In article ,
charles wrote:
In article om,
dennis@home wrote:
On 03/07/2017 10:23, wrote:
On Monday, 3 July 2017 10:01:43 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article , Roland Perry
wrote:
plus tenants being allowed to bring their own ancient untested white
goods into the building

Eh? Just who is going to test and approve the design of white goods?
Since the government and council rather obviously couldn't even make
sure a safe cladding was used. A much easier thing to assess than
white goods.

A PAT tester would reduce fire risk.

How? An inspection of the cables and plugs might but a PAT test?

a visual inspection is the most important part of any PAT test.

Yes. So what would you be looking for on a fridge freezer, etc?

--
*When everything's coming your way, you're in the wrong lane *

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

On Monday, 3 July 2017 15:08:11 UTC+1, charles wrote:
In article om,
dennis@home wrote:
On 03/07/2017 10:23, tabbypurr wrote:
On Monday, 3 July 2017 10:01:43 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article , Roland Perry
wrote:
plus tenants being allowed to bring their own ancient untested white
goods into the building

Eh? Just who is going to test and approve the design of white goods?
Since the government and council rather obviously couldn't even make
sure a safe cladding was used. A much easier thing to assess than
white goods.

A PAT tester would reduce fire risk.

How? An inspection of the cables and plugs might but a PAT test?

a visual inspection is the most important part of any PAT test.

'How?'! So you're not familiar with the PAT test and the consequences of failures.


NT

On Monday, 3 July 2017 16:23:14 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
tabbypurr wrote:
A PAT tester would reduce fire risk.

Really? Got some statistics to back that up?

If you need statistics to work out that PAT testing reduces fire risk
you should really see your doctor.

OK. Now tell us how PAT would show up the likelihood of a fire in an
appliance like a fridge.

Do you actually know what PAT involves?

Lol. Go see the doc about your dementia. Seriously.

In article ,
wrote:
On Monday, 3 July 2017 15:08:11 UTC+1, charles wrote:
In article om,
dennis@home wrote:
On 03/07/2017 10:23, tabbypurr wrote:
On Monday, 3 July 2017 10:01:43 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article , Roland Perry
wrote:
plus tenants being allowed to bring their own ancient untested
white goods into the building

Eh? Just who is going to test and approve the design of white
goods? Since the government and council rather obviously couldn't
even make sure a safe cladding was used. A much easier thing to
assess than white goods.

A PAT tester would reduce fire risk.

How? An inspection of the cables and plugs might but a PAT test?

a visual inspection is the most important part of any PAT test.

'How?'! So you're not familiar with the PAT test and the consequences of
failures.


I am well aware of the PAT test, thank you. So, you'd happly pass
something with flex where the outer sheath is broken, where the cord grip
on the plug is no longer gripping, etc. You check for all these things
before wasting time doing insulation tests, etc. I was doing them with a
Megger long before an intgrated PAT test machine was invented.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

On Monday, 3 July 2017 17:25:05 UTC+1, charles wrote:
In article ,
tabbypurr wrote:
On Monday, 3 July 2017 15:08:11 UTC+1, charles wrote:
In article om,
dennis@home wrote:
On 03/07/2017 10:23, tabbypurr wrote:

A PAT tester would reduce fire risk.

How? An inspection of the cables and plugs might but a PAT test?

a visual inspection is the most important part of any PAT test.

'How?'! So you're not familiar with the PAT test and the consequences of
failures.


I am well aware of the PAT test, thank you. So, you'd happly pass
something with flex where the outer sheath is broken, where the cord grip
on the plug is no longer gripping, etc.

Is there something in the water round here today? I don't remember you playing the loon before.

You check for all these things
before wasting time doing insulation tests, etc. I was doing them with a
Megger long before an intgrated PAT test machine was invented.

In article ,
wrote:
On Monday, 3 July 2017 17:25:05 UTC+1, charles wrote:
In article ,
tabbypurr wrote:
On Monday, 3 July 2017 15:08:11 UTC+1, charles wrote:
In article om,
dennis@home wrote:
On 03/07/2017 10:23, tabbypurr wrote:

A PAT tester would reduce fire risk.

How? An inspection of the cables and plugs might but a PAT test?

a visual inspection is the most important part of any PAT test.

'How?'! So you're not familiar with the PAT test and the consequences
of failures.


