I am not Boris' biggest fan but I wonder if the emphasis on expert advice was because restricting people's freedom goes against his ideals and also because people might be more likely to follow advice that came from scientists as well as from politicians. Many people of the UK can be a pretty stubborn and independent bunch.
I do accept that there are media experts and then there are real experts (the latter with fewer if any personal agendas).
Jeffrey, a civil engineer - comment made via the IHS
Single staircase and LONG corridors. OK it's sprinklered but couldn't they have fitted in two?
If there is a contract deadline that needs to be met then it is up to the Client to suspend it under the CDM obligations.
Personally I think it is unacceptable for people and firms to feel that they have to work on a site because they have no choice but to meet the Contract concerned.
It should PURELY be down to whether they can work in compliance with the current Government guidance or not. For example, could works such as those water-proofing and achieving water-tightness continue but not those doing full-on fitting out. How about even just only one trade per area?
I do accept that hospital extensions and the like could be classed as exceptions.
I understand what the Government are trying to do but some people always try to find excuses and loopholes to do what they want rather than to follow the spirit of the guidance.
Jeffrey - an engineer via the IHS
Strong clear leadership from the RIBA is required.
Unfortunately, I guess all the oldies are stuck at home trying to figure out how to warn up their fax machines. The deafening silence from them reminds me of their response to the economic crisis back in 2008, a crisis the profession struggles to learn from, nor recovered. Despite my employer offering to pay for membership (assume it looks good in the annual polling) I decline to sign up to this illustrious club.
To an outside of the profession such as me, it is clear that architecture is more political than some others, perhaps because it is about creating places and spaces for people.
I believe I have previously said, in another comment of mine regarding the Inquiry, that the way too many building projects are set-up is too fragmented and the responsibilities too confused and unclear.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing to have and I have some sympathy for those involved with Studio E, based on my own experience in the past of how certain parties have tried to persuade, manipulate and even bully others into compromising situations.
However, today's AJ summary of Studio E's involvement is sobering.
I believe that the best thing construction can do is REALLY and TRULY to learn from this disaster. Unfortunately, too often, history teaches us less than it should as lessons get forgotten. I have an old book on simple building faults and the author starts my noting how similar failures occur again and again. Unclean cavities in external walls is but one example. People fatally falling through fragile roofs is another.
Jeffrey - a civil engineer - comment made via the IHS