1999 but we now know it was still being used in public buildings well into the 2000's when people were noticing the decay of these buildings and it was obviouse the cause. feel free to evidence that ' still being used in public buildings well into the 2000's' just so we know you didn't make it up out of thin air Feel free to post evidence to the contrary. As all the links from your side of the fence haven't so far.. |
|
|
|
Schools.
Sept 7, 2023 8:46:55 GMT
via mobile
Post by andrewbrown on Sept 7, 2023 8:46:55 GMT
The only rubbish is the excuses in support of blair and labour. Even the links that your side of the fence provided have been total rubbish and DO NOT support your stance. They supposedly officialy stopped using RAAC in 1999 but we now know it was still being used in public buildings well into the 2000's when people were noticing the decay of these buildings and it was obviouse the cause. feel free to evidence that ' still being used in public buildings well into the 2000's' just so we know you didn't make it up out of thin air Jonksy doesn't do "evidence" unfortunately. |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Sept 7, 2023 8:47:31 GMT
I totally agree, no one comes out of this smelling of roses. I wasn't trying to exonerate Labour, contrary to popular opinion, but merely correct Jonsky's incorrect point that Labour's PFI was responsible for these buildings when that clearly isn't true. I'm also with you on the short term thinking of politicians. I wish there a lot more of politicians of all parties working together on longer term goals, things like energy policy and health, housing and immigration, rather than just government of the day playing with things, only for the next government to reorganise it. Unfortunately the way that our politics works is very adversarial. You can see it on almost every thread on here, everything is designed to divide people into two groups. It's almost like two groups of rival supporters lobbing bricks at each other, you have to be one side or the other. But of course it isn't true, politics is more a 3-dimensional scale. There's a really good example on this thread where I've pointed out Jonsky's error on Labour's PFI projects, and both Jonksy and Fairsociety have therefore jumped to the conclusion that this makes me a Labour supporter. Simply not true and not a logical conclusion from what I've said, but simply their thinking that if you don't agree with us you must be for the enemy. Just look at all the threads on here that just descend into abuse, just throwing the words "righties", "lefties", "Nazis", "woke snowflake", "Remoaner", "Brexiteer". Either people want to "pull up the drawbridge" or "let them all in". But those two positions don't reflect anyone's opinion accurately. It's not good and it's not conducive to constructive conversation. Yes in the heat of the moment it can become purely adversarial,tbh it wasn’t really aimed at you but making that very point. I have a feeling that the health service or what remains of it would be better if it were run by a cross party body with some of the general poulation involved but certainly not clapped out politicians or their friends. The problems we face are often down to endless initiatives or reforms which usually do little or even make things worse and on top waste a lot of public money that could be better used. I am afraid we live in times where when things go wrong a spokesman is rolled out to tell us “lessons have been learnt” when experience tells us nothing of the sort actually is. We have initiatives for this or that and training where on the surface is projected as a solution and so often it isn’t but is cynical window dressing and in cases moving the responsibility from those higher up the ladder onto those at the bottom. I wish I could like this post more than once. |
|
|
|
Schools.
Sept 7, 2023 8:54:23 GMT
via mobile
Post by jonksy on Sept 7, 2023 8:54:23 GMT
Yes in the heat of the moment it can become purely adversarial,tbh it wasn’t really aimed at you but making that very point. I have a feeling that the health service or what remains of it would be better if it were run by a cross party body with some of the general poulation involved but certainly not clapped out politicians or their friends. The problems we face are often down to endless initiatives or reforms which usually do little or even make things worse and on top waste a lot of public money that could be better used. I am afraid we live in times where when things go wrong a spokesman is rolled out to tell us “lessons have been learnt” when experience tells us nothing of the sort actually is. We have initiatives for this or that and training where on the surface is projected as a solution and so often it isn’t but is cynical window dressing and in cases moving the responsibility from those higher up the ladder onto those at the bottom. I wish I could like this post more than once. I never stated it was all down to labour. I pointed out the fact that all of blairs PFI elephants made use of RAAC. |
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on Sept 7, 2023 9:45:50 GMT
I wish I could like this post more than once. I never stated it was all down to labour. I pointed out the fact that all of blairs PFI elephants made use of RAAC. Pfi another short term crowd pleaser that then turned into long term debt madness |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2023 9:57:40 GMT
So Labour should have fixed the schools half way through their 'shelf' life? Don't talk daft. Labour had a plan to replace or renew the schools but the Tories ditched it. Their shelf life was 30 years and Labour did not fix them. How long after they were built was that then? |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Sept 7, 2023 9:58:01 GMT
Bit of a mystery why build buildings with this stuff IF it was known at the time that it would only last 30 years.
Next failing is once the issue was known why the delays in sorting the problem out.
Fundamentally yet another symbol of a country that is falling apart - from education to healthcare to potholes. Pretty much nothing works any more. Root cause of that is that with rising life expectancy, its very hard to find the finances to cover the costs that result. Overlay mans climate change catastrophe, rising population s and the internet and it does seem that future generations have some tough choices to make about the inevitability of falling living standards but which particularly living standards to prioritise and which to accept are gone.
Hard to see how humanity handles the difficulties that are coming. May well be that the best time to be be born has now long passed.
|
|
