LondonMix

The contractor went insolvent so its pretty clear what happened there. Lazy, on the very on bankruptcy contractors unfortunately are part of the reality. Wandle clearly was not able to monitor the build appropriately which is why concerns have been raised about their ability to continue operating in their current capacity. Equally, there appear to be clear failings with building control. We agree that 100% of the build can't be monitored but major elements absolutely are and some of the lapses are very difficult to understand given that fact. I sincerely hope whatever the truth of the situation is comes to light and whatever steps need to be taken happens.

The journalist (not me) investigating this may very well have a broader set of questions. FOI only applies to the public sector and so there are limits to what can be found with that. Can you please re-link the Linconshire disclaimer you refer to? Building control is responsible for visually inspecting key work and using their best judgement in satisfying themselves the work they are signing off is compliant. They don't watch the build every day or inspect every aspect of the build; however, these staged inspections are to catch the most key aspects to ensure that the foundations are deep enough, damp proofing has been done, fire proofing has been done etc. That of course is not a 100% guarantee that the entire build is 100% compliant; however, building control is not even close to an advisory role. Their role is stop non-compliant work and they have very strong enforcement procedures to do that. Yes they enforce against the builder and the client when appropriate because who else could you enforce upon? If Southwark building control inspectors are not fit for purpose, that is a very serious failing within that body. That a building that has been signed off as compliant could need the level of remediation that these flats do is truly shocking. I live in Southwark and this is a concerns me greatly.

Anyone that doesn't think building control is supposed to verify rather than simply advise, please read this directly from the planning portal: https://www.planningportal.co.uk/info/200128/building_control/38/building_regulations/3 "A local authority has a general duty to enforce the Building Regulations in its area" Also see: https://www.homebuilding.co.uk/building-regulations/ "The Inspection Process Although work on a new build or extension may proceed before any formal approval, nothing can proceed beyond the inspection stages without the approval of the inspector, and those inspection stages are: excavations for foundations; foundation concrete; oversite; damp-proof course; foul water drains trenches open; surface water drains trenches open; occupation prior to completion (second fix); and completion. Completion Certificate When the building is completed to the satisfaction of the inspector, a Completion Certificate will be issued. This is a vital document that must be retained alongside the written planning permission for use if you ever want to sell. It is also required in order to release final funds from lenders, obtain the warranty certification and in order to reclaim VAT (if applicable)." I have personally seen building control insist that work be redone (more than once) before agreeing to sign it off as compliant. This was concerning the angle of drain pipes. Building control absolutely is certifying certain key aspects of the build have been done to code and to their inspectors satisfaction. This is an essential role in the building process for the safety and well being of the community at large.

Okay, fair enough if you don't work for Southwark. I do believe you are intentionally (for whatever reason) misrepresenting the role of building control to a a forum on which you have mostly only ever posted on this particular topic. If there were building control lapses in this horrible situation, it needs to come to light regardless of whether it helps the residents. We have two new schools being built in this community and its in everyone's absolute interest that building control is carrying out its statutory responsibilities appropriately. Its about accountability and safety.

I've been to wedding anniversaries but a gift isn't typically required is it? I like the tin of biscuits idea

The point of the required inspections is not that compliance is understood, it is that compliance with the code has been implemented correctly. That is why there are stages for which work needs to be visually inspected for compliance. These involve the most critical elements of the build such as the foundations, plumbing, fire proofing etc. Its not enough for a builder to simply say what they've done, they actively need to demonstrate it. This is your 5th post ever farfisamaia so I suspect you work for Southwark. The more Southwark try to obfuscate their responsibilities with respect to the building control process the more alarm bells keep ringing for me. Thank goodness the national press is investigating this thoroughly.

Here are some of my favorites: Very classic: Some Like it Hot; 12 Angry Men, North by Northwest Modern Classics: The Princess Bride, Hoop Dreams, Sideways, Rushmore, LA Confidential, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Before Sunset (though you should watch the entire trilogy), Fight Club, The Prestige, the Fog of War, The Big Lebowski, 12 Monkeys Recent good films with unusual plots: The Grand Budapest Hotel; Her, Boyhood, Whiplash, Up Foreign: The Lives of Others, City of God, Waltz with Bashir

