A nearby wooden bungalow was refurbished and the insulation improved
with Celotex a few years ago. I wonder if the occupants know that was
the stuff on the outside of Grenfell tower that burns at high
temperatures and gives off toxic fumes.

I have considered putting some Celotex in my attic and then covering it
with thin plywood so that I could walk on it but I have rather gone off
the idea, though if the house catches fire badly, I am unlikely to want
to go in the attic.


--
Michael Chare

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On 18/06/17 11:16, Michael Chare wrote:
A nearby wooden bungalow was refurbished and the insulation improved
with Celotex a few years ago. I wonder if the occupants know that was
the stuff on the outside of Grenfell tower that burns at high
temperatures and gives off toxic fumes.

Unlikely, since it wasnt.

In fact you are the only person who seems to know this.


I have considered putting some Celotex in my attic and then covering it
with thin plywood so that I could walk on it but I have rather gone off
the idea, though if the house catches fire badly, I am unlikely to want
to go in the attic.


Get some and put a blowtorch to it.
Celotex insulation does not really burn.

The cladding, which is not used domestically, did.

Celotex on their website has documentation specifically warning users
and designers to be aware of regulations concerning buildings 'with a
storey height of over 18m'

They tested it as safe when used with cladding formed of mineral composites.

They did not test it with cladding formed of plastic foam sandwiched
between thin aluminium or zinc sheets, that would bridge the fire stops.






--
"Women actually are capable of being far more than the feminists will
let them."

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Get some and put a blowtorch to it.
Celotex insulation does not really burn.

Where "not really" means that an external flame will make it burn,
giving off a surprising amount of smoke, it will char and and the flame
from the foam will sputter out after a few seconds when you take the
blowtorch away ... maybe a big slab with lower surface:volume ratio
performs better than tests on offcuts of an inch or two?

On 18/06/17 11:16, Michael Chare wrote:
A nearby wooden bungalow was refurbished and the insulation improved
with Celotex a few years ago. I wonder if the occupants know that was
the stuff on the outside of Grenfell tower that burns at high
temperatures and gives off toxic fumes.

The last renovation work was visible, done to make the tower more
presentable to the nearby nimby wealthy residents. The media have been
directed to criticise this, taking the flak away from council failure
specify install water tanks, install sprinklers, and perform regular
maintenance.

Little to do with celotex.

Perhaps, there should be a contest to design heat resistant external
stairwells, that could be retrofitted to old tower blocks. Celotex would
probably be good for that.

--
Adrian C

On 18/06/2017 11:55, Andy Burns wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Get some and put a blowtorch to it.
Celotex insulation does not really burn.

Where "not really" means that an external flame will make it burn,
giving off a surprising amount of smoke, it will char and and the flame
from the foam will sputter out after a few seconds when you take the
blowtorch away ... maybe a big slab with lower surface:volume ratio
performs better than tests on offcuts of an inch or two?


Celotex or Celotex FR5000? The former is Class 1, the latter Class 0.

When I fitted Celotex in the loft here I reckoned that by the time a
fire had gone through the plasterboard into the loft I'd either be out
or dead. And that the Victorian rafters and joists would go up like the
proverbial in any event.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 18/06/17 11:55, Andy Burns wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Get some and put a blowtorch to it.
Celotex insulation does not really burn.

Where "not really" means that an external flame will make it burn,
giving off a surprising amount of smoke, it will char and and the flame
from the foam will sputter out after a few seconds when you take the
blowtorch away ... maybe a big slab with lower surface:volume ratio
performs better than tests on offcuts of an inch or two?

"Not really" means that at atmospeheric oxygen levels an endothermic
reaction happens. I.e. it does not burn, It decomposes under heat.

So, too, does plasterboard and fireproof board. In fact so too does
pretty much anything,

Burning means an exothermic reaction that is self sustaining in air.

like aluminium polyethylene foam panels, giving off a surprising amount
of smoke...

--
The biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.

On 18/06/17 12:25, Robin wrote:
On 18/06/2017 11:55, Andy Burns wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Get some and put a blowtorch to it.
Celotex insulation does not really burn.

Where "not really" means that an external flame will make it burn,
giving off a surprising amount of smoke, it will char and and the
flame from the foam will sputter out after a few seconds when you take
the blowtorch away ... maybe a big slab with lower surface:volume
ratio performs better than tests on offcuts of an inch or two?


