Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As the latest (scaremongering) headline suggests that hospitals familiarise themselves with evacuation routes in case their building starts to crumble I ask myself what other countries must be thinking. I am pretty sure that the UK is not alone with buildings constructed using aerated concrete. Are they quietly checking all their building hoping that nobody notices or prints some scary headline? Although the media are almost portraying this as a UK issue, in reality it is more likely an issue of budgets (whilst ignoring safety advice given that this type of construction has a shelf life). Every European country ( every country) has been through COVID, has been supporting the war in Ukraine, has been impacted by inflation so they will all have been trying to manage spend. I very much doubt that the UK is unique here and expect to hear stories from across Europe of similar problems with RAAC." I suspect climate plays a role in this. The U.K being wetter than certainly southern Europe. It would be interesting to hear some stories though. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As the latest (scaremongering) headline suggests that hospitals familiarise themselves with evacuation routes in case their building starts to crumble I ask myself what other countries must be thinking. I am pretty sure that the UK is not alone with buildings constructed using aerated concrete. Are they quietly checking all their building hoping that nobody notices or prints some scary headline? Although the media are almost portraying this as a UK issue, in reality it is more likely an issue of budgets (whilst ignoring safety advice given that this type of construction has a shelf life). Every European country ( every country) has been through COVID, has been supporting the war in Ukraine, has been impacted by inflation so they will all have been trying to manage spend. I very much doubt that the UK is unique here and expect to hear stories from across Europe of similar problems with RAAC." I’m struggling to understand your point | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As the latest (scaremongering) headline suggests that hospitals familiarise themselves with evacuation routes in case their building starts to crumble I ask myself what other countries must be thinking. I am pretty sure that the UK is not alone with buildings constructed using aerated concrete. Are they quietly checking all their building hoping that nobody notices or prints some scary headline? Although the media are almost portraying this as a UK issue, in reality it is more likely an issue of budgets (whilst ignoring safety advice given that this type of construction has a shelf life). Every European country ( every country) has been through COVID, has been supporting the war in Ukraine, has been impacted by inflation so they will all have been trying to manage spend. I very much doubt that the UK is unique here and expect to hear stories from across Europe of similar problems with RAAC. I’m struggling to understand your point" There is no real point, more ruminating than anything else. If anything, I think that the media are being too hard on the government but, I also think that the government are not doing themselves any favours with their denials either. I also suspect that the problems with RAAC are far more widespread (across Europe and beyond). The fact that the UK has fallen foul may be due to climate and certainly is due to lack of ongoing investment but other governments also fall foul of ongoing investment and maintenance due to budget availability (as per the UK). I think we will find that this is a far greater problem than first anticipated. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As the latest (scaremongering) headline suggests that hospitals familiarise themselves with evacuation routes in case their building starts to crumble I ask myself what other countries must be thinking. I am pretty sure that the UK is not alone with buildings constructed using aerated concrete. Are they quietly checking all their building hoping that nobody notices or prints some scary headline? Although the media are almost portraying this as a UK issue, in reality it is more likely an issue of budgets (whilst ignoring safety advice given that this type of construction has a shelf life). Every European country ( every country) has been through COVID, has been supporting the war in Ukraine, has been impacted by inflation so they will all have been trying to manage spend. I very much doubt that the UK is unique here and expect to hear stories from across Europe of similar problems with RAAC. I’m struggling to understand your point There is no real point, more ruminating than anything else. If anything, I think that the media are being too hard on the government but, I also think that the government are not doing themselves any favours with their denials either. I also suspect that the problems with RAAC are far more widespread (across Europe and beyond). The fact that the UK has fallen foul may be due to climate and certainly is due to lack of ongoing investment but other governments also fall foul of ongoing investment and maintenance due to budget availability (as per the UK). I think we will find that this is a far greater problem than first anticipated."  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It made me laugh when a mum complained, saying they are putting health and safety above education."  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Apparently Gillian Keegan’s Department has awarded contract(s) worth £1m to a firm her husband is a Non-Exec Director of." Are you saying that Gillian Keegan has bribed or bullied all the civil servants involved in procurement, or does she do the contract awarding herself? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Apparently Gillian Keegan’s Department has awarded contract(s) worth £1m to a firm her husband is a Non-Exec Director of. Are you saying that Gillian Keegan has bribed or bullied all the civil servants involved in procurement, or does she do the contract awarding herself?" I’m not saying anything, the press are reporting it and I shared. Just hope her husband’s involvement with the firm was declared through proper channels and that was known to the procurement team. It is rather ironic that these politicians (note I didn’t say Tory) so often have family connections to the right firms on the right procurement frameworks. How lucky and amazingly coincidental is that! Some people are just born lucky I guess?  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Apparently Gillian Keegan’s Department has awarded contract(s) worth £1m to a firm her husband is a Non-Exec Director of. Are you saying that Gillian Keegan has bribed or bullied all the civil servants involved in procurement, or does she do the contract awarding herself? I’m not saying anything, the press are reporting it and I shared. Just hope her husband’s involvement with the firm was declared through proper channels and that was known to the procurement team. It is rather ironic that these politicians (note I didn’t say Tory) so often have family connections to the right firms on the right procurement frameworks. How lucky and amazingly coincidental is that! Some people are just born lucky I guess? "A DfE spokesperson said: “Ministers had no involvement in the procurement process for these contracts, which were awarded in line with existing government commercial procedures.” If they weren't aware then they should all be sacked. The guy has been a director for over 5 years. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A DfE spokesperson said: “Ministers had no involvement in the procurement process for these contracts, which were awarded in line with existing government commercial procedures.”" And that will be demonstrably correct in terms of both principle and paper trail. But in practice there are corridor conversations with people in the know. There will be access to privileged information that a Minister could verbally share with family members to help with their tendering. No doubt certain posters will demand evidence for such claims entirely missing the point that there is no evidence and that is the point because it will be verbal with no records. Plausible deniability is an active tool used in govt for many things. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A DfE spokesperson said: “Ministers had no involvement in the procurement process for these contracts, which were awarded in line with existing government commercial procedures.” And that will be demonstrably correct in terms of both principle and paper trail. But in practice there are corridor conversations with people in the know. There will be access to privileged information that a Minister could verbally share with family members to help with their tendering. No doubt certain posters will demand evidence for such claims entirely missing the point that there is no evidence and that is the point because it will be verbal with no records. Plausible deniability is an active tool used in govt for many things. " Plausible deniability is an active tool used in life, not just Govt. Procurement avenues is also about who you know in life, not just Govt. I'm not sure why people are so shocked. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A DfE spokesperson said: “Ministers had no involvement in the procurement process for these contracts, which were awarded in line with existing government commercial procedures.” And that will be demonstrably correct in terms of both principle and paper trail. But in practice there are corridor conversations with people in the know. There will be access to privileged information that a Minister could verbally share with family members to help with their tendering. No doubt certain posters will demand evidence for such claims entirely missing the point that there is no evidence and that is the point because it will be verbal with no records. Plausible deniability is an active tool used in govt for many things. Plausible deniability is an active tool used in life, not just Govt. Procurement avenues is also about who you know in life, not just Govt. I'm not sure why people are so shocked. " so true so true. I try Plausible Deniability with Mrs B but she is too smart 
Not sure people are shocked or surprised but as it involves our tax payer funds, it angers people re the gravy train! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A DfE spokesperson said: “Ministers had no involvement in the procurement process for these contracts, which were awarded in line with existing government commercial procedures.” And that will be demonstrably correct in terms of both principle and paper trail. But in practice there are corridor conversations with people in the know. There will be access to privileged information that a Minister could verbally share with family members to help with their tendering. No doubt certain posters will demand evidence for such claims entirely missing the point that there is no evidence and that is the point because it will be verbal with no records. Plausible deniability is an active tool used in govt for many things. Plausible deniability is an active tool used in life, not just Govt. Procurement avenues is also about who you know in life, not just Govt. I'm not sure why people are so shocked. so true so true. I try Plausible Deniability with Mrs B but she is too smart
Not sure people are shocked or surprised but as it involves our tax payer funds, it angers people re the gravy train!"You should change tact, try gaslighting instead 
Why are people angry? Did that company deliver what they were contracted to? If so, then are we arguing that they shouldn't get a job they're more than capable of performing because of one director?
For me, if a company is capable of delivering a project, then they're capable. If the agreed fee was reasonable, then it was reasonable.