In fact, here are some of the key visual inspections building control is responsible to carry out. This corresponds entirely with my experience working with Southwark building control in the past. Anyone saying building control is just a compliance advisory service is full of it: http://www.haringey.gov.uk/planning-and-building-control/building-control/building-control-inspections "Building Control Officers will make statutory and routine inspections during the construction stage of the building; to ensure compliance with the building regulations and other allied legislation and guidance. There are up to nine mandatory inspections, however not all nine are relevant to some jobs. Please note that all of the relevant stages of work applicable to the job must be provided, ie: Commencement - This is the first statutory notification. We normally visit when the work starts. However, in certain circumstances we may agree not to inspect the site until a further notice is received. Excavation for foundations: For conventional foundations the foundation trench should be dug, levelled and cleaned to remove ground water before asking for an inspection. For special foundations, such as a raft foundation or piled foundations, contact us to agree an inspection programme. Foundations constructed e.g. concrete poured - Notice must be given when the concrete has been placed. It is advisable to have the corners of the building marked out to show the position of the walls on the foundations. Our Building Control Surveyor will be looking to see that the walls will be positioned correctly on the concrete. Sometimes it is possible to start building the walls before this inspection, but you should discuss this with your Building Control Surveyor. Damp proof course laid - You must notify us before any damp proof course is covered up. Oversite ready for concreting (with damp proof membrane laid if appropriate): For solid ground bearing floor slabs it is the hardcore, insulation and damp proof membrane that we will inspect before concrete. In the case of suspended timber floors it is the ground below the oversite concrete that we need to inspect before it is covered by the floor. Structural members - We must inspect before you cover any structural members, for example floor joists, roof timbers or steel beams etc. Drains laid and visible for checking layout and construction: The drains must be inspected before they are covered up so we can check the layout and construction. All drainage work should be inspected. This includes foul drainage and surface/rainwater drainage to the building. We also advise you to test the drains are watertight before you cover them up. Drains testing - When the building is complete we will usually ask you to test the drains while we watch to check that they are watertight. Completion: You should request an inspection when the building work is fully complete (or for new buildings, before occupation). Provided we have seen all the relevant stages of work, and they comply with the Building Regulations, the relevant certificates have been provided and the relevant fees paid, a Completion Certificate will be issued. It is common for more than one inspection to be carried out on one visit. Inspections 1 and 2 often coincide, as do 4 and 5 and 7 and 9. As well as these mandatory inspections, further inspections may also be necessary, as some jobs will require specific inspections such as Fire Protection and the Reinforcement of Concrete Structures. In addition, a Building Surveyor may call unexpectedly at other times to check on the work as it progresses. Inspections 2-6 will be carried out on the next working day after notice has been given."

I've actually worked with building control from Southwark on projects. They came and visually inspected the firing proofing had been installed as one example of how they work. They insisted upon seeing it before the drywall was fitted. Building control are not a live compliance manual. The failing regarding fire safety compliance are the ones that most surprise me concerning building control's role in this Wandle fiasco.

Net EU migration tells us the isolated increase in the number of EU citizens living in the UK, which I think is an important data point. However, total net migration including Brits coming back from abroad and those emigrating to other countries tells you the impact total migration is having on population change in the country. Of course that includes all countries globally. They just serve different uses.

Thanks Buddug-- keep up the good work and I look forward to your article in the national press. Building control are 100% responsible to visually inspect that certain work has been carried out according to code. Anyone saying otherwise is intentionally misleading the public.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36461015 Amazing story on the BBC about his personal relationship with one fan for 30 years who who rate to from she was a little girl until he died.

Scroll and look at the table that presents net EU migration as well as all the other categories please... Net EU migration is 184,000. Your definition is not net EU migration it is something entirely different. The 333,000 includes all citizens: British, European and all others (Americans, common wealth etc etc) And my point was that net EU migration was not EU citizens arriving less Brits leaving (which it clearly is not).

Here is the link. http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/statistics-net-migration-statistics When people quote the net EU migration figure it absolutely does not include British people.

Can't vote but spouse is voting IN as is his entire family (siblings and parents). Doesn't want a recession, and thinks economically UK is better off in Europe. What we pay for the trade access is well worth it. Also, he doesn't mind immigrants (having married one). We have Polish friends. Virtually all EU migrants are in work so they pay their way in the country etc. Also, he doesn't value the idea of total sovereignty that much.

Also, maybe someone else picked this up but a few people have implied net EU migration is EU citizens coming less Brits leaving. That's not correct-- the net EU migration figure is EU citizens arriving minus EU citizens leaving Britain. Many EU citizens come to work in London for a few years and then return home or move elsewhere.

I suspect you are right Louisa. That's what they are saying but I have doubts about the sincerity behind that as well... Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > LondonMix Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > That's not what I said. I said the people who > > want to leave because of sovereignty are older > and > > wealthy Tories. I am more than aware that most > > Brexiters want to leave because they want to > > curtail immigration. > > > > > > Louisa Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- >

Root--- you are being an idiot as I said no such thing- read my full posts properly. Moreover, my family is voting to remain. Also, I am an immigrant not a Brit. Please tone down your hostile reactionary responses. root Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > LondonMix Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > That's not what I said. I said the people who > > want to leave because of sovereignty are older > and > > wealthy Tories. I am more than aware that most > > Brexiters want to leave because they want to > > curtail immigration. > > > > You mean you want to leave the EU because you hate > Europeans?

That's not what I said. I said the people who want to leave because of sovereignty are older and wealthy Tories. I am more than aware that most Brexiters want to leave because they want to curtail immigration. Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > LM I disagree. It's not just older and wealthy > Tories. Immigration is causing huge swathes of the > electorate in the poorest regions to swing in > favour of brexit, so please be under no illusion > it's simply older and wealthier people who want > out. I know many people who are so anti-EU they've > vowed never to vote Labour again for the party > officially backing the 'In' campaign. Labour will > pay the price for that decision, even Corbyn must > blush when he has to sit side by side with some > peculiar right wing New Labour bed fellows on this > issue. He hates the EU, we all know that. > > Louisa.