Celotex or Celotex FR5000? The former is Class 1, the latter Class 0.

When I fitted Celotex in the loft here I reckoned that by the time a
fire had gone through the plasterboard into the loft I'd either be out
or dead. And that the Victorian rafters and joists would go up like the
proverbial in any event.

whatever was fitted to my house

Tried to burn the scraps. No go.


--
"When one man dies it's a tragedy. When thousands die it's statistics."

Josef Stalin

Hmm, its a tough one this. I suspect that the actually reason in this
particular cases will turn out to be no blocking of the fire between flats
and floors and a chimney effect resulting from free air flow. Its probably
compounded by poor windows that either break or melt as well.
There is a world of difference between non flammable and stuff that will
burn at high temperatures, heck aluminium burns at high temperatures.

Maybe they should use the stuff they make the flat panels of toasters from.
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Michael Chare" wrote in message
news
A nearby wooden bungalow was refurbished and the insulation improved with
Celotex a few years ago. I wonder if the occupants know that was the stuff
on the outside of Grenfell tower that burns at high temperatures and gives
off toxic fumes.

I have considered putting some Celotex in my attic and then covering it
with thin plywood so that I could walk on it but I have rather gone off
the idea, though if the house catches fire badly, I am unlikely to want to
go in the attic.


--
Michael Chare

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

In article ,
Adrian Caspersz wrote:
The last renovation work was visible, done to make the tower more
presentable to the nearby nimby wealthy residents.

Unless you wish to reduce the area of what are already in many cases quite
small rooms by fitting the insulation internally, the only option is to
fit it outside. And any such insulation requires a facing of some sort
just to protect it from the elements. It would be a very perverse person
who required this cladding to be less attractive than the original
concrete. To say it was merely to improve looks for nearby residents is
nonsense, because any normal person will get pleasure out of living in a
nice looking building over a tatty one. So it could be said to serve three
purposes all at the same cost. Even more reasons not to penny pinch on it.



The media have been
directed to criticise this, taking the flak away from council failure
specify install water tanks, install sprinklers, and perform regular
maintenance.

--
*This message has been ROT-13 encrypted twice for extra security *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Brian Gaff brought next idea :
Maybe they should use the stuff they make the flat panels of toasters from.
Brian

Mica?

"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
news
Hmm, its a tough one this. I suspect that the actually reason in this
particular cases will turn out to be no blocking of the fire between flats
and floors and a chimney effect resulting from free air flow. Its probably
compounded by poor windows that either break or melt as well.
There is a world of difference between non flammable and stuff that will
burn at high temperatures, heck aluminium burns at high temperatures.

Maybe they should use the stuff they make the flat panels of toasters
from.
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Michael Chare" wrote in message
news
A nearby wooden bungalow was refurbished and the insulation improved with
Celotex a few years ago. I wonder if the occupants know that was the stuff
on the outside of Grenfell tower that burns at high temperatures and gives
off toxic fumes.

I have considered putting some Celotex in my attic and then covering it
with thin plywood so that I could walk on it but I have rather gone off
the idea, though if the house catches fire badly, I am unlikely to want
to go in the attic.


bring back asbestos I say .....

On Sunday, June 18, 2017 at 12:25:10 PM UTC+1, Robin wrote:
On 18/06/2017 11:55, Andy Burns wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Get some and put a blowtorch to it.
Celotex insulation does not really burn.

Where "not really" means that an external flame will make it burn,
giving off a surprising amount of smoke, it will char and and the flame
from the foam will sputter out after a few seconds when you take the
blowtorch away ... maybe a big slab with lower surface:volume ratio
performs better than tests on offcuts of an inch or two?


Celotex or Celotex FR5000? The former is Class 1, the latter Class 0.

Reynobond PE is Class 0 as well....


When I fitted Celotex in the loft here I reckoned that by the time a
fire had gone through the plasterboard into the loft I'd either be out
or dead. And that the Victorian rafters and joists would go up like the
proverbial in any event.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 18/06/2017 13:54, Tim Streater wrote:


While any such block should have two staircases, where would one
actually put such a staircase - unless you sacrifice at least one of
the flats on each floor? I saw a floor layout the other day, looked to
me like any such staircase would be outside someone's window.


Most of the flats around here have two or more staircases.

It a case of what the planning department think of cost v safety.