It seems people just like to have a moan for the sake of having a moan or to score political points. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No doubt certain posters will demand evidence for such claims entirely missing the point that there is no evidence and that is the point because it will be verbal with no records." How convenient for you that your personal conspiracy theory necessarily means that there's no evidence of its existence. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A DfE spokesperson said: “Ministers had no involvement in the procurement process for these contracts, which were awarded in line with existing government commercial procedures.” And that will be demonstrably correct in terms of both principle and paper trail. But in practice there are corridor conversations with people in the know. There will be access to privileged information that a Minister could verbally share with family members to help with their tendering. No doubt certain posters will demand evidence for such claims entirely missing the point that there is no evidence and that is the point because it will be verbal with no records. Plausible deniability is an active tool used in govt for many things. Plausible deniability is an active tool used in life, not just Govt. Procurement avenues is also about who you know in life, not just Govt. I'm not sure why people are so shocked. so true so true. I try Plausible Deniability with Mrs B but she is too smart
Not sure people are shocked or surprised but as it involves our tax payer funds, it angers people re the gravy train!
You should change tact, try gaslighting instead
Why are people angry? Did that company deliver what they were contracted to? If so, then are we arguing that they shouldn't get a job they're more than capable of performing because of one director?
For me, if a company is capable of delivering a project, then they're capable. If the agreed fee was reasonable, then it was reasonable.
It seems people just like to have a moan for the sake of having a moan or to score political points. "Oh I am talking wider than one contract. More the issue of politicians (of any party) getting wealthier as a result of connections to companies awarded contracts funded by the tax payer. There is definite issues of conflict of interest and access to privileged information. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No doubt certain posters will demand evidence for such claims entirely missing the point that there is no evidence and that is the point because it will be verbal with no records. How convenient for you that your personal conspiracy theory necessarily means that there's no evidence of its existence." It’s good isn’t it...except it isn’t my theory. Many will argue that is how “business” works. Who you know and all that. Certainly many, if not most, of my successful tenders have been won because I was already known to people (with a good track record of successful delivery to back it up or I wouldn’t have made the short list). | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A DfE spokesperson said: “Ministers had no involvement in the procurement process for these contracts, which were awarded in line with existing government commercial procedures.” And that will be demonstrably correct in terms of both principle and paper trail. But in practice there are corridor conversations with people in the know. There will be access to privileged information that a Minister could verbally share with family members to help with their tendering. No doubt certain posters will demand evidence for such claims entirely missing the point that there is no evidence and that is the point because it will be verbal with no records. Plausible deniability is an active tool used in govt for many things. Plausible deniability is an active tool used in life, not just Govt. Procurement avenues is also about who you know in life, not just Govt. I'm not sure why people are so shocked. so true so true. I try Plausible Deniability with Mrs B but she is too smart
Not sure people are shocked or surprised but as it involves our tax payer funds, it angers people re the gravy train!
You should change tact, try gaslighting instead
Why are people angry? Did that company deliver what they were contracted to? If so, then are we arguing that they shouldn't get a job they're more than capable of performing because of one director?
For me, if a company is capable of delivering a project, then they're capable. If the agreed fee was reasonable, then it was reasonable.
It seems people just like to have a moan for the sake of having a moan or to score political points.
Oh I am talking wider than one contract. More the issue of politicians (of any party) getting wealthier as a result of connections to companies awarded contracts funded by the tax payer. There is definite issues of conflict of interest and access to privileged information. "Not for the first time I feel the need to reference the book ‘Chums’ - contacts made in the halls of universities, friends of friends. It’s gone on since time immemorial. Only the naive would pretend it doesn’t. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A DfE spokesperson said: “Ministers had no involvement in the procurement process for these contracts, which were awarded in line with existing government commercial procedures.” And that will be demonstrably correct in terms of both principle and paper trail. But in practice there are corridor conversations with people in the know. There will be access to privileged information that a Minister could verbally share with family members to help with their tendering. No doubt certain posters will demand evidence for such claims entirely missing the point that there is no evidence and that is the point because it will be verbal with no records. Plausible deniability is an active tool used in govt for many things. Plausible deniability is an active tool used in life, not just Govt. Procurement avenues is also about who you know in life, not just Govt. I'm not sure why people are so shocked. so true so true. I try Plausible Deniability with Mrs B but she is too smart
Not sure people are shocked or surprised but as it involves our tax payer funds, it angers people re the gravy train!
You should change tact, try gaslighting instead
Why are people angry? Did that company deliver what they were contracted to? If so, then are we arguing that they shouldn't get a job they're more than capable of performing because of one director?
For me, if a company is capable of delivering a project, then they're capable. If the agreed fee was reasonable, then it was reasonable.
