Will health & safety prove to be the ultimate culprit for the deaths at Grenfell?.........

[Brian Kirby]

John52 - 2018-07-12 5:54 PM

 

Brian Kirby - 2018-07-12 4:47 PM

not on the basis of what they actually did, or failed to do.

You should read what the Tenants have to say, (eg: https://grenfellactiongroup.wordpress.com/2016/11/20/kctmo-playing-with-fire/ - note the date is before the fire) and how they were treated differently to the well-heeled Tory voting part of the Royal Borough - where proper precautions were taken against fire. :-(

You are assuming I have not read what the residents said: I have - but most of what I have read of their comments is irrelevant to the reason a simple flat fire turned into a tragedy. For people's comments to be relevant to the fire, the way it spread, and the cladding that allowed it to spread, they have to have some bearing on the nature of the cladding, and the way in which it came to be used in contravention of the regulations. I'm not defending RBKC, or their TMC, either before, during, or after, the fire. Clearly some of the residents have serious complaints about the way in which their property was run and maintained. They appear to be quite valid complaints, but complaints of sloppy maintenance are not proof of an equally sloppy attitude to building control.

 

As I have said before, there are several hundred buildings around the UK that had similar cladding fitted, some are rented and some owner occupied, some were built by local authorities, some by housing associations, and some by private developers. They are not all in the RBKC, so an awful lot of other authorities, of varying political colour, have all permitted this same non-compliant cladding to be used.

 

As I have also said before, the reason for the cladding being used seems to originate with relaxations to the types of materials that could be permitted. "Materials of Limited Combustibility" were first permitted in, IIRC, 2007. At the same time, the procedures for testing those materials were also changed, with withdrawal of the need for full scale tests to prove their performance. The result, as is now clear, was confusion over what did, and did not, meet the requirements of the regulations.

 

So far as I can see at present, the reason that fatally flammable cladding came to be used on so many buildings lies in those government changes to permit Materials of Limited Combustibility, and to withdraw the need for full scale tests to conclusively establish that the materials were indeed of Limited Combustibility. RBKC had no hand in those changes. It presently seem to me that the true culprit is central government.

[Guest pelmetman]

Brian Kirby - 2018-07-12 6:59 PM

 

John52 - 2018-07-12 5:54 PM

 

Brian Kirby - 2018-07-12 4:47 PM

not on the basis of what they actually did, or failed to do.

You should read what the Tenants have to say, (eg: https://grenfellactiongroup.wordpress.com/2016/11/20/kctmo-playing-with-fire/ - note the date is before the fire) and how they were treated differently to the well-heeled Tory voting part of the Royal Borough - where proper precautions were taken against fire. :-(

You are assuming I have not read what the residents said: I have - but most of what I have read of their comments is irrelevant to the reason a simple flat fire turned into a tragedy. For people's comments to be relevant to the fire, the way it spread, and the cladding that allowed it to spread, they have to have some bearing on the nature of the cladding, and the way in which it came to be used in contravention of the regulations. I'm not defending RBKC, or their TMC, either before, during, or after, the fire. Clearly some of the residents have serious complaints about the way in which their property was run and maintained. They appear to be quite valid complaints, but complaints of sloppy maintenance are not proof of an equally sloppy attitude to building control.

 

As I have said before, there are several hundred buildings around the UK that had similar cladding fitted, some are rented and some owner occupied, some were built by local authorities, some by housing associations, and some by private developers. They are not all in the RBKC, so an awful lot of other authorities, of varying political colour, have all permitted this same non-compliant cladding to be used.

 

As I have also said before, the reason for the cladding being used seems to originate with relaxations to the types of materials that could be permitted. "Materials of Limited Combustibility" were first permitted in, IIRC, 2007. At the same time, the procedures for testing those materials were also changed, with withdrawal of the need for full scale tests to prove their performance. The result, as is now clear, was confusion over what did, and did not, meet the requirements of the regulations.

 

So far as I can see at present, the reason that fatally flammable cladding came to be used on so many buildings lies in those government changes to permit Materials of Limited Combustibility, and to withdraw the need for full scale tests to conclusively establish that the materials were indeed of Limited Combustibility. RBKC had no hand in those changes. It presently seem to me that the true culprit is central government.

 

Stop feeding the Trots Brian :D ..........