In message , at 17:50:04 on
Sun, 18 Jun 2017, Tim Streater remarked:
While any such block should have two staircases, where would one
actually put such a staircase - unless you sacrifice at least one of
the flats on each floor? I saw a floor layout the other day, looked to
me like any such staircase would be outside someone's window.

Most of the flats around here have two or more staircases.

The question was, where would you put a second, retrofitted, staircase,
on blocks like the one in question?

You'd have to use one of the 1-bedroom flats on each floor, reducing the
occupancy by about a tenth.
--
Roland Perry

On 18/06/2017 18:49, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 17:50:04 on
Sun, 18 Jun 2017, Tim Streater remarked:
While any such block should have two staircases, where would one
actually put such a staircase - unless you sacrifice at least one of
the flats on each floor? I saw a floor layout the other day, looked to
me like any such staircase would be outside someone's window.

Most of the flats around here have two or more staircases.

The question was, where would you put a second, retrofitted, staircase,
on blocks like the one in question?

You'd have to use one of the 1-bedroom flats on each floor, reducing the
occupancy by about a tenth.

The criminal investigation will probably be completed before the public
enquiry.

On 18/06/2017 11:35, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 18/06/17 11:16, Michael Chare wrote:
A nearby wooden bungalow was refurbished and the insulation improved
with Celotex a few years ago. I wonder if the occupants know that was
the stuff on the outside of Grenfell tower that burns at high
temperatures and gives off toxic fumes.

Unlikely, since it wasnt.

In fact you are the only person who seems to know this.

Read page 2 of the Sunday Times.

Polyisocyanurate is fire-resistant but burns at high temperatures
emitting deadly toxins including hydrogen cyanide.



Celotex on their website has documentation specifically warning users
and designers to be aware of regulations concerning buildings 'with a
storey height of over 18m'

They tested it as safe when used with cladding formed of mineral
composites.

They did not test it with cladding formed of plastic foam sandwiched
between thin aluminium or zinc sheets, that would bridge the fire stops.


Which does not contradict what is in the Sunday Times article.

--
Michael Chare

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Michael Chare Wrote in message:
On 18/06/2017 11:35, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 18/06/17 11:16, Michael Chare wrote:
A nearby wooden bungalow was refurbished and the insulation improved
with Celotex a few years ago. I wonder if the occupants know that was
the stuff on the outside of Grenfell tower that burns at high
temperatures and gives off toxic fumes.

Unlikely, since it wasnt.

In fact you are the only person who seems to know this.

Read page 2 of the Sunday Times.

Polyisocyanurate is fire-resistant but burns at high temperatures
emitting deadly toxins including hydrogen cyanide.


Did they define "high temperatures"?

Celotex on their website has documentation specifically warning users
and designers to be aware of regulations concerning buildings 'with a
storey height of over 18m'

They tested it as safe when used with cladding formed of mineral
composites.

They did not test it with cladding formed of plastic foam sandwiched
between thin aluminium or zinc sheets, that would bridge the fire stops.


Which does not contradict what is in the Sunday Times article.

--
Jim K


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

On 18/06/17 22:38, Michael Chare wrote:
On 18/06/2017 11:35, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 18/06/17 11:16, Michael Chare wrote:
A nearby wooden bungalow was refurbished and the insulation improved
with Celotex a few years ago. I wonder if the occupants know that was
the stuff on the outside of Grenfell tower that burns at high
temperatures and gives off toxic fumes.

Unlikely, since it wasnt.

In fact you are the only person who seems to know this.

Read page 2 of the Sunday Times.

Polyisocyanurate is fire-resistant but burns at high temperatures
emitting deadly toxins including hydrogen cyanide.



what the **** does the sunday times know?

even you dont know what 'burning' means


Celotex on their website has documentation specifically warning users
and designers to be aware of regulations concerning buildings 'with a
storey height of over 18m'

They tested it as safe when used with cladding formed of mineral
composites.

They did not test it with cladding formed of plastic foam sandwiched
between thin aluminium or zinc sheets, that would bridge the fire stops.


Which does not contradict what is in the Sunday Times article.



--
€œBut what a weak barrier is truth when it stands in the way of an
hypothesis!€�

Mary Wollstonecraft

On 18/06/2017 22:45, jim wrote:
Michael Chare Wrote in message:
On 18/06/2017 11:35, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 18/06/17 11:16, Michael Chare wrote:
A nearby wooden bungalow was refurbished and the insulation improved
with Celotex a few years ago. I wonder if the occupants know that was
the stuff on the outside of Grenfell tower that burns at high
temperatures and gives off toxic fumes.