It seems people just like to have a moan for the sake of having a moan or to score political points.
Oh I am talking wider than one contract. More the issue of politicians (of any party) getting wealthier as a result of connections to companies awarded contracts funded by the tax payer. There is definite issues of conflict of interest and access to privileged information. "We all know it goes on. We spoke about it briefly earlier int he thread I think. Still, I'm not sure why people are angry or surprised. It's how the world works. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A DfE spokesperson said: “Ministers had no involvement in the procurement process for these contracts, which were awarded in line with existing government commercial procedures.” And that will be demonstrably correct in terms of both principle and paper trail. But in practice there are corridor conversations with people in the know. There will be access to privileged information that a Minister could verbally share with family members to help with their tendering. No doubt certain posters will demand evidence for such claims entirely missing the point that there is no evidence and that is the point because it will be verbal with no records. Plausible deniability is an active tool used in govt for many things. Plausible deniability is an active tool used in life, not just Govt. Procurement avenues is also about who you know in life, not just Govt. I'm not sure why people are so shocked. so true so true. I try Plausible Deniability with Mrs B but she is too smart
Not sure people are shocked or surprised but as it involves our tax payer funds, it angers people re the gravy train!
You should change tact, try gaslighting instead
Why are people angry? Did that company deliver what they were contracted to? If so, then are we arguing that they shouldn't get a job they're more than capable of performing because of one director?
For me, if a company is capable of delivering a project, then they're capable. If the agreed fee was reasonable, then it was reasonable.
It seems people just like to have a moan for the sake of having a moan or to score political points.
Oh I am talking wider than one contract. More the issue of politicians (of any party) getting wealthier as a result of connections to companies awarded contracts funded by the tax payer. There is definite issues of conflict of interest and access to privileged information.
We all know it goes on. We spoke about it briefly earlier int he thread I think.
Still, I'm not sure why people are angry or surprised. It's how the world works. "I don't think it's unique to any particular industry either or even unique in the UK | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A DfE spokesperson said: “Ministers had no involvement in the procurement process for these contracts, which were awarded in line with existing government commercial procedures.” And that will be demonstrably correct in terms of both principle and paper trail. But in practice there are corridor conversations with people in the know. There will be access to privileged information that a Minister could verbally share with family members to help with their tendering. No doubt certain posters will demand evidence for such claims entirely missing the point that there is no evidence and that is the point because it will be verbal with no records. Plausible deniability is an active tool used in govt for many things. Plausible deniability is an active tool used in life, not just Govt. Procurement avenues is also about who you know in life, not just Govt. I'm not sure why people are so shocked. so true so true. I try Plausible Deniability with Mrs B but she is too smart
Not sure people are shocked or surprised but as it involves our tax payer funds, it angers people re the gravy train!
You should change tact, try gaslighting instead
Why are people angry? Did that company deliver what they were contracted to? If so, then are we arguing that they shouldn't get a job they're more than capable of performing because of one director?
For me, if a company is capable of delivering a project, then they're capable. If the agreed fee was reasonable, then it was reasonable.
It seems people just like to have a moan for the sake of having a moan or to score political points.
Oh I am talking wider than one contract. More the issue of politicians (of any party) getting wealthier as a result of connections to companies awarded contracts funded by the tax payer. There is definite issues of conflict of interest and access to privileged information.
We all know it goes on. We spoke about it briefly earlier int he thread I think.
Still, I'm not sure why people are angry or surprised. It's how the world works. "Because enriching yourself or family/friends from the public purse is not the same as the using contacts in the business world. Just because it goes on doesn’t make it right. As a Minister you are in a privileged position to influence policy decisions and procurement decisions (regardless of what some may think or want to believe on here) and benefit from them. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A DfE spokesperson said: “Ministers had no involvement in the procurement process for these contracts, which were awarded in line with existing government commercial procedures.” And that will be demonstrably correct in terms of both principle and paper trail. But in practice there are corridor conversations with people in the know. There will be access to privileged information that a Minister could verbally share with family members to help with their tendering. No doubt certain posters will demand evidence for such claims entirely missing the point that there is no evidence and that is the point because it will be verbal with no records. Plausible deniability is an active tool used in govt for many things. Plausible deniability is an active tool used in life, not just Govt. Procurement avenues is also about who you know in life, not just Govt. I'm not sure why people are so shocked. so true so true. I try Plausible Deniability with Mrs B but she is too smart
Not sure people are shocked or surprised but as it involves our tax payer funds, it angers people re the gravy train!