I am well aware of the PAT test, thank you. So, you'd happly pass
something with flex where the outer sheath is broken, where the cord
grip on the plug is no longer gripping, etc.

Is there something in the water round here today? I don't remember you
playing the loon before.

What's wrong with what I wrote?

You check for all these things before wasting time doing insulation
tests, etc. I was doing them with a Megger long before an intgrated
PAT test machine was invented.

There are plenty of people who "PAT Test" who think all you do is to plug
the appliance into the little box, push the button and read if it says
"Pass" or "Fail".

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

In article ,
wrote:
On Monday, 3 July 2017 16:23:14 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
tabbypurr wrote:
A PAT tester would reduce fire risk.

Really? Got some statistics to back that up?

If you need statistics to work out that PAT testing reduces fire risk
you should really see your doctor.

OK. Now tell us how PAT would show up the likelihood of a fire in an
appliance like a fridge.

Do you actually know what PAT involves?

Lol. Go see the doc about your dementia. Seriously.

Are you qualified to do PAT? Several on here are. And know what it
involves. And it doesn't involve taking a fridge apart checking for
possible future faults.

--
*Whatever kind of look you were going for, you missed.

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

Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at
06:20:28 on Mon, 3 Jul 2017, remarked:

plus tenants being allowed to bring their own ancient untested white
goods into the building

Eh? Just who is going to test and approve the design of white
goods? Since the government and council rather obviously couldn't
even make sure a safe cladding was used. A much easier thing to
assess than white goods.

White goods should be much easier. As soon as one bursts into flames
(and I've cited the Fire Brigade warning that numerous do, on a regular
basis) then ban that particular model number.

Unlikely to be workable.
And of course one fire is a poor assessment of risk.

Did you read the cites? [Hint: rather more than one fire]

That does not support your view that one single fire should result in a ban.

Pedant.

Having "banned" it, how do you reduce the number of that model which
remain in use?

--

Roger Hayter

On 03/07/2017 16:17, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
How do you know? Grenfell was thought safe - until this disaster. Two
sets of stairs both full of killer smoke isn't going to be any better
than one.

No but the chances of both being full of smoke is somewhat less.

Not so sure of that. If the same mistakes are made with both after a
refurbishment. Which if you think about it, is likely.


I will reserve judgement on that until we know what was done and what
was done incorrectly.
Meanwhile the cladding issue will result in everything being kicked out
into the long grass for a few years.

On 30/06/2017 10:35, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 10:09:25 on Fri, 30 Jun
2017, "Dave Plowman (News)" remarked:
On Newsnight yeaterday, a Grenfell estate resident (but not a resident of
the tower) said that there were unprotected gas pipes running up the
stairwell. This was also mentioned earlier by residents. But not by any
pros I heard interviewed.

Based on other comments, I thought initially they had gone over to
individual heating systems in each flat - hence the need for new gas
pipes. But it seems this is wrong - it had a new communal heating system.

So why the need for new gas pipes to all the flats? Or are they in fact
not gas but water? A layman might well not know the difference.

Sadly, running any new services through a fire protected area might well
compromise that, if badly done.

A picture has re-surfaced, that was posted online right after the fire -
showing a boiler apparently just inside a flat's front door. And loads
of copper *hot water* pipes. Also another picture showing what are
claimed to be cast iron pipes taking gas into individual flats from the
communal areas.

The former was one of the list of possible solutions to delivering
refurbished heating in the original feasibility study, and some sources
suggest the option chosen was a new heat-pump assisted *central* system.
If anyone has access to records of what was actually chosen, it would help.

Each flat had a heat interface unit (HIU) installed, in simple terms
these are heat exchangers; the primary side is connected to the communal
heat source (heat pump and gas fired boilers in this case), the
secondary side is connected to the apartment radiators. There is also
provision for instant hot water which is provided much like it would be
with a combi boiler. Heat meters work out the amount of heat used by
measuring the flow rate and temperature difference between the flow and
return. I am guessing the gas was for cooking.

See link below for more information:

http://www.kctmo.org.uk/files/board-...nuary_2015.pdf


snip


--
Dazza

gremlin_95 wrote:

See link below for more information:

http://www.kctmo.org.uk/files/board-...nuary_2015.pdf

Wonder what else is in there?