Unlikely, since it wasnt.

In fact you are the only person who seems to know this.

Read page 2 of the Sunday Times.

Polyisocyanurate is fire-resistant but burns at high temperatures
emitting deadly toxins including hydrogen cyanide.


Did they define "high temperatures"?


No, I presume several hundred deg C

The Sunday Times quote a Professor Alan Brookes who might well be:

http://www.alanbrookesconsultants.co.uk/





--
Michael Chare

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

In article ,
Michael Chare wrote:
On 18/06/2017 11:35, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 18/06/17 11:16, Michael Chare wrote:
A nearby wooden bungalow was refurbished and the insulation improved
with Celotex a few years ago. I wonder if the occupants know that was
the stuff on the outside of Grenfell tower that burns at high
temperatures and gives off toxic fumes.

Unlikely, since it wasnt.

In fact you are the only person who seems to know this.

Read page 2 of the Sunday Times.

Polyisocyanurate is fire-resistant but burns at high temperatures
emitting deadly toxins including hydrogen cyanide.



Celotex on their website has documentation specifically warning users
and designers to be aware of regulations concerning buildings 'with a
storey height of over 18m'

They tested it as safe when used with cladding formed of mineral
composites.

They did not test it with cladding formed of plastic foam sandwiched
between thin aluminium or zinc sheets, that would bridge the fire stops.


Which does not contradict what is in the Sunday Times article.

Read somewhere that Celotex supplied all the materials for the cladding.
Now obviously they aren't to blame for supplying materials as ordered -
but wonder if, as in the good old days before everything is done on a
computer, that someone filling the order would have realised what it was
to be used for and raised a warning?

--
*Succeed, in spite of management *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 18/06/2017 12:25, Robin wrote:
On 18/06/2017 11:55, Andy Burns wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Get some and put a blowtorch to it.
Celotex insulation does not really burn.

Where "not really" means that an external flame will make it burn,
giving off a surprising amount of smoke, it will char and and the
flame from the foam will sputter out after a few seconds when you take
the blowtorch away ... maybe a big slab with lower surface:volume
ratio performs better than tests on offcuts of an inch or two?

I think the problem here is that when it is in forced ventilation and
exposed to a massive radiant energy as it was on the side of the
building all bets are off. It did survive remarkably well considering
but it almost certainly added to the fuel load since in extremis it will
burn/char (but plenty of charred bits remained on the building and had
fallen to the ground where they went out).

Celotex or Celotex FR5000? The former is Class 1, the latter Class 0.

When I fitted Celotex in the loft here I reckoned that by the time a
fire had gone through the plasterboard into the loft I'd either be out
or dead. And that the Victorian rafters and joists would go up like the
proverbial in any event.

Actually the heavy Victorian beams don't go up all that easily. It takes
a lot of heat and time to get a 12x4 joist to catch light. It burns the
corners off first and if the heat source is removed goes out again.

One reason for having some rodent control in lofts is they like to
nibble the insulation off mains cables.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On 18/06/17 11:16, Michael Chare wrote:
A nearby wooden bungalow was refurbished and the insulation improved
with Celotex a few years ago. I wonder if the occupants know that was
the stuff on the outside of Grenfell tower that burns at high
temperatures and gives off toxic fumes.

I have considered putting some Celotex in my attic and then covering it
with thin plywood so that I could walk on it but I have rather gone off
the idea, though if the house catches fire badly, I am unlikely to want
to go in the attic.



I covered mine (80%) in plasterboard. Got electrical apparatus (SELV
PSUs and Zwave dimmer modules) mounted on double plasterboard.

"Michael Chare" wrote in message news

On 18/06/2017 22:45, jim wrote:
Michael Chare Wrote in message:
On 18/06/2017 11:35, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 18/06/17 11:16, Michael Chare wrote:
A nearby wooden bungalow was refurbished and the insulation improved
with Celotex a few years ago. I wonder if the occupants know that was
the stuff on the outside of Grenfell tower that burns at high
temperatures and gives off toxic fumes.

Unlikely, since it wasnt.

In fact you are the only person who seems to know this.

Read page 2 of the Sunday Times.

Polyisocyanurate is fire-resistant but burns at high temperatures
emitting deadly toxins including hydrogen cyanide.