You should change tact, try gaslighting instead
Why are people angry? Did that company deliver what they were contracted to? If so, then are we arguing that they shouldn't get a job they're more than capable of performing because of one director?
For me, if a company is capable of delivering a project, then they're capable. If the agreed fee was reasonable, then it was reasonable.
It seems people just like to have a moan for the sake of having a moan or to score political points.
Oh I am talking wider than one contract. More the issue of politicians (of any party) getting wealthier as a result of connections to companies awarded contracts funded by the tax payer. There is definite issues of conflict of interest and access to privileged information.
We all know it goes on. We spoke about it briefly earlier int he thread I think.
Still, I'm not sure why people are angry or surprised. It's how the world works.
Because enriching yourself or family/friends from the public purse is not the same as the using contacts in the business world. Just because it goes on doesn’t make it right. As a Minister you are in a privileged position to influence policy decisions and procurement decisions (regardless of what some may think or want to believe on here) and benefit from them. "Good luck finding a politician who hasn't used their influence for their own gain. Or any high powered businessman/woman, celebrity etc etc. Brown envelopes aren't part of everyday talk for no reason. You know this. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A DfE spokesperson said: “Ministers had no involvement in the procurement process for these contracts, which were awarded in line with existing government commercial procedures.” And that will be demonstrably correct in terms of both principle and paper trail. But in practice there are corridor conversations with people in the know. There will be access to privileged information that a Minister could verbally share with family members to help with their tendering. No doubt certain posters will demand evidence for such claims entirely missing the point that there is no evidence and that is the point because it will be verbal with no records. Plausible deniability is an active tool used in govt for many things. Plausible deniability is an active tool used in life, not just Govt. Procurement avenues is also about who you know in life, not just Govt. I'm not sure why people are so shocked. so true so true. I try Plausible Deniability with Mrs B but she is too smart
Not sure people are shocked or surprised but as it involves our tax payer funds, it angers people re the gravy train!
You should change tact, try gaslighting instead
Why are people angry? Did that company deliver what they were contracted to? If so, then are we arguing that they shouldn't get a job they're more than capable of performing because of one director?
For me, if a company is capable of delivering a project, then they're capable. If the agreed fee was reasonable, then it was reasonable.
It seems people just like to have a moan for the sake of having a moan or to score political points.
Oh I am talking wider than one contract. More the issue of politicians (of any party) getting wealthier as a result of connections to companies awarded contracts funded by the tax payer. There is definite issues of conflict of interest and access to privileged information.
We all know it goes on. We spoke about it briefly earlier int he thread I think.
Still, I'm not sure why people are angry or surprised. It's how the world works.
Because enriching yourself or family/friends from the public purse is not the same as the using contacts in the business world. Just because it goes on doesn’t make it right. As a Minister you are in a privileged position to influence policy decisions and procurement decisions (regardless of what some may think or want to believe on here) and benefit from them.
Good luck finding a politician who hasn't used their influence for their own gain. Or any high powered businessman/woman, celebrity etc etc.
Brown envelopes aren't part of everyday talk for no reason. You know this."I know but you asked why (some) people are angry/surprised. I maintain there is a difference between what is acceptable in the business world (private capital) and government (tax payer funded). But yeah! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A DfE spokesperson said: “Ministers had no involvement in the procurement process for these contracts, which were awarded in line with existing government commercial procedures.” And that will be demonstrably correct in terms of both principle and paper trail. But in practice there are corridor conversations with people in the know. There will be access to privileged information that a Minister could verbally share with family members to help with their tendering. No doubt certain posters will demand evidence for such claims entirely missing the point that there is no evidence and that is the point because it will be verbal with no records. Plausible deniability is an active tool used in govt for many things. Plausible deniability is an active tool used in life, not just Govt. Procurement avenues is also about who you know in life, not just Govt. I'm not sure why people are so shocked. so true so true. I try Plausible Deniability with Mrs B but she is too smart
Not sure people are shocked or surprised but as it involves our tax payer funds, it angers people re the gravy train!
You should change tact, try gaslighting instead
Why are people angry? Did that company deliver what they were contracted to? If so, then are we arguing that they shouldn't get a job they're more than capable of performing because of one director?
For me, if a company is capable of delivering a project, then they're capable. If the agreed fee was reasonable, then it was reasonable.