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=inurl:kctmo.org.uk/files

Grenfell specific :

"the new smoke extract system has been commissioned and is fully
operational"

"Rydon will be fitting vents to the ducts at all the points where the
gas mains run in the building; this
work is compulsory and will take about two hours. They will need access
to your flats"

Not Grenfell specific:

"following fire risk assessments,
the TMO had been working in partnership with the borough
on ensuring that leaseholder doors were compliant following
the programme for replacing tenants’ doors"

"It was queried whether any of the non-compliant fire doors
were in tower blocks, and this was confirmed".

In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
Not so sure of that. If the same mistakes are made with both after a
refurbishment. Which if you think about it, is likely.


I will reserve judgement on that until we know what was done and what
was done incorrectly.
Meanwhile the cladding issue will result in everything being kicked out
into the long grass for a few years.

While the cladding is obviously an issue, it wouldn't have been so much if
people had been able to escape.

--
*Fax is stronger than fiction *

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

In message , at 18:28:43 on Mon,
3 Jul 2017, Roger Hayter remarked:

White goods should be much easier. As soon as one bursts into flames
(and I've cited the Fire Brigade warning that numerous do, on a regular
basis) then ban that particular model number.

Unlikely to be workable.
And of course one fire is a poor assessment of risk.

Did you read the cites? [Hint: rather more than one fire]

That does not support your view that one single fire should result in a ban.

Pedant.

Having "banned" it, how do you reduce the number of that model which
remain in use?

In social housing, you insist on inspecting the flats, and if an
appliance with the failing model number turns up you remove it.

People won't like it - after all they continue to use those Hotpoint
tumble driers which are the subject of a recall.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 21:32:28 on Mon, 3 Jul 2017,
gremlin_95 remarked:

A picture has re-surfaced, that was posted online right after the fire -
showing a boiler apparently just inside a flat's front door. And loads
of copper *hot water* pipes. Also another picture showing what are
claimed to be cast iron pipes taking gas into individual flats from the
communal areas.

The former was one of the list of possible solutions to delivering
refurbished heating in the original feasibility study, and some sources
suggest the option chosen was a new heat-pump assisted *central* system.
If anyone has access to records of what was actually chosen, it would help.

Each flat had a heat interface unit (HIU) installed, in simple terms
these are heat exchangers; the primary side is connected to the
communal heat source (heat pump and gas fired boilers in this case),
the secondary side is connected to the apartment radiators. There is
also provision for instant hot water which is provided much like it
would be with a combi boiler. Heat meters work out the amount of heat
used by measuring the flow rate and temperature difference between the
flow and return. I am guessing the gas was for cooking.

Thanks, I think that explains it completely.
--
Roland Perry

On 04/07/2017 00:00, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
Not so sure of that. If the same mistakes are made with both after a
refurbishment. Which if you think about it, is likely.


I will reserve judgement on that until we know what was done and what
was done incorrectly.
Meanwhile the cladding issue will result in everything being kicked out
into the long grass for a few years.

While the cladding is obviously an issue, it wouldn't have been so much if
people had been able to escape.


So you do agree that the core killed the people not the cladding.

The cladding is a quick fix that will keep people happy until it happens
again.

The cladding needs fixing anyway but I wont say why for what should be
obvious reasons to anyone with intelligence. At least for a few floors
up anyway.

In message . com, at
09:20:03 on Tue, 4 Jul 2017, "dennis@home"
remarked:

While the cladding is obviously an issue, it wouldn't have been so
much if people had been able to escape.

So you do agree that the core killed the people not the cladding.

It's the *combination* which was fatal.
--
Roland Perry

On 04/07/2017 09:47, Roland Perry wrote:
In message . com, at
09:20:03 on Tue, 4 Jul 2017, "dennis@home"
remarked:

While the cladding is obviously an issue, it wouldn't have been so
much if people had been able to escape.

So you do agree that the core killed the people not the cladding.

It's the *combination* which was fatal.

Do stop trying to hide the real issue.

They died because they couldn't get out end of story.

The cladding didn't stop them getting out.

Removing the cladding will not stop it happening again.

In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
On 04/07/2017 09:47, Roland Perry wrote:
In message . com, at
09:20:03 on Tue, 4 Jul 2017, "dennis@home"
remarked:

While the cladding is obviously an issue, it wouldn't have been so
much if people had been able to escape.