Did they define "high temperatures"?


No, I presume several hundred deg C

450
https://www.dyplastproducts.com/msds-isoc1

The Sunday Times quote a Professor Alan Brookes who might well be:

http://www.alanbrookesconsultants.co.uk/

On 18/06/2017 14:42, Adam Aglionby wrote:
On Sunday, June 18, 2017 at 12:25:10 PM UTC+1, Robin wrote:
On 18/06/2017 11:55, Andy Burns wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Get some and put a blowtorch to it.
Celotex insulation does not really burn.

Where "not really" means that an external flame will make it burn,
giving off a surprising amount of smoke, it will char and and the flame
from the foam will sputter out after a few seconds when you take the
blowtorch away ... maybe a big slab with lower surface:volume ratio
performs better than tests on offcuts of an inch or two?


Celotex or Celotex FR5000? The former is Class 1, the latter Class 0.

Reynobond PE is Class 0 as well....

But *only* in the UK where apparently different laws of physics and
chemistry apply to in the rest of the world if the makers datasheet is
to be believed. What this shows is that our fire testing standards are
woefully inadequate (and seriously out of date). Also that architects
here seem remarkably unaware of major high rise fire incidents overseas.

British Standard "Class 0" in this instance the BS stand for Bull****. I
don't believe that they can have ever tested the PE variant or if they
did then there is something fundamentally wrong with their methodology.
Probably tested against a thick inert concrete wall...

There is another nasty in that with this Reynobond PE crap rated as UK
Class 0 it can be used anywhere inside a building not just as cladding.
In some locations that can compromise fire evacuation routes.

Even applying truly Class 0 rated material over walls covered in many
old coats of paint can seriously compromise the fire rating (which is
based on it being on a clean inert wall of plaster or concrete). See

http://www.hubdean.co.uk/fire-protec...hat-is-class-0

Hammond was on yesterday claiming that "his understanding" was that the
PE variant was banned on tall buildings in the UK too but that remains
to be seen. If it was UK Class 0 just like the FR then I don't see how
anyone can be prosecuted for taking that specification at face value.

(Even though good engineers ought to know that the stuff was flammable)

When I fitted Celotex in the loft here I reckoned that by the time a
fire had gone through the plasterboard into the loft I'd either be out
or dead. And that the Victorian rafters and joists would go up like the
proverbial in any event.

Fires can potentially start in the loft if a critter nibbles a mains
cable and becomes a charred heating element as a result. ELCB usually
kicks in at that point. Squirrels and rats are the worst for this.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

In article ,
Martin Brown wrote:
(Even though good engineers ought to know that the stuff was flammable)

This really is the point. I read on social media the next day the actual
spec of this stuff and that it was banned for this use in other countries.
So hardly a secret.

I must be alone in not understanding how anyone could be in the position
of specifying such a material on a multi-million pound project and so out
of touch. Sadly, the alternatives don't bear thinking about.

--
*Cleaned by Stevie Wonder, checked by David Blunkett*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 18/06/2017 12:20, Adrian Caspersz wrote:
On 18/06/17 11:16, Michael Chare wrote:
A nearby wooden bungalow was refurbished and the insulation improved
with Celotex a few years ago. I wonder if the occupants know that was
the stuff on the outside of Grenfell tower that burns at high
temperatures and gives off toxic fumes.

The last renovation work was visible, done to make the tower more
presentable to the nearby nimby wealthy residents. The media have been
directed to criticise this, taking the flak away from council failure
specify install water tanks, install sprinklers, and perform regular
maintenance.

Little to do with celotex.

Perhaps, there should be a contest to design heat resistant external
stairwells, that could be retrofitted to old tower blocks. Celotex would
probably be good for that.


External stairwells, which some tower blocks have, only need to be made
of fire-resistant material like reinforced concrete. If the main fire
is in the building then the external stairwell is unaffected.

But this is social housing, where people think nothing of dumping
old mattresses and other junk at the bottom. Plus the problem
with vandals, druggies leaving needles etc etc.

On 18/06/2017 13:54, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Adrian Caspersz
wrote:

On 18/06/17 11:16, Michael Chare wrote:
A nearby wooden bungalow was refurbished and the insulation improved
with Celotex a few years ago. I wonder if the occupants know that was
the stuff on the outside of Grenfell tower that burns at high
temperatures and gives off toxic fumes.