It seems people just like to have a moan for the sake of having a moan or to score political points.
Oh I am talking wider than one contract. More the issue of politicians (of any party) getting wealthier as a result of connections to companies awarded contracts funded by the tax payer. There is definite issues of conflict of interest and access to privileged information.
We all know it goes on. We spoke about it briefly earlier int he thread I think.
Still, I'm not sure why people are angry or surprised. It's how the world works.
Because enriching yourself or family/friends from the public purse is not the same as the using contacts in the business world. Just because it goes on doesn’t make it right. As a Minister you are in a privileged position to influence policy decisions and procurement decisions (regardless of what some may think or want to believe on here) and benefit from them.
Good luck finding a politician who hasn't used their influence for their own gain. Or any high powered businessman/woman, celebrity etc etc.
Brown envelopes aren't part of everyday talk for no reason. You know this.
I know but you asked why (some) people are angry/surprised. I maintain there is a difference between what is acceptable in the business world (private capital) and government (tax payer funded). But yeah!"Fair point. There is a difference. Its not gonna stop though, and no amount of getting angry about it will help. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As the latest (scaremongering) headline suggests that hospitals familiarise themselves with evacuation routes in case their building starts to crumble I ask myself what other countries must be thinking. I am pretty sure that the UK is not alone with buildings constructed using aerated concrete. Are they quietly checking all their building hoping that nobody notices or prints some scary headline? Although the media are almost portraying this as a UK issue, in reality it is more likely an issue of budgets (whilst ignoring safety advice given that this type of construction has a shelf life). Every European country ( every country) has been through COVID, has been supporting the war in Ukraine, has been impacted by inflation so they will all have been trying to manage spend. I very much doubt that the UK is unique here and expect to hear stories from across Europe of similar problems with RAAC. I suspect climate plays a role in this. The U.K being wetter than certainly southern Europe. It would be interesting to hear some stories though. " Why would the climate affect RAAC? I thought it was IN roofing, IN buildings, therefore not exposed to the weather. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Why would the climate affect RAAC? I thought it was IN roofing, IN buildings, therefore not exposed to the weather." Water can slowly penetrate RAAC and corrode the reinforcing bars inside the slabs. The UK has much more of a problem with damp than most other countries, and it's almost impossible to protect RAAC from coming into contact with moisture laden air. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As the latest (scaremongering) headline suggests that hospitals familiarise themselves with evacuation routes in case their building starts to crumble I ask myself what other countries must be thinking. I am pretty sure that the UK is not alone with buildings constructed using aerated concrete. Are they quietly checking all their building hoping that nobody notices or prints some scary headline? Although the media are almost portraying this as a UK issue, in reality it is more likely an issue of budgets (whilst ignoring safety advice given that this type of construction has a shelf life). Every European country ( every country) has been through COVID, has been supporting the war in Ukraine, has been impacted by inflation so they will all have been trying to manage spend. I very much doubt that the UK is unique here and expect to hear stories from across Europe of similar problems with RAAC. I suspect climate plays a role in this. The U.K being wetter than certainly southern Europe. It would be interesting to hear some stories though. Why would the climate affect RAAC? I thought it was IN roofing, IN buildings, therefore not exposed to the weather. " Water can ingress RAAC, after a period of time any paint or substance covering it becomes broken and porous | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Why would the climate affect RAAC? I thought it was IN roofing, IN buildings, therefore not exposed to the weather. Water can slowly penetrate RAAC and corrode the reinforcing bars inside the slabs. The UK has much more of a problem with damp than most other countries, and it's almost impossible to protect RAAC from coming into contact with moisture laden air." I did actually read that on the dot gov site, and like you stated it's problem re moisture in the air and the reinforcing metals. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A DfE spokesperson said: “Ministers had no involvement in the procurement process for these contracts, which were awarded in line with existing government commercial procedures.” And that will be demonstrably correct in terms of both principle and paper trail. But in practice there are corridor conversations with people in the know. There will be access to privileged information that a Minister could verbally share with family members to help with their tendering. No doubt certain posters will demand evidence for such claims entirely missing the point that there is no evidence and that is the point because it will be verbal with no records. Plausible deniability is an active tool used in govt for many things. Plausible deniability is an active tool used in life, not just Govt. Procurement avenues is also about who you know in life, not just Govt. I'm not sure why people are so shocked. so true so true. I try Plausible Deniability with Mrs B but she is too smart
Not sure people are shocked or surprised but as it involves our tax payer funds, it angers people re the gravy train!
