A letter from our Chairman – EU rules caused Grenfell fire

This letter was sent to the Derby Telegraph by our Chairman, Edward Spalton on 10th July 2017 in response to yet more misleading propaganda from the ardent europhile Mr C.N. Westerman

Sir,

Mr.C.N. Westerman attributes the tragic fire in the Grenfell tower to a peculiarly British and Conservative lack of regulation. Nothing could be further from the truth. Following a fire in a tower block in Knowsley in 1989, the British Building Research Establishment was asked to devise a means of preventing a recurrence.

They decided that this should be a “whole system test”, covering all the materials on the outside of the building to see how they inter-acted when used together. Following another similar fire in Scotland, the House of Commons recommended in 2000 (during the Labour government) that this “whole system” test, British Standard BS 8414, should be adopted.

But it was overruled by the EU with its own inadequate test – a European standard EN 13501,which became mandatory in 2002. This was again under a Labour government but it did not matter what party was in power, as EU law always trumps British law. That is the basis of the whole institution. Parliament is powerless against it, as long as we remain in the EU.

The other factor, driving the use of inflammable insulation material, was the EU’s obsession with better insulation to to combat global warming. All that mattered was the “thermal efficiency” – and none was more efficient than the polyisocyanurate used in Celotex, the plastic insulation chosen in 2014 for Grenfell. If the Grenfell installation had been tested under BS 8414, it would not have been used.

Whilst we are in the EU, we cannot enforce that standard.

Similar fires have occurred in Germany and this is reported in the EUReferendum.com blog. The author is not just another Eurosceptic but Dr. Richard North, a highly qualified former Environmental Health Officer with a relevant diploma in fire precautions. He has published many detailed articles on this topic but Mr Westerman and others might find this particular one an enlightening beginning.

Yours faithfully

 

Edward Spalton

 

Photo by Ben Sutherland

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

6 comments

  1. Adam HileyReply

    nothing surprises Me when it comes to the EU Mental Hospital the sooner We are rid of the Franco-German Alliance the better populistpartyuk.blogspot.co.uk

  2. Ashby Patrick HarrisReply

    I do hope our Brexit negotiator David Davis has this information when arguing our financial commitments to the EU when we leave. We should tell them as it was their inferior standards and not ours that the tragedy at Grenfell Tower happened. I also hope the bearded wonder gets to know about this as well, as he continually tries to blame all and sundry except his party about all that has happened in our country. Will that mean a bigger black hole for those clowns in the EU to fill? I hope so. Mind you, the left wing BBC will try and cover it up by not publishing it. Every time I see any of those corrupt fools on TV it makes my blood boil. Roll on Brexit Independence Day. Cannot wait to be shorn of those grasping, corrupt morons.

  3. Anthony TomblingReply

    I does not surprise me in the least, that the dead hand of eu directives are complicit in the Grenfell tragedy. There are many other instances where similar eu directives have adversely affected the population of this country. A case in point is the EWF ( European Water Framework Directive ), which was drafted into UK law in 2000, under the auspice of the Environmental Agency, formed in 1997.
    Generations of farmers, and landowners, countrywide had steadfastly maintained the waterways from flooding, by dredging, and diverting excess water.
    No longer were the authorities charged with a duty to prevent flooding. Instead, the emphasis shifted, in an astonishing reversal of policy, to a primary obligation to achieve ‘good ecological status’ for our national rivers. This is defined as being as close as possible to ‘undisturbed natural conditions’. ‘Heavily modified waters’, which include rivers dredged or embanked to prevent flooding, cannot, by definition, ever satisfy the terms of the directive. So, in order to comply with the obligations imposed on us by the eu, we had to stop dredging and embanking and allow rivers to ‘re-connect with their floodplains’, as the currently fashionable jargon has it.
    We all remember the result of this, in the floods that have been occurring all over our country, from the North, to the Somerset levels.
    What beggars belief, for me, is that those that should know better, go along with these directives, or put up with having their collective hands tied by ignorant, and duplicitous civil servants in Brussels.
    As Ashby Patrick Harris states, and I agree with him wholeheartedly, the sooner we are out of the grasp of these grasping, corrupt morons, the better.

  4. Derek ClarkReply

    Many thanks Edward.

    Unfortunately, I expect, your findings will not find its way to the proper audience, ie our own Government. If it does it will be ignored or treated with disdain or, worse, riducule. How else do they refuse to listen, there are no scientists in Westminster. If there were it would have been blindingly obvious that to clad the outside of such a building with flammable material would be asking for trouble.

    It was done to prevent heat loss; my house is brick-built with a cavity wall for the outside walls; standard construction these days. It works very well, so why not on a tower block? If they wanted an attractive outer wall what’s wrong with good old pebble dash?

    Derek Clark July 22nd

Leave a comment