Colin Posted December 21, 2018 Report Share Posted December 21, 2018 Probably inserted to keep some SIC official's **** out of the fan.! Reading the article, I would guess that the SIC/SLAP moved the goalposts several times during the construction phase and, when things didn't work out quite as they expected, engaged another company to "break" (?) bits of the building to try and prove(?) "shoddy workmanship". Looks like they failed, and now H & M are having to repair the damages caused by others.. Will anybody get fired ? Doubt it.. Non-Disclosure is BAD in so much as it leaves H & M open to speculation and "finger pointng" with no recourse to defend themselves. tooney1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Urabug Posted December 21, 2018 Report Share Posted December 21, 2018 Seeing that public funds are involved it should be possible to to get more on this under the freedom of information should anyone request it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostrider Posted December 21, 2018 Author Report Share Posted December 21, 2018 Things can only continue to get worse now that its all in the SIC's hands, it would have anyway, but having appointed the new directors of SLAP that they have, it's guaranteed with knobs on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muckle Oxters Posted December 22, 2018 Report Share Posted December 22, 2018 I don't think a non-disclosure clause is unusual. I expect most clients wouldna be wanting their contractors to be talking to the newspapers aboot progress, costs, or anything else! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted December 23, 2018 Report Share Posted December 23, 2018 I think that you might have missed the point. One way, or another, SLAP were/are spending OUR money ! Don't you think that we have a right to know of any "shenanigans" or, do you think that SLAP should be allowed to operate "incognito", with complete impunity, and no public scrutiny ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muckle Oxters Posted December 23, 2018 Report Share Posted December 23, 2018 I didna say that. It would be up to the client to make the information public, no the contractor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostrider Posted December 23, 2018 Author Report Share Posted December 23, 2018 (edited) Anything the SIC does is shrouded in more secrecy than a politburo meeting, that's a given. What would be equally interesting to hear though, and the one thing about it all that the Council's gagging order should have least affect on, is why is hell would H&M "agree to carry out remedial and reconfiguration work". Personally, were I on the receiving end of the crap that SLAP/SIC have sent H&M's way, the only thing I'd be doing is telling them exactly where to stick it, and insisting they used a pile driver to make sure its rammed right in there as deep and as tight is it can go. Edited December 23, 2018 by Ghostrider George. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted December 23, 2018 Report Share Posted December 23, 2018 I didna say that. It would be up to the client to make the information public, no the contractor.Yes, but the implication (?) was that the contractor had screwed up and has now been made, by the client, to sign a "non-disclosure" on the works that prevents him from defending himself or his reputation. I'm deeply suspicious, and I would suggest that it was SLAP who screwed up by continually interfering with the job and are now trying to "hide" things from public scrutiny. I might be wrong but,it seems that the only real reason for "non-disclosure" is to avoid public scrutiny. We already know that the building, at it's inception, was meant to accommodate 80 people but, by the time it was finished, this had increased to 270.That is an increase by a factor of 3 ! It would appear, to me anyway, that somebody, somewhere is trying to hide "bad planning" or "gross incompetence" and, it isn't the contractor ! Auld Mossyface 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muckle Oxters Posted December 23, 2018 Report Share Posted December 23, 2018 Boys a boys! Colin, I didna imply onything. Du's joost makin a lot o things up noo. Ghostrider, first du's sayin du doesna ken enough and da SIC is keepin secrets fae dee, den in da next breath du seems tae ken enough to be takin sides and sayin wan side should be ramming things up da idders side's erses! Speak some sense boys! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted December 23, 2018 Report Share Posted December 23, 2018 I didn't say that you did. I was referring to the original article. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muckle Oxters Posted December 23, 2018 Report Share Posted December 23, 2018 Du should mibee mak it clear dat du's referring to something else when du's quoting me den? Nae harm done and back-in and fore-in lik dis will liklee no get wis far Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostrider Posted December 23, 2018 Author Report Share Posted December 23, 2018 Ghostrider, first du's sayin du doesna ken enough and da SIC is keepin secrets fae dee, den in da next breath du seems tae ken enough to be takin sides and sayin wan side should be ramming things up da idders side's erses! I said the Council's default setting was to keep secret everything they possibly can, whether they can keep those secrets is an entirely different subject. Even by their own admissions, the little way they've gone, despite re-jigging the design of their two sheds on the hoof to be something completely different than the original blueprint, and hauling in a slew of cowboy Scotty number crunchers at god knows what cost to try and prove construction faults, they're still exceeding specs. Yet, the SIC bunch are still throwing writs around like confetti. Against such a backdrop, why in hell would any contractor would want to get anywhere near such an obnoxious, troublemaking client even with a newly disinfected 40 ft barge pole is well beyond me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George. Posted December 23, 2018 Report Share Posted December 23, 2018 ...cowboy Scotty number crunchers.... Shetland has been a lot longer Scotty now than is has been related to anywhere else on the British Isles. It has been looked after, to the best of their abilities - unlike what would have happened elsewhere on the British Isles. James III wasn't renowned as a number cruncher, whereas the Westminstorian wan....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostrider Posted December 23, 2018 Author Report Share Posted December 23, 2018 ^ I was referring to the 'surveyor' type bods the Council parachuted in to try and do a hatchet job for them being from central belt companies, despite there being more than just a few 'surveyor' peoples locally both Council in-house and with commercial firms. Hardly supportive of local business or the local economy, nor making best use of local knowledge to attempt to reach an amicable solution as quickly and at as low a cost as possible. Its not like the Council salaried hierachy isn't up on what's available locally in the 'surveyor' field, last I noticed big boss Maggie was married to one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted January 24, 2019 Report Share Posted January 24, 2019 https://www.shetnews.co.uk/2019/01/24/white-house-vandalised-again/ Looks like Shetland's answer to "Banksy" has stuck again. Word is that police are looking for any information as to who might have caused several hundred pounds worth of improvements to the building ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.