CurtainRaiser Posted May 2, 2021 Share Posted May 2, 2021 Latest from the inquiry https://www.insidehousing.co.uk/insight/insight/how-the-products-used-in-grenfell-towers-cladding-system-were-tested-and-sold-70011 And more depressing reading about the poachers turned gamekeeper https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/bre-accused-of-enabling-criminal-grenfell-cladding-manufacturers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CurtainRaiser Posted May 2, 2021 Share Posted May 2, 2021 Brian Kirby - 2021-05-01 7:07 PM CurtainRaiser - 2021-05-01 6:40 PM I'd disagree, yes the governments, of both persuasions, watered down the regulations in their drive to remove "red tape", that together with the effective privatisation of the building inspectorate and letting the regulatory boards be staffed and financed by the manufacturers of building products is what led to these disasters - lets not forget Grenfell wasn't the first. These changes came about due to lobbying, with associated political party funding, by the building and product manufacturers, they should meet the costs. And I respectfully disagree with, but without disputing, that. :-) Who was lobbied, and who gave way before the lobbyists? Who accepted the party donations? Our MPs are supposed to be grown-ups, not children with half-formed moral compasses to be bought off with a bag of sweets! Builders who use Grenfell cladding give Tories £2.5m. At least £50k of which went to Johnson Why did the Conservatives repeatedly vote against protecting tenants from cladding costs? https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/builders-grenfell-cladding-give-tories-2-5m-5c9gwvhrb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted May 2, 2021 Share Posted May 2, 2021 CurtainRaiser - 2021-05-02 7:23 PM Latest from the inquiry https://www.insidehousing.co.uk/insight/insight/how-the-products-used-in-grenfell-towers-cladding-system-were-tested-and-sold-70011 And more depressing reading about the poachers turned gamekeeper https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/bre-accused-of-enabling-criminal-grenfell-cladding-manufacturers It just get worse. 8-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted May 3, 2021 Share Posted May 3, 2021 CurtainRaiser - 2021-05-02 7:23 PM Latest from the inquiry https://www.insidehousing.co.uk/insight/insight/how-the-products-used-in-grenfell-towers-cladding-system-were-tested-and-sold-70011 And more depressing reading about the poachers turned gamekeeper https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/bre-accused-of-enabling-criminal-grenfell-cladding-manufacturers Strewth! Thanks for that. I've always been extremely wary of claims made for their products by salespeople - well, you would be, wouldn't you ?:-) - but the degree of cynicism and dishonesty apparent in the Inside Housing reports on the Grenfell Enquiry evidence exceeds anything I would have expected. They knew full well their products would create death traps but used every avenue to conceal what they knew. Wonderful what a commission based remuneration scheme can achieve, isn't it! :-| What really shocked me is the revelation that the certification systems emerge as having been biddable. No-one specifying manufactured products is likely to have sufficient technical knowledge of the manufacturing processes, or the chemistry of the products, to be able to properly interrogate their suitability. That is what the certification procedures are for. To give the specifiers (and those following their specification) the confidence that when a product is claimed to have the required properties, and they have seen and read the certificate, the product will perform in accordance with its certification. That the manufacturers were able to coerce the test houses (who inevitably have to sell their services to survive) raises serious questions around the funding models for such organisations. Where safety is concerned, confidence in product performance is fundamental. A free market, where the income of an organisation is dependent on those who rely on its certification to be able to trade, can't provide that. That way, everyone is marking their own homework. It merely becomes a cheat's playground. Who set that up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CurtainRaiser Posted May 3, 2021 Share Posted May 3, 2021 "Who set that up?" Well you will never guess. "Following 75 years as a building research agency of government, BRE was privatised in March 1997 by then Deputy Prime Minister Michael Heseltine in the last days a conservative government. " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted May 3, 2021 Share Posted May 3, 2021 CurtainRaiser - 2021-05-03 1:45 PM "Who set that up?" Well you will never guess. "Following 75 years as a building research agency of government, BRE was privatised in March 1997 by then Deputy Prime Minister Michael Heseltine in the last days a conservative government. " I know, plus quite a few more government research establishments. it was a rhetorical question really. But that is less than the half of it. Bit, by bit, over the years, the building industry in all its forms has been pushing governments of all persuasions to simplify legislation governing construction, from planning laws to building regulations, to testing requirements etc. etc. And, but, in response to those pushes, government