The last renovation work was visible, done to make the tower more
presentable to the nearby nimby wealthy residents. The media have been
directed to criticise this, taking the flak away from council failure
specify install water tanks, install sprinklers, and perform regular
maintenance.

Little to do with celotex.

Perhaps, there should be a contest to design heat resistant external
stairwells, that could be retrofitted to old tower blocks. Celotex
would probably be good for that.

While any such block should have two staircases, where would one
actually put such a staircase - unless you sacrifice at least one of
the flats on each floor? I saw a floor layout the other day, looked to
me like any such staircase would be outside someone's window.



Lots of space round the building, so build another tower block about 20
feet away and join them every 5 floors with fire-resistant walkways,
losing one flat in every 5 floors from the original.

That way any front door security system will keep out the unwanted.

On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 14:31:21 +0100, Martin Brown
wrote:

Hammond was on yesterday claiming that "his understanding" was that the
PE variant was banned on tall buildings in the UK too but that remains
to be seen. If it was UK Class 0 just like the FR then I don't see how
anyone can be prosecuted for taking that specification at face value.

Sadly it would seem Class O really means bugger all.

https://www.arconic.com/aap/europe/p...age_042014.pdf

http://www.bbacerts.co.uk/Certificat.../4510PS1i1.pdf

--

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
Where would you put an external stairwell? How would anyone access it -
there'd have to be access on each floor, and apart I presume from the
ground floor where the front doors are, every point on the outside of
the building is the outside of someone's flat. You'd have to sacrifice
accommodation.

Quite a few tower blocks where the stairs are more like a separate
building. Access to that need be no more wasteful of space than to an
internal one.

--
*I just got lost in thought. It was unfamiliar territory*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
Where would you put an external stairwell? How would anyone access it -
there'd have to be access on each floor, and apart I presume from the
ground floor where the front doors are, every point on the outside of
the building is the outside of someone's flat. You'd have to sacrifice
accommodation.

Quite a few tower blocks where the stairs are more like a separate
building. Access to that need be no more wasteful of space than to an
internal one.

LMFAO, with all that fuel, where TF are you to go?
Mind you, I daresay that Dave would exit with not even a jot of 1cc of
coleslaw.
Then again, he votes Labour, fireproof.

On 19/06/2017 21:43, Tim Streater wrote:

Where would you put an external stairwell? How would anyone access it -
there'd have to be access on each floor, and apart I presume from the
ground floor where the front doors are, every point on the outside of
the building is the outside of someone's flat. You'd have to sacrifice
accommodation.


Make one or two of the two bed flats into a one bed flats, according to
some there is a real shortage of one bed flats to avoid the bedroom tax.

In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
On 19/06/2017 21:43, Tim Streater wrote:

Where would you put an external stairwell? How would anyone access it -
there'd have to be access on each floor, and apart I presume from the
ground floor where the front doors are, every point on the outside of
the building is the outside of someone's flat. You'd have to sacrifice
accommodation.


Make one or two of the two bed flats into a one bed flats, according to
some there is a real shortage of one bed flats to avoid the bedroom tax.

Brilliant thinking. The purpose of the bedroom tax was to get people out
of accommodation larger than they need to release it for those more
deserving. Allegedly. Rather than just to tax the poor more.

--
*When the chips are down, the buffalo is empty*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
On 19/06/2017 21:43, Tim Streater wrote:

Where would you put an external stairwell? How would anyone access it -
there'd have to be access on each floor, and apart I presume from the
ground floor where the front doors are, every point on the outside of
the building is the outside of someone's flat. You'd have to sacrifice
accommodation.


Make one or two of the two bed flats into a one bed flats, according to
some there is a real shortage of one bed flats to avoid the bedroom tax.

Brilliant thinking. The purpose of the bedroom tax was to get people out
of accommodation larger than they need to release it for those more
deserving. Allegedly. Rather than just to tax the poor more.

--
*When the chips are down, the buffalo is empty*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In message , at 10:32:08 on Tue, 20 Jun
2017, "Dave Plowman (News)" remarked:

Make one or two of the two bed flats into a one bed flats, according to
some there is a real shortage of one bed flats to avoid the bedroom tax.

Brilliant thinking. The purpose of the bedroom tax was to get people out
of accommodation larger than they need to release it for those more
deserving. Allegedly. Rather than just to tax the poor more.

It's not of course a "tax" at all, but a cap on the amount of housing
benefit that's paid, having looked at your needs and the accommodation
in question[1].