And Boris is 25% Turkish... Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think it's too easy to stereotype leavers. As > with most things, the most shocking supporters of > anything will make the first tier of consciouness. > It's not helped though by the leave campaign > focussing on immigration so much. It's clear what > demographic they are going for there. There's a > lot of hypocracy going on too (on both sides). > Farage has a German wife for example.

I haven't read the entire thread but this article was very interesting in the NY Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/08/world/europe/britain-brexit-vote-facts.html?action=click&contentCollection=opinion&module=NextInCollection&region=Footer&pgtype=article&version=newsevent&rref=collection%2Fnews-event%2Fbritain-brexit-european-union I hadn't realised that there are more British expats living in Europe rather than EU citizens living in the UK. I imagine London distorts ones perception of this. Anyhow, immigrants go where there are jobs available. Germany has more EU immigrants than the UK does. There is a shortage of various types of skilled labor in this country, which is why immigration is so high. Half of total immigration is non-EU. If there was no labor shortage, the government could and would already make that figure zero (rather than hundreds of thousands) as its entirely within their control. Instead, the NHS has to constantly import doctors, nurses etc from abroad just to name one profession very reliant on immigration. Anyhow, if Brexiters think they'll get similar access to the EU regarding trade without free movement of people, they are delusional. Even the Swiss who aren't part of the E.U. have never been part of the EU have to allow the free movement of people in exchange for their trade agreement. The UK will have to put in place new trade agreements with every country globally and its unlikely they will get similarly terms to those available to the E.U. Those saying the EU won't make an example of Britain are deluded about the UK's relative importance. Britain will be losing 27 trading partners whereas each of the countries in the EU will be losing one. The impact on them will be much less significant. The only legitimate issue I can see to leave is wanting to regain sovereignty which is an abstract value that has no real price you can put on it. Everyone values it differently. Personally, our family isn't prepared to go through another recession for it. I respect people who would though I've noticed that its mostly older people who are already have their pension and rich conservatives who can insulate themselves from the worst of the economic shock.

Louisa, I don't think she is any more polarising than Bush or Obama. Its fair to say that US politics is polarised and increasingly so both within and between the parties. Centrist liberals found Bernie Sanders as unacceptable as the hard core of his progressive faction find Clinton. Its just the state of US politics. Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > LM do you at least concede Hilary is a polarising > figure, and putting aside the fact she is a woman > (I don't personally see why someone's sex as being > relevant), this whole contest inevitably comes > down to choosing between one polarising figure and > another polarising figure. > > Louisa.

Loz- I know that. In fact regardless of the vote tally, the nominee is always the presumptive nominee until the actual vote. This is the case for Trump even though no one else is running. When I said democratically elected, I meant the candidate who won the most votes from the people. She has won the most actual votes (popular vote), the most states, and the most delegates. http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-delegate-tracker/ Anyhow, just on the stated pledged delegates Clinton has 2,200 delegates. There are 715 super-delegates, 574 of which have said they will vote for her. You need 2,383 total delegates to win. Bernie Sanders has 48 super delegates that have pledged to vote for him. The numbers are beyond insurmountable. Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > LondonMix Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Of course Sanders should do the right thing and > actually unite the party > > further but let's see if he eventually gets over > himself in time not to be remembered as the man > > who refused to concede to first democratically > nominated female candidate in US history. > > Not that I think Sanders is doing the right thing > (that should be obvious), but Clinton has not yet > been democratically nominated. She does not have > enough state pledged delegates (and never will) > for a majority, and the superdelegates have yet to > cast their vote. > > The superdelegate numbers that have been appearing > in papers are based on various factors and are > almost certainly reasonably accurate, but are not > results from an actual poll. That happens at the > Democratic convention, starting in late July. > Which is why another six weeks of pseudo-battle > would only just benefit Trump.

That's not true. Polls suggest 75% of Sander supporters have said they will vote for Hillary. That combined with her own supporters, moderate republicans and independents is more than a solid enough base to win. Of course Sanders should do the right thing and actually unite the party further but let's see if he eventually gets over himself in time not to be remembered as the man who refused to concede to first democratically nominated female candidate in US history. The majority of democrats by a significant margin have selected her as their candidate. If you really believe in democracy, that really the end of the story anyhow. Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > LM in any normal circumstances I would say > conceding defeat would be the appropriate thing to > do, but considering how unpopular Hilary is both > inside the Democrat Party and out in the wider US > electorate, it is the right thing to do. It's > alarming that some working class Democrats are so > anti-establishment that they would be prepared to > vote Trump rather than Hilary. She's a polarising > figure, as much, if not more so than Trump. > > Louisa.

He is Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I was under the impression that Bill Clinton is > remembered much more fondly over there than Tony > Blair is over here...