has given a bit here, and a bit there, without reviewing how a new relaxation there might impact on some other control somewhere else. And so we are where we are. I don't blame the industry for doing the pushing, they are just seeking advantage for their particular sector, and doing no more nor less that all of industry does to further its own interests. But, to come full circle, I do blame the governments for relaxing controls that they barely understand without adequate consultation on the implications of the changes, or for doing so in the face of warnings as to the potential consequences. There is no good having a game keeper who doesn't understand poachers, and even less in having a game keeper who is being paid by the poachers! But, those who espouse free markets and light touch regulation will never understand that. Grenfell is just one consequence of that careless, lazy, laissez faire, mindset. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted May 8, 2021 Share Posted May 8, 2021 How many more deaths are needed? :-( Residents angry after fire at east London high-rise with Grenfell-style panels Residents of a high-rise block with Grenfell-style cladding in east London that caught fire causing multiple injuries have voiced anger at the government and the building’s developer that nothing was done to repair it sooner. The fire broke out before 9am on Friday on the eighth floor of the 19-storey apartment building in the New Providence Wharf development in Poplar, which is clad partly in combustible aluminium panels similar to those that fuelled the fire at Grenfell Tower. It has not been fixed amid a wrangle over who should pay. https://tinyurl.com/j2nxrcv8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birdbrain Posted May 8, 2021 Share Posted May 8, 2021 Bulletguy - 2021-05-08 4:30 PM How many more deaths are needed? :-( Residents angry after fire at east London high-rise with Grenfell-style panels Residents of a high-rise block with Grenfell-style cladding in east London that caught fire causing multiple injuries have voiced anger at the government and the building’s developer that nothing was done to repair it sooner. The fire broke out before 9am on Friday on the eighth floor of the 19-storey apartment building in the New Providence Wharf development in Poplar, which is clad partly in combustible aluminium panels similar to those that fuelled the fire at Grenfell Tower. It has not been fixed amid a wrangle over who should pay. https://tinyurl.com/j2nxrcv8 Who will the haters blame this time ... Given the latest tower block was designed and built under a Labour Government ... Awkward Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CurtainRaiser Posted May 26, 2021 Share Posted May 26, 2021 Not only were they making up certification for the materials, they were making up certificates for their experts. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/may/25/grenfell-fire-risk-assessor-added-letters-after-his-name-inquiry-hears?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted May 26, 2021 Share Posted May 26, 2021 CurtainRaiser - 2021-05-26 9:56 AM Not only were they making up certification for the materials, they were making up certificates for their experts. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/may/25/grenfell-fire-risk-assessor-added-letters-after-his-name-inquiry-hears?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other I don't expect anyone bothered to check out his CV until after the fire either. From the report he'd been active with that CV for eight years prior to Grenfell so how much more damage he's created is anyones guess. The problem seems to me people still automatically elevate someone with letters after their name to great importance unquestioningly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted May 26, 2021 Share Posted May 26, 2021 What a bunch of idiots!! But still not, IMO, the prime idiot, as it seems from the report he had no hand in approving the illegally flammable panels which caused the fire to spread so disastrously to kill so many residents. "Consultant to the TMO", which itself lacked appropriately qualified management, and had been set up by RBKC as an "arms length" organisation - presumably to keep responsibility for the management and refurbishment of their building at arms length. He surely must be one of several to face prosecution, even if his role in the actual fire, and the manner in which it spread is relatively insignificant. There must by now be several at RBKC who are now wishing they'd had longer arms! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted May 26, 2021 Share Posted May 26, 2021 Brian Kirby - 2021-05-26 3:53 PM What a bunch of idiots!! But still not, IMO, the prime idiot, as it seems from the report he had no hand in approving the illegally flammable panels which caused the fire to spread so disastrously to kill so many residents. "Consultant to the TMO", which itself lacked appropriately qualified management, and had been set up by RBKC as an "arms length" organisation - presumably to keep responsibility for the management and refurbishment of their building at arms length. He surely must be one of several to face prosecution, even if his role in the actual fire, and the manner in which it spread is relatively insignificant. There must by now be several at RBKC who are now wishing they'd had longer arms! Yes he's just one of many. As usual with these inquiries they always start at the bottom going for the easy targets so it takes a while to get to the top, by which time some senior personnel are long dead. It's incredible that someone can just dream up a few fancy letters and pass those off as qualifications! Why aren't CV background checks done on these people? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CurtainRaiser Posted September 8, 2021 Share Posted September 8, 2021 Interesting programme tonight https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2021/sep/08/tv-tonight-the-untold-story-of-grenfell-tower-laid-bare-in-a-remarkable-documentary?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted September 8, 2021 Share Posted September 8, 2021 CurtainRaiser - 2021-09-08 9:43 AM Interesting programme tonight https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2021/sep/08/tv-tonight-the-untold-story-of-grenfell-tower-laid-bare-in-a-remarkable-documentary?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other Already set my pvr to record and should prove a very interesting documentary. Anyone that misses it can view it via this link; https://www.channel4.com/programmes/grenfell-the-untold-story There's talk of Grenfell being demolished now as it seems this government want to hide their embarrassment. Their behaviour has been utterly disgraceful. Grenfell United, which represents survivors and families of those who died, said the government had engaged with fewer than 10 families. https://www.bdonline.co.uk/news/government-set-to-confirm-demolition-of-grenfell-tower-this-month/5113563.article Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted September 9, 2021 Share Posted September 9, 2021 Good documentary and well worth watching even though it was pretty horrible knowing some of the people who appeared in it, didn't survive. Much of the filming involved the Grenfell Action Group and meetings they had with councilors as the residents knew the renovations were a disaster......just that they didn't know technically how bad though it doesn't bode well when you find a whacking gap around your newly fitted window, inform the builders who come along and "fix" it by spraying a load of filla-gap foam in!! Just 10 months prior to the Grenfell fire a small fire broke out in a flat at a tower block in Shepherds bush, just one mile from Grenfell. Within minutes that turned into a raging inferno as flames leapt up the outside of the block. The warnings were there but neither government or council was listening or even interested. Infact KTMO treated Grenfell residents disgracefully. https://www.channel4.com/programmes/grenfell-the-untold-story Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted September 12, 2021 Share Posted September 12, 2021 Bulletguy - 2021-09-08 1:53 PM CurtainRaiser - 2021-09-08 9:43 AM Interesting programme tonight https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2021/sep/08/tv-tonight-the-untold-story-of-grenfell-tower-laid-bare-in-a-remarkable-documentary?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other Already set my pvr to record and should prove a very interesting documentary. Anyone that misses it can view it via this link; https://www.channel4.com/programmes/grenfell-the-untold-story There's talk of Grenfell being demolished now as it seems this government want to hide their embarrassment. Their behaviour has been utterly disgraceful. Grenfell United, which represents survivors and families of those who died, said the government had engaged with fewer than 10 families. https://www.bdonline.co.uk/news/government-set-to-confirm-demolition-of-grenfell-tower-this-month/5113563.article Well, I watched, and was somewhat disappointed. It was all treated as a "human interest" story - which at one level it of course is. But, fundamentally, it is a story of the technical and regulatory failure that gave rise to the fire in the first place, and the programme didn't go near any of that. Possibly for legal reasons. Government's direct role in the fire is, in reality, minimal. Their role in the aftermath should be significant, but is sadly lacking. Simply stated, there seems to be a near complete lack of knowledge or understanding of the building control system, the construction industry, and of how the two are supposed to work together to ensure that what is built is safe to occupy. That is very worrying when government is responsible for the whole regulatory procedure. All the stuff about how badly the RBKC TMO and their contractor treated the residents is perfectly valid, and stems from what, again, appears to me to have been a complete lack of understanding on the part of the TMO as to what had to be achieved, and of how best to achieve it. Grenfell Tower was built in the early 1970s, as an Inner London local authority block, for occupancy by council tenants, under the control of a council housing department that would have had rights of entry to the individual flats, and responsibility for, and control of, the individual flats, all the common areas, refuse disposal, and all maintenance. Its design was governed by Section 20 of the London Building Act which dealt specifically with the construction of buildings of "excess height or volume". Excess height meant a building that was more than 100 feet high. The process of approval and compliance control