So you do agree that the core killed the people not the cladding.

It's the *combination* which was fatal.

Do stop trying to hide the real issue.

They died because they couldn't get out end of story.

The cladding didn't stop them getting out.

no, the fumes and heat from the burning cladding did , though.

n

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:
Having "banned" it, how do you reduce the number of that model which
remain in use?

In social housing, you insist on inspecting the flats, and if an
appliance with the failing model number turns up you remove it.

Wouldn't it make more sense to inspect the fire escape methods - making
sure firedoors etc are working and clear? And so on? That obviously isn't
done in many cases, presumably due to the lack of will or money to do it.
Yet you want to spend money and effort on something that wouldn't be so
cost effective.

People won't like it - after all they continue to use those Hotpoint
tumble driers which are the subject of a recall.

Any electrical appliance can cause a fire. If the circumstances are right.
If you wish to stop such a fire quickly, sprinklers are the obvious answer.

--
*You sound reasonable......time to up my medication

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

In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
On 04/07/2017 00:00, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
Not so sure of that. If the same mistakes are made with both after a
refurbishment. Which if you think about it, is likely.


I will reserve judgement on that until we know what was done and what
was done incorrectly. Meanwhile the cladding issue will result in
everything being kicked out into the long grass for a few years.

While the cladding is obviously an issue, it wouldn't have been so
much if people had been able to escape.


So you do agree that the core killed the people not the cladding.

Why are you trying to put words in my mouth? As I keep on saying, the
emergency exit became unusable far too quickly due to smoke, etc. The
stairwell didn't collapse (or whatever) as it would have if a core issue.
What hopefully an enquiry will find out is just why it no longer worked as
designed.

The cladding is a quick fix that will keep people happy until it happens
again.

The cladding needs fixing anyway but I wont say why for what should be
obvious reasons to anyone with intelligence. At least for a few floors
up anyway.

It's the usual meja thing. Non technical journos latching on to the one
bit they can sort of half understand.

--
*Income tax service - We‘ve got what it takes to take what you've got.

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

In message , at 10:32:30 on Tue, 4 Jul
2017, "Dave Plowman (News)" remarked:
In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:
Having "banned" it, how do you reduce the number of that model which
remain in use?

In social housing, you insist on inspecting the flats, and if an
appliance with the failing model number turns up you remove it.

Wouldn't it make more sense to inspect the fire escape methods - making
sure firedoors etc are working and clear? And so on? That obviously isn't
done in many cases, presumably due to the lack of will or money to do it.
Yet you want to spend money and effort on something that wouldn't be so
cost effective.

But something which is cheap and easy.

People won't like it - after all they continue to use those Hotpoint
tumble driers which are the subject of a recall.

Any electrical appliance can cause a fire.

Yes, but there are few particular models which have specific reasons for
concern. Look back at the quotes I posted from the Fire Service.

If the circumstances are right. If you wish to stop such a fire
quickly, sprinklers are the obvious answer.

Almost every situation has both primary and secondary safety. You check
that car brakes work, but you also provide seatbelts and airbags for
when they don't.
--
Roland Perry

En el artículo . com,
dennis@home escribió:

Do stop trying to hide the real issue.

You really are thick as pig ****, dennis. Here it is in words of less
than one syllable for you, since you seem rather hard of thinking:

1. The core was designed to allow escape from one or two individual
flats if those were on fire. It was not designed for a mass evacuation.

2. The building was originally designed to contain a fire within a flat
for up to 30 minutes or an hour, depending which spec you read.

3. The residents were told to stay put if the fire was not in their
flat. Here's a picture for you, since you appear to have reading
comprehension issues:

https://static.independent.co.uk/s3f...mage/2017/06/1
4/09/stay-put.jpg

4. The cladding, fitted after the building was constructed, started
simultaneous fires in multiple flats, meaning mutiple tenants needed to
escape, which meant the escape stairwell and smoke ventilation system
were not able to cope.

5. Had the cladding been fire-retardant as per the original spec, the
disaster would not have occurred. Why do you think councils and housing
associations all over the country are right this minute ripping off non-
fire-retardant cladding?