Converging with a question asked in another(?) thread earlier, they also
cap the benefit to the rental of an average(?) property of the size that
it's determined you qualify for.

If you are in rented accommodation (private or council) then it will
tend to encourage people to downsize, leaving the larger properties
available for larger households. Assuming you can even still get housing
benefit as an owner-occupier, they are the ones most likely to be
under-funded.

[1] For example, a family of parents and two children won't qualify for
more than a three-bedroom house. So if you happen to be living in a
five bedroom house, that two "extraneous" rooms.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 11:35:02 on
Tue, 20 Jun 2017, Tim Streater remarked:

Make one or two of the two bed flats into a one bed flats, according to
some there is a real shortage of one bed flats to avoid the bedroom tax.

Brilliant thinking. The purpose of the bedroom tax was to get people out
of accommodation larger than they need to release it for those more
deserving. Allegedly. Rather than just to tax the poor more.

It's not of course a "tax" at all, but a cap on the amount of housing
benefit that's paid, having looked at your needs and the accommodation
in question[1].

Perhaps Dave could explain in what way it's a tax. HMRC collects it, do
they?

Branding something a "tax" is just a popularist nickname. Just like
*raising* the social care means test threshold from £23k to £100k is
called a "dementure tax".

(And dementure isn't the sole reason why people need social care,
either).
--
Roland Perry

On 20/06/17 11:45, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:35:02 on
Tue, 20 Jun 2017, Tim Streater remarked:

Make one or two of the two bed flats into a one bed flats,
according to
some there is a real shortage of one bed flats to avoid the bedroom
tax.

Brilliant thinking. The purpose of the bedroom tax was to get people
out
of accommodation larger than they need to release it for those more
deserving. Allegedly. Rather than just to tax the poor more.

It's not of course a "tax" at all, but a cap on the amount of housing
benefit that's paid, having looked at your needs and the
accommodation in question[1].

Perhaps Dave could explain in what way it's a tax. HMRC collects it, do
they?

Branding something a "tax" is just a popularist nickname. Just like
*raising* the social care means test threshold from £23k to £100k is
called a "dementure tax".

(And dementure isn't the sole reason why people need social care, either).

ITYM 'debenture'

Shirley?

And there was me thinking you axshlly had had a university eddykayshun

--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 00:54:14 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:


Read somewhere that Celotex supplied all the materials for the cladding.

Celotex do not supply cladding, nor manufacture it, nor supply materials that
could be used in its manufacture, but other than that your source was entirely
accurate.
--

On Sun, 18 Jun 2017 16:56:27 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:


Most of the flats around here have two or more staircases.

It a case of what the planning department think of cost v safety.

Those flats around you are they of a similar date of design and construction?

--

"Roland Perry" wrote in message ...

Branding something a "tax" is just a popularist nickname. Just like *raising* the
social care means test threshold from £23k to £100k is called a "dementure tax".

(And dementure isn't the sole reason why people need social care, either).


Finding out whether applicants were able to spell the word "dementia"
might be a good place to start, however.


michael adams

....

In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 10:32:08 on Tue, 20 Jun
2017, "Dave Plowman (News)" remarked:

Make one or two of the two bed flats into a one bed flats, according
to some there is a real shortage of one bed flats to avoid the
bedroom tax.

Brilliant thinking. The purpose of the bedroom tax was to get people out
of accommodation larger than they need to release it for those more
deserving. Allegedly. Rather than just to tax the poor more.

It's not of course a "tax" at all, but a cap on the amount of housing
benefit that's paid, having looked at your needs and the accommodation
in question[1].

Now comment on how that differs from the point I was replying to.

Converging with a question asked in another(?) thread earlier, they also
cap the benefit to the rental of an average(?) property of the size that
it's determined you qualify for.

If you are in rented accommodation (private or council) then it will
tend to encourage people to downsize, leaving the larger properties
available for larger households. Assuming you can even still get housing
benefit as an owner-occupier, they are the ones most likely to be
under-funded.

[1] For example, a family of parents and two children won't qualify for
more than a three-bedroom house. So if you happen to be living in a
five bedroom house, that two "extraneous" rooms.

All very good. Now explain how making an exiting property smaller would
meet any of those objectives. Unless there were an excess of larger
properties. In which case the bedroom tax *would* have been simply
punitive.

--
*Succeed, in spite of management *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.