of the work lay with the "District Surveyor" whose role was established under the Act. These were experienced, independent, appropriately qualified, professionals, whose powers included a power of entry to any site where building works were taking place, and a power to close down the works if they were unapproved or judged unsafe. The design of the block is unremarkable. Its safety is ensured by each flat being constructed as a fire resistant shell, including fire separation at every floor level. All flats on each floor are accessed via a common landing, and a single escape staircase serves all floors. The staircase is ventilated separately from the landings, all of which are ventilated separately to both the flats and the escape staircase. The landings are accessed generally by lifts, one of which is designated a fireman's lift that is used for fire fighting access to upper floors and which is provided with key operated controls accessible only to lift engineers and firemen. The design relies for its safety on the fire separation between individual flats, between all the flats and the landings (via fire resisting self closing entrance doors to each flat), and between the landings and the escape staircase. The staircase is not designed for mass evacuation (judged too risky due to the numbers and mix of ages of possible tenants), but for controlled evacuation under the direction and supervision of the fire brigade. It is this that gave rise to the "stay put" exhortations given by the brigade headquarters to callers in the block reporting the fire. Such blocks have now been in continual use for over 60 years. There have been numerous fires in flats over that time, mostly passing without incident, loss of life or serious injury to either the individual resident, their neighbours, or fire fighters. Once the alarm is raised and the brigade is on site, they go, as was done at Grenfell, to the flat concerned (usually via the fire fighting lift), assess the severity of the fire and begin to tackle it, usually instructing the resident, and possibly residents in immediately adjoining flats to either side and immediately above or sometimes below, to evacuate. That is what the brigade expects, and is what they train for. This is what happened at Grenfell, and the first responders did as above, put out the fire, and were on their way out when alerted by others on the ground that the fire was now running up the outside of the building. Quite clearly an external fire was not anticipated, and resulted in catastrophic confusion. Equally clearly, none of those at the scene had the remotest notion that Grenfell tower had been, in effect, wrapped in flammable plastic. The real question is how could that flammable material have been approved for use on abuilding whose design relied for its safety on its external walls being both incombustible and proof against flame spread. The Building Regulations, which replaced the London Building Acts from 1984, should have governed the design and approval of the Grenfell refurbishment in 2015/6. They are clear that such buildings should have external walls that will not allow fire to spread across them. And yet, very clearly, the cladding applied to the building did allow fire to spread across it. Not only to allow the fire to spread, but to actually fuel it as it did so, very readily. The use of that cladding was in direct contravention of the Regulations, and yet it was allowed to be used. There should have been a contract to which a contractor worked. That contract should have specified exactly what materials were to be used, to which the contractor should have been held by a contract administrator employed by either RBKC (preferably) or their TMO (who appear to me to have been inadequately qualified, knowledgeable, or experienced, for the task. In the background, RBKC also had its own Building Control department, members of which had repeatedly visited the site, but seem not at any point to have intervened. It is unclear why they did that. Add to this that the builder, Rydon Construction, who are not a civil engineering contractor, were awarded some form of "develop and construct" contract, under which only outline designs and specification would have been provided as a basis for contract, with the contractor having the designer "novated" to them, but with overall responsibility for developing the design in preparation for approval by the TMO as client, for eventual approval under Building Regulations, for final agreement of costs, and for construction. It seems that as RBKC building control did not vet the proposals, or "sign off" on the completed works, someone else must have done this. This seems to point to an "Approved Inspector" (a firm of private surveyors who have gained approval from government to carry out Building Regulations approvals in lieu of Local Authority Building Control departments), as otherwise, why would RBKC not have used their own department? It also seems (because it is difficult to see who else might have done this) that under their develop and construct contract, Rydon would have been responsible for employing the Approver Inspector. If correct, for want of a better analogy, the poacher was paying the gamekeeper. It certainly seems that there was no single point at which the detailed designs were submitted for approval and were stamped "approved". It also seems that the