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) "Between two evils, I always pick
(")_(") the one I never tried before." - Mae West

In message . com, at
10:26:15 on Tue, 4 Jul 2017, "dennis@home"
remarked:
While the cladding is obviously an issue, it wouldn't have been so
much if people had been able to escape.

So you do agree that the core killed the people not the cladding.

It's the *combination* which was fatal.

Do stop trying to hide the real issue.

They died because they couldn't get out end of story.

The cladding didn't stop them getting out.

Removing the cladding will not stop it happening again.

It'll stop a fire spreading to more than one flat, at which point the
regular evacuation processes will be sufficient in most cases.

Have you forgotten, so soon, that the LFB is called out to two high-rise
fires per *day*?
--
Roland Perry

In article ,
charles wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
On 04/07/2017 09:47, Roland Perry wrote:
In message . com, at
09:20:03 on Tue, 4 Jul 2017, "dennis@home"
remarked:

While the cladding is obviously an issue, it wouldn't have been so
much if people had been able to escape.

So you do agree that the core killed the people not the cladding.

It's the *combination* which was fatal.

Do stop trying to hide the real issue.

They died because they couldn't get out end of story.

The cladding didn't stop them getting out.

no, the fumes and heat from the burning cladding did , though.

Very likely. And the point is why did that smoke get into the fire escape
route so quickly? It had no windows to fail and let it in.

The refurbishment claimed to have a smoke extraction system.

--
*I yell because I care

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

In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:
In social housing, you insist on inspecting the flats, and if an
appliance with the failing model number turns up you remove it.

Wouldn't it make more sense to inspect the fire escape methods - making
sure firedoors etc are working and clear? And so on? That obviously
isn't done in many cases, presumably due to the lack of will or money
to do it. Yet you want to spend money and effort on something that
wouldn't be so cost effective.

But something which is cheap and easy.

Inspecting every appliance in each and every flat at regular intervals is
going to be cheap and easy? I think not.

--
*Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere may be happy.

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

In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:
Almost every situation has both primary and secondary safety. You check
that car brakes work, but you also provide seatbelts and airbags for
when they don't.

Don't be silly. The number of road accidents due to brake failure is tiny.
And pretty well every modern vehicle has dual circuit brakes anyway.

--
*Sticks and stones may break my bones but whips and chains excite me*

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

Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 18:28:43 on Mon,
3 Jul 2017, Roger Hayter remarked:

White goods should be much easier. As soon as one bursts into
flames (and I've cited the Fire Brigade warning that numerous do,
on a regular basis) then ban that particular model number.

Unlikely to be workable.
And of course one fire is a poor assessment of risk.

Did you read the cites? [Hint: rather more than one fire]

That does not support your view that one single fire should result in
a ban.

Pedant.

Having "banned" it, how do you reduce the number of that model which
remain in use?

In social housing, you insist on inspecting the flats, and if an
appliance with the failing model number turns up you remove it.

People won't like it

On similar grounds to their resentment at being carted off to labour
camps and re-educated, no doubt.

- after all they continue to use those Hotpoint
tumble driers which are the subject of a recall.

Do you have any legal basis for this intervention, or is it one of the
more obscure clauses of the mass surveillance Acts?



--

Roger Hayter

In message , at 11:14:01 on Tue, 4 Jul
2017, "Dave Plowman (News)" remarked:
In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:
In social housing, you insist on inspecting the flats, and if an
appliance with the failing model number turns up you remove it.

Wouldn't it make more sense to inspect the fire escape methods - making
sure firedoors etc are working and clear? And so on? That obviously
isn't done in many cases, presumably due to the lack of will or money
to do it. Yet you want to spend money and effort on something that
wouldn't be so cost effective.

But something which is cheap and easy.

Inspecting every appliance in each and every flat at regular intervals is
going to be cheap and easy? I think not.


Funny you should say that - the residents in Camden were up in arms that
every flat hadn't been visited by a council worker in a period of half
an hour when the decision to evacuate was made.

In other news, the Grenfell fridge/freezer was made between 2006 and
2009, so timescales for this kind of thing can be measured in years.

Rented buildings require gas safety inspections annually, already. This
could be tacked onto that.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 11:16:16 on Tue, 4 Jul
2017, "Dave Plowman (News)" remarked:
In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:

Almost every situation has both primary and secondary safety. You check
that car brakes work, but you also provide seatbelts and airbags for
when they don't.

