Search results

I wouldn't like to pass judgement on the few words which you have posted above. The people involved in the building / planning / construction will have families who will be severely affected by the outcome of this. We need to let the appropriate people look at every aspect in context and allow...

I agree. If something can't be made safely, then it shouldn't go into production. Just because the panels were known to be flammable from the rear side may not have been sufficient to stop them from being used. It may have been reasonably envisaged that the manner in which the panels were...

I was replying to Danidl OG, not you. Have a read of my original text and you will see.

If they knowingly sold chocolate fireguards, then they should not be exonerated. They should be punished. If they sold chocolate fireguards but, based on information available at the time of the decision, reasonably believed that they were sufficient and fit for purpose, then it would be unfair...

I guess that the likelihood of the reverse side of the cladding being subjected to heat will be the crux of the matter in determining if any bad practice has taken place. It seems that, until recently, all of the fire resistance testing has been conducted on the outer face, indicating that the...

This was my original sentence: "Well if you worked in a design department, you will know that cost is one of, if not the most important, design consideration." Could you point out where I suggested that cost is THE ONLY criterion in an R&D department? I've looked but I can only find where I...

Another AND factor. Another hole in the cheese.

Well if you worked in a design department, you will know that cost is one of, if not the most important, design consideration. If the product ends up too expensive, then no one will buy it and the design exercise becomes pointless because there is no market. Good design is concerned with...

The two major factors in the accident which you describe are 1) negligence on part of the person who discarded the banana skin 2) negligence on part of the person who was looking at the horizon instead of where they were walking. You could argue that the town planner could have provided more...

I'm not making up figures, but I think you know that. I agree to a large extent with the rest of what you say. Yes, we would pay £10 to be a bit safer on an aircraft. How about £20 to be safer still? Or what about £30 for a bit more safety? The point I'm making is that there is a cut off point...

Yes, some good points in there which I totally agree with. If people are found to have been negligent and overlooked known historical risk factors for financial or reckless reasons, then that is a different story and I hope that they receive the appropriate level of punishment.

No, you have made a schoolboy reading error. The sentiment is that buildings are at risk of meteor strikes, but we choose not to do anything about it because the risk is so small. You see? I didn't actually suggest that we protect against such things. In the case of Grenfell, we didn't protect...

Well that's reality I'm afraid. A disaster like Grenfell is caused by a series of events, never one factor alone. In aviation terms, they call it the Swiss cheese affect. If you build a wall of Swiss cheeses, the probability is that somewhere, all the holes will line up and allow a stray arrow...

Would you pay £10000 to fly to a European destination on an aircraft that was safer than one of the commercial operators flying there today? No you wouldn't. You would accept the slightly enhanced risk based on cost saving. So there you have it.

So who's going to pay to protect everyone against every danger. Are you prepared to pay £10000 to fly to Spain on your jollies for instance? Or are you going to accept a higher, but still minute level of risk and board a sleazy jet? My guess is sleazy Jet every time. This principle of risk v...

The above is all very twee and tiresome. Life is full of probability balanced against cost. It's accepted that 1 in X number of aircraft flights will crash killing everyone on board. That is acceptable because if you protected absolutely against every eventuality, it would be too expensive to...

The should-er squad are always quick to appear after such incidents as the Grenfell tower tragedy. Should-er done this, should-er done that etc ect. The situation is such that we can't protect everyone against every conceivable danger all of the time. It's a case of providing protection against...

The wisdom of hindsight and how gracious of you. I still think that the concept of BREXIT has potential to yield benefits for the UK, but the people who put themselves forward to lead it have fallen short of the mark. I think we need to step back and take another look and for those who are...

I didn't say that.

This doesn't surprise me. They have not followed up the BREXIT vote with anything of substance. It all seem to be pi$$ and wind.