You should change tact, try gaslighting instead
Why are people angry? Did that company deliver what they were contracted to? If so, then are we arguing that they shouldn't get a job they're more than capable of performing because of one director?
For me, if a company is capable of delivering a project, then they're capable. If the agreed fee was reasonable, then it was reasonable.
It seems people just like to have a moan for the sake of having a moan or to score political points.
Oh I am talking wider than one contract. More the issue of politicians (of any party) getting wealthier as a result of connections to companies awarded contracts funded by the tax payer. There is definite issues of conflict of interest and access to privileged information.
We all know it goes on. We spoke about it briefly earlier int he thread I think.
Still, I'm not sure why people are angry or surprised. It's how the world works.
Because enriching yourself or family/friends from the public purse is not the same as the using contacts in the business world. Just because it goes on doesn’t make it right. As a Minister you are in a privileged position to influence policy decisions and procurement decisions (regardless of what some may think or want to believe on here) and benefit from them.
Good luck finding a politician who hasn't used their influence for their own gain. Or any high powered businessman/woman, celebrity etc etc.
Brown envelopes aren't part of everyday talk for no reason. You know this.
I know but you asked why (some) people are angry/surprised. I maintain there is a difference between what is acceptable in the business world (private capital) and government (tax payer funded). But yeah!
Fair point. There is a difference. Its not gonna stop though, and no amount of getting angry about it will help. "Well we could all rise up and protest to let “them” know we do not accept it! Obviously we need to not disrupt anyone, can’t block the road or pavements. And best not make any noise. Certainly best not offend anyone (does that include the politicians). Oh and best be careful how we make our banners and be sure we don’t plan to attach them to anything as that could be seen as having tools to lock on! Best just grumble and make a cup of tea instead | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A DfE spokesperson said: “Ministers had no involvement in the procurement process for these contracts, which were awarded in line with existing government commercial procedures.” And that will be demonstrably correct in terms of both principle and paper trail. But in practice there are corridor conversations with people in the know. There will be access to privileged information that a Minister could verbally share with family members to help with their tendering. No doubt certain posters will demand evidence for such claims entirely missing the point that there is no evidence and that is the point because it will be verbal with no records. Plausible deniability is an active tool used in govt for many things. Plausible deniability is an active tool used in life, not just Govt. Procurement avenues is also about who you know in life, not just Govt. I'm not sure why people are so shocked. so true so true. I try Plausible Deniability with Mrs B but she is too smart
Not sure people are shocked or surprised but as it involves our tax payer funds, it angers people re the gravy train!
You should change tact, try gaslighting instead
Why are people angry? Did that company deliver what they were contracted to? If so, then are we arguing that they shouldn't get a job they're more than capable of performing because of one director?
For me, if a company is capable of delivering a project, then they're capable. If the agreed fee was reasonable, then it was reasonable.
It seems people just like to have a moan for the sake of having a moan or to score political points.
Oh I am talking wider than one contract. More the issue of politicians (of any party) getting wealthier as a result of connections to companies awarded contracts funded by the tax payer. There is definite issues of conflict of interest and access to privileged information.
We all know it goes on. We spoke about it briefly earlier int he thread I think.
Still, I'm not sure why people are angry or surprised. It's how the world works.
Because enriching yourself or family/friends from the public purse is not the same as the using contacts in the business world. Just because it goes on doesn’t make it right. As a Minister you are in a privileged position to influence policy decisions and procurement decisions (regardless of what some may think or want to believe on here) and benefit from them.
Good luck finding a politician who hasn't used their influence for their own gain. Or any high powered businessman/woman, celebrity etc etc.
Brown envelopes aren't part of everyday talk for no reason. You know this.
I know but you asked why (some) people are angry/surprised. I maintain there is a difference between what is acceptable in the business world (private capital) and government (tax payer funded). But yeah!
Fair point. There is a difference. Its not gonna stop though, and no amount of getting angry about it will help.
Well we could all rise up and protest to let “them” know we do not accept it!
Obviously we need to not disrupt anyone, can’t block the road or pavements. And best not make any noise. Certainly best not offend anyone (does that include the politicians). Oh and best be careful how we make our banners and be sure we don’t plan to attach them to anything as that could be seen as having tools to lock on!
Best just grumble and make a cup of tea instead "Go for it. I'll just crack on not giving a fuxk | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