Don't be silly. The number of road accidents due to brake failure is tiny.
And pretty well every modern vehicle has dual circuit brakes anyway.

The latter is a way to increase the primary safety, and annual MOT tests
rub that home. The lack of brake failures is a success, not a problem.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 11:46:10 on Tue,
4 Jul 2017, Roger Hayter remarked:

Having "banned" it, how do you reduce the number of that model which
remain in use?

In social housing, you insist on inspecting the flats, and if an
appliance with the failing model number turns up you remove it.

People won't like it

On similar grounds to their resentment at being carted off to labour
camps and re-educated, no doubt.

- after all they continue to use those Hotpoint
tumble driers which are the subject of a recall.

Do you have any legal basis for this intervention,

Public safety, like the annual gas-safe tests in tented property.

or is it one of the
more obscure clauses of the mass surveillance Acts?

You'll have read about the recent Currys PC World recall emails,
encouraging people to register their appliances with the manufacturers.
Surveillance on their customers, perhaps?
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 11:11:47 on Tue, 4 Jul
2017, "Dave Plowman (News)" remarked:

While the cladding is obviously an issue, it wouldn't have been so
much if people had been able to escape.

So you do agree that the core killed the people not the cladding.

It's the *combination* which was fatal.

Do stop trying to hide the real issue.

They died because they couldn't get out end of story.

The cladding didn't stop them getting out.

no, the fumes and heat from the burning cladding did , though.

Very likely. And the point is why did that smoke get into the fire escape
route so quickly? It had no windows to fail and let it in.

"Inadequate" fire doors probably. There are strong hints that the flat
with the original fire had a front door which was sufficiently open,
suffieicently long, for neighbours to be able to see inside. Perhaps
they could be equipped with explosive bolts to ensure that once a fire
has started they could never be opened?

The refurbishment claimed to have a smoke extraction system.

To cope with the smoke from one burning flat, not a hundred.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 13:12:22 on Tue, 4 Jul
2017, Roland Perry remarked:
In message , at 11:46:10 on
Tue, 4 Jul 2017, Roger Hayter remarked:

Having "banned" it, how do you reduce the number of that model which
remain in use?

In social housing, you insist on inspecting the flats, and if an
appliance with the failing model number turns up you remove it.

People won't like it

On similar grounds to their resentment at being carted off to labour
camps and re-educated, no doubt.

- after all they continue to use those Hotpoint
tumble driers which are the subject of a recall.

Do you have any legal basis for this intervention,

Public safety, like the annual gas-safe tests in tented property.

rented property, even.

or is it one of the
more obscure clauses of the mass surveillance Acts?

You'll have read about the recent Currys PC World recall emails,
encouraging people to register their appliances with the manufacturers.
Surveillance on their customers, perhaps?

--
Roland Perry

In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:
You'll have read about the recent Currys PC World recall emails,
encouraging people to register their appliances with the manufacturers.
Surveillance on their customers, perhaps?

The one thing you can be sure of is nothing that Curries does is just for
the benefit of their customers.

--
*Santa Claus has the right idea. Visit people only once a year.

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

In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:
The refurbishment claimed to have a smoke extraction system.

To cope with the smoke from one burning flat, not a hundred.

If all the flats were on fire, no need for an escape route. Everyone would
be dead.

But the smoke from each flat has to get past the front door and the
firedoors protecting the staircase.

--
*You sound reasonable......time to up my medication

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

On Monday, 3 July 2017 17:50:41 UTC+1, charles wrote:
In article ,
tabbypurr wrote:
On Monday, 3 July 2017 17:25:05 UTC+1, charles wrote:
In article ,
tabbypurr wrote:
On Monday, 3 July 2017 15:08:11 UTC+1, charles wrote:
In article om,
dennis@home wrote:
On 03/07/2017 10:23, tabbypurr wrote:

A PAT tester would reduce fire risk.

How? An inspection of the cables and plugs might but a PAT test?

a visual inspection is the most important part of any PAT test.

'How?'! So you're not familiar with the PAT test and the consequences
of failures.


I am well aware of the PAT test, thank you. So, you'd happly pass
something with flex where the outer sheath is broken, where the cord
grip on the plug is no longer gripping, etc.

Is there something in the water round here today? I don't remember you
playing the loon before.