approval process extended into the construction phase, with approvals being given piecemeal as the designs were progressed, with aspects of construction, and/or procurement, proceeding before the final designs had been completed. Notwithstanding this (to me unorthodox and potentially chaotic) procurement method, with weak players in critical roles, someone, somewhere, seems to have decided that patently unsuitable materials could be used throughout the cladding design and approval process. It is surprising that none of the sub-contractors and suppliers queried (so far as we yet know) the choice of materials and design details (e.g. PVC window reveal closures in what should have been an incombustible, and thermally insulated, environment), but they are there to do as their contracts instruct them to do, so it would not be surprising if, having raised queries, and been told that the design had full approval, their response was along the lines of, "well, they must know best". What really happened we shall have to wait for the enquiry to determine. It is just such a shame that this aspect of the enquiry has been delayed, and that the enquiry itself has been allowed to take precedence over the legal and forensic investigations that are necessary to establish where the blame, actually, lies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CurtainRaiser Posted September 12, 2021 Share Posted September 12, 2021 Despite "promoting " the programme I actually haven't seen it yet as we're away in the van. I think you have covered most of the bases Brian. I see one key issue and that is the privatisation of what were oversight boards once in public ownership. BRE I've mentioned previously and their contribution to the disaster is now well documented. The privatisation of Building Control is the other contributor, privatised BC need to keep on good terms with the contractors otherwise they will not get additional work in the future. When BC was with local authorities their word was absolute, you followed their advice and there was no deviation allowed from it. Put these two factors together with a confused pile of building regulations and we had a disaster waiting to happen. Sadly we still have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted September 12, 2021 Share Posted September 12, 2021 Brian Kirby - 2021-09-12 5:06 PM Bulletguy - 2021-09-08 1:53 PM CurtainRaiser - 2021-09-08 9:43 AM Interesting programme tonight https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2021/sep/08/tv-tonight-the-untold-story-of-grenfell-tower-laid-bare-in-a-remarkable-documentary?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other Already set my pvr to record and should prove a very interesting documentary. Anyone that misses it can view it via this link; https://www.channel4.com/programmes/grenfell-the-untold-story There's talk of Grenfell being demolished now as it seems this government want to hide their embarrassment. Their behaviour has been utterly disgraceful. Grenfell United, which represents survivors and families of those who died, said the government had engaged with fewer than 10 families. https://www.bdonline.co.uk/news/government-set-to-confirm-demolition-of-grenfell-tower-this-month/5113563.article Well, I watched, and was somewhat disappointed. It was all treated as a "human interest" story - which at one level it of course is. But, fundamentally, it is a story of the technical and regulatory failure that gave rise to the fire in the first place, and the programme didn't go near any of that. Possibly for legal reasons. Government's direct role in the fire is, in reality, minimal. Their role in the aftermath should be significant, but is sadly lacking. Simply stated, there seems to be a near complete lack of knowledge or understanding of the building control system, the construction industry, and of how the two are supposed to work together to ensure that what is built is safe to occupy. That is very worrying when government is responsible for the whole regulatory procedure. All the stuff about how badly the RBKC TMO and their contractor treated the residents is perfectly valid, and stems from what, again, appears to me to have been a complete lack of understanding on the part of the TMO as to what had to be achieved, and of how best to achieve it. I found the attitude of the MP dismissive and quite abrupt as though she thought "these people are nothing but troublemakers with their stupid questions". It seemed she forgot what being an MP was about. Perhaps she thought they should "just shut up and go away". The design of the block is unremarkable. Its safety is ensured by each flat being constructed as a fire resistant shell, including fire separation at every floor level. The design relies for its safety on the fire separation between individual flats, between all the flats and the landings (via fire resisting self closing entrance doors to each flat), and between the landings and the escape staircase. But this didn't work did it? The tower block fire at Shepherds Bush a mile from Grenfell which broke out in one flat showed that. Within minutes flames were leaping up outside the flat to the floors above and so on. https://www.insidehousing.co.uk/insight/insight/a-stark-warning-the-shepherds-bush-tower-block-fire-50566 From a laymans pov I get the impression these flats are shoddily built using cheap materials. We seem to be very good at that. I remember watching Billy Connolly's Tour of Scotland whish was a travel documentary. One scene he filmed in Glasgow showing where he was born "on the linoleum floor of the familys tenement flat which once stood there". They were demolished in 1970. Then the camera pans across the road to show what is Glasgows oldest house, the Provand’s Lordship built in 1471......which Connolly proudly announces still stands and he says, "you have to ask yourself, what was it we knew about building in 1471 that we didn't know in 1940?". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted September 12, 2021 Share Posted September 12, 2021 Bulletguy - 2021-09-12 7:23 PM Glasgows oldest house, the Provand’s Lordship built in 1471......which Connolly proudly announces still stands and he says, "you have to ask yourself, what was it we knew about building in 1471 that we didn't know in 1940?". To be fair, there was more crap built then than there is now - but only the best has survived. Invariably that which was built for the upper classes regardless of cost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted September 19, 2021 Share Posted September 19, 2021 Bulletguy - 2021-09-12 7:23 PM The design of the block is unremarkable. Its safety is ensured by each flat being constructed as a fire resistant shell, including fire separation at every floor level. The design relies for its safety on the fire separation between individual flats, between all the flats and the landings (via fire resisting self closing entrance doors to each flat), and between the landings and the escape staircase. But this didn't work did it? The tower block fire at Shepherds Bush a mile from Grenfell which broke out in one flat showed that. Within minutes flames were leaping up outside the flat to the floors above and so on. https://www.insidehousing.co.uk/insight/insight/a-stark-warning-the-shepherds-bush-tower-block-fire-50566 From a laymans pov I get the impression these flats are shoddily built using cheap materials. We seem to be very good at that. I remember watching Billy Connolly's Tour of Scotland whish was a travel documentary. One scene he filmed in Glasgow showing where he was born "on the linoleum floor of the familys tenement flat which once stood there". They were demolished in 1970. Then the camera pans across the road to show what is Glasgows oldest house, the Provand’s Lordship built in 1471......which Connolly proudly announces still stands and he says, "you have to ask yourself, what was it we knew about building in 1471 that we didn't know in 1940?". Based on previous incidents, I would say that the safety provisions on Grenfell would have worked (as they had before), but for the faults introduced in recent years, but especially the flammable insulation/cladding. That was the game changer. The risk of a fire spreading externally is well recognised, and internal fire separation between floors and individual flats etc., in conjunction with fire resistant non-flammable construction of the external walls, especially in the spandrel panels between the head of a lower windows and the cill of the window above, is the norm. The actual Regulation (B4) states: "The external walls of the building shall adequately resist the spread of fire over the walls and from one building to another, having regard to the height, use and position of the building." It is a performance specification, and it is for the designer and his/her client to demonstrate, to the satisfaction of building control (whoever performs that function, local authority or private "approved inspector") and only if building control is satisfied are the actual works allowed to proceed. Clearly, in the case of the Grenfell insulation/cladding, the requirement was not met, as the fire spread rapidly and lethally over the exterior of the building - to an extent that the London Fire Brigade tragically took far too long to process. I do not blame them for that, as it is clear they had no idea that flammable materials had been attached to the exterior of the building in contravention of the regulations. They train to fight fires, especially fires in local authority owned, built and maintained buildings, in the expectation that they will at least comply with the regulations. So, the central issue remains who approved the use of the flammable materials, in the absence of which (as had been the case previously) the initial fire would almost certainly have been extinguished with minimal disturbance to other residents, minimal damage saving to the kitchen in which it originated, and no loss of life or injury. To miss-quote Bill Clinton, "it's the cladding, stupid!" :-D I don't think cost comes into it, except perhaps in the claimed change from the FR grade of cladding to save money. However, I'm personally highly dubious that even the FR grade, if used in conjunction with the same PIR insulation, would have performed much better. Who approved that is the key issue, plus why, when they visited the site numerous times during the work, did members of RBKC's own building control department apparently not query what they ought to have been able to see, and understand in terms of its safety implications. By comparison, the other issues are just (largely political) froth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted September 19, 2021 Share Posted September 19, 2021 Brian Kirby - 2021-09-19 5:00 PM Who approved that is the key issue, plus why, when they visited the site numerous times during the work, did members of RBKC's own building control department apparently not query what they ought to have been able to see, and understand in terms of its safety implications. ... and why are we still waiting to find out >:-) Like Johnson's Covid contracts >:-) Surely this should be a matter of public record, available immediately? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted September 19, 2021 Share Posted September 19, 2021 John52 - 2021-09-19 5:39 PM Brian Kirby - 2021-09-19 5:00 PM Who approved that is the key issue, plus why, when they visited the site numerous times during the work, did members of RBKC's own building control department apparently not query what they ought to have been able to see, and understand in terms of its safety implications. ... and why are we still waiting to find out >:-) Like Johnson's Covid contracts >:-) Surely this should be a matter of public record, available immediately? Yes, it should be. If not quite public, then anyone with a valid reason to know should not have any difficulty in finding out. Why this does not appear to have been done as soon as the type of cladding used was known is what puzzles me, and why the enquiry was launched in the way it was, with all of the understandable emotional content taking precedence over investigating what seems to me potentially criminal liability. I understand the police were/are going to pursue this aspect, but are unable to do so while the enquiry is proceeding. This is in part why a number of those implicated have struggled during their evidence at the enquiry. They don't want to say anything in public that might incriminate either themselves, or others. It should have been a fairly "open and shut" case, with those responsible for the approval in the hot seat, at least initially. It is probably the result of an error, possibly in understanding what some of the terminology means in legal terms. But, suitably qualified/experienced people, who should be the only ones involved, should have an adequate knowledge of the terminology and its meaning to be able to distinguish between what is safe/permissible, and what is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted September 20, 2021 Share Posted September 20, 2021 Brian Kirby - 2021-09-19 7:23 PM John52 - 2021-09-19 5:39 PM Brian Kirby - 2021-09-19 5:00 PM Who approved that is the key issue, plus why, when they visited the site numerous times during the work, did members of RBKC's own building control department apparently not query what they ought to have been able to see, and understand in terms of its safety implications. ... and why are we still waiting to find out >:-) Like Johnson's Covid contracts >:-) Surely this should be a matter of public record, available immediately? It should have been a fairly "open and shut" case, with those responsible for the approval in the hot seat, at least initially. It is probably the result of an error, possibly in understanding what some of the terminology means in legal terms. But, suitably qualified/experienced people, who should be the only ones involved, should have an adequate knowledge of the terminology and its meaning to be able to distinguish between what is safe/permissible, and what is not. Indeed it should but if Hillsborough is anything to go by i'm afraid Grenfell is in for the long haul. Both very different tragedies but both avoidable and a clear case of manslaughter. The danger of these lengthy drawn out inquiries is it loses momentum and impact with the general public losing interest and the victims worn down into resignation, not to mention the fact older victims pass away so never get to see justice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted December 6, 2021 Share Posted December 6, 2021 Wow it's taken them long enough to discover what Grenfell residents had been telling them from the outset. Are the perpetrators now going to be held to account and duly sentenced? The Grenfell Tower fire occurred partly as a result of an “unbridled passion for deregulation”, the inquiry into the deadly blaze has heard. A desire to boost housing construction led to the industry being allowed to exploit regulations, the latest module of the probe was told. A lawyer, representing some of those who survived the fire as well as the loved ones of some who did not, said there had been a “prolonged period of concealment by Government which should properly be regarded as one of the major scandals of our time”. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/grenfell-fire-inquiry-update-2021-b1970583.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted December 6, 2021 Share Posted December 6, 2021 Bulletguy - 2021-09-20 3:41 PM The danger of these lengthy drawn out inquiries is it loses momentum and impact with the general public losing interest and the victims worn down into resignation, not to mention the fact older victims pass away so never get to see justice. .... and the guilty have retired on gold plated pensions or died off. Reminds me of Rees Mogg now saying it will be 50 years before we know whether Brexit has been a success or not *-) What baffles me is Why do people accept this and still vote for the politicians that perpetrate it ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.