What's wrong with what I wrote?

seriously?

plonk

On Monday, 3 July 2017 18:16:37 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
tabbypurr wrote:
On Monday, 3 July 2017 16:23:14 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
tabbypurr wrote:
A PAT tester would reduce fire risk.

Really? Got some statistics to back that up?

If you need statistics to work out that PAT testing reduces fire risk
you should really see your doctor.

OK. Now tell us how PAT would show up the likelihood of a fire in an
appliance like a fridge.

Do you actually know what PAT involves?

Lol. Go see the doc about your dementia. Seriously.

Are you qualified to do PAT?

yes

Several on here are. And know what it
involves. And it doesn't involve taking a fridge apart checking for
possible future faults.

I can really only conclude that there is something in the water.


NT

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 11:16:16 on Tue, 4 Jul
2017, "Dave Plowman (News)" remarked:
In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:

Almost every situation has both primary and secondary safety. You
check that car brakes work, but you also provide seatbelts and
airbags for when they don't.

Don't be silly. The number of road accidents due to brake failure is
tiny. And pretty well every modern vehicle has dual circuit brakes
anyway.

The latter is a way to increase the primary safety, and annual MOT
tests rub that home. The lack of brake failures is a success, not a
problem.

What Dave is overlooking is that brake "failure" is not just a
mechanical issue. Failing to notice that the klod in front has come to
rest due to a queue of traffic on the motorway, and biffing into him, is
also a brake "failure". Which is when the secondary safety kicks in.

Now I understand where you're coming from. Failing to operate the brakes
is brake failure. No wonder you were so easily taken in by Brexit.

Having jointed steering columns is another example, resisted by Detroit
IIRC even though there were plenty of road accidents in the US where
the driver was speared by the steering column.

Detroit stuck with steering boxes when the norm elsewhere became steering
racks. And they are situated differently.

--
*I tried to catch some fog, but I mist.*

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

In message , at 14:57:19 on
Tue, 4 Jul 2017, Tim Streater remarked:
Almost every situation has both primary and secondary safety. You check
that car brakes work, but you also provide seatbelts and airbags for
when they don't.

Don't be silly. The number of road accidents due to brake failure is tiny.
And pretty well every modern vehicle has dual circuit brakes anyway.

The latter is a way to increase the primary safety, and annual MOT
tests rub that home. The lack of brake failures is a success, not a
problem.

What Dave is overlooking is that brake "failure" is not just a
mechanical issue. Failing to notice that the klod in front has come to
rest due to a queue of traffic on the motorway, and biffing into him,
is also a brake "failure". Which is when the secondary safety kicks in.

I'm prepared to ring-fence the debate to failure of the brakes to work
at all. That more than adequately makes the point I was advancing.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 14:27:37 on Tue, 4 Jul
2017, "Dave Plowman (News)" remarked:

The refurbishment claimed to have a smoke extraction system.

To cope with the smoke from one burning flat, not a hundred.

If all the flats were on fire, no need for an escape route. Everyone would
be dead.

About 80, by all reports.

But the smoke from each flat has to get past the front door and the
firedoors protecting the staircase.

Wrong kind of smoke. The problem smoke is that getting into the
not-on-fire core from flats which are ablaze. Those are the flats where
the cunning evacuation plan only has one per tower block alight at any
one time.
--
Roland Perry

On Tuesday, 4 July 2017 16:13:57 UTC+1, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 14:27:37 on Tue, 4 Jul
2017, "Dave Plowman (News)" remarked:

The refurbishment claimed to have a smoke extraction system.

To cope with the smoke from one burning flat, not a hundred.

If all the flats were on fire, no need for an escape route. Everyone would
be dead.

About 80, by all reports.

But the smoke from each flat has to get past the front door and the
firedoors protecting the staircase.

Wrong kind of smoke. The problem smoke is that getting into the
not-on-fire core from flats which are ablaze. Those are the flats where
the cunning evacuation plan only has one per tower block alight at any
one time.

Would a huge fan at the entrance help to some extent? During the moments when the front door wasn't open it would blow outdoor air in to clear the stairwell of smoke and to some variable degree reduce smoke in the passages to the stairs. By the time the stairs are clogged with people & the front door open all the time it would stop being effective, but it could be of use before that point. And it would be very cheap.


NT