The Great Tower Block Fire Tragedy of London

[peterms]

For anyone who wants to understand the wider background of high rise, this book is excellent.  It includes some detail about how the Ministry of Housing changed the housing subsidy system to incentivise councils to build high rise,  thus benefitting firms like Bovis.

Bovis was the family firm of Keith Joseph, Minister of Housing.

Dame Evelyn Sharp was the civil servant at the head of the ministry when they changed the subsidy system in this way.  When she retired,  she became a director of...Bovis.

 

[djdabush]

So I notice The Sun's front page is telling us how the locals have turned on Sadiq Khan with no mention of the anger of May's failure to face up to the residents and The Mail is asking the question of whether it was the push for green targets which led to the tragedy.

 

Now I know it has always been bad but it really does feel like the press is now even more intent on their very own race to the bottom. I will never understand how people can read this tripe and not question it.

[Dodgyknees]

10 minutes ago, djdabush said:

So I notice The Sun's front page is telling us how the locals have turned on Sadiq Khan with no mention of the anger of May's failure to face up to the residents and The Mail is asking the question of whether it was the push for green targets which led to the tragedy.

 

Now I know it has always been bad but it really does feel like the press is now even more intent on their very own race to the bottom. I will never understand how people can read this tripe and not question it.

Like an old person said to me last year, "we were brought up to respect politicians and that newspapers print facts." Although that doesn't account for those angry men and women who take it as gospel.

Opinion? We've been force fed propaganda for years, which makes it easy to swallow for those who are blinkered. 

[Rugeley Villa]

In this day and age I don't know how they can get away with shoddy unsafe building work, especially on something that big.   When we do a normal pair of houses we put firebreak on top of the party wall which separates  the two houses and then also we put it on top of the felt over the party wall, so it basically fills the gap between the felt and the tile. Building sites are shit hot on this and any roofs that have not had the firebreak installed correctly will definitely get pulled by NHBC. 

[Rugeley Villa]

30 minutes ago, djdabush said:

So I notice The Sun's front page is telling us how the locals have turned on Sadiq Khan with no mention of the anger of May's failure to face up to the residents and The Mail is asking the question of whether it was the push for green targets which led to the tragedy.

 

Now I know it has always been bad but it really does feel like the press is now even more intent on their very own race to the bottom. I will never understand how people can read this tripe and not question it.

I don't see what you see wrong with the mail today. I'm sat with both papers which you mention and although you are correct about the Sun, I'm not sure what's up with the mail today.

[djdabush]

9 minutes ago, Rugeley Villa said:

I don't see what you see wrong with the mail today. I'm sat with both papers which you mention and although you are correct about the Sun, I'm not sure what's up with the mail today.

This is what I was referring to. I'd missed the article in the Express because it's not front page.

[TrentVilla]

1 hour ago, peterms said:

There are comments from the firms involved in the cladding along the lines that it complied with the relevant regulations.

While that may be true, it's not the end of the mattter.

A criminal investigation,  whether by the police or the HSE or both, will no doubt want to explore in depth what was known about the building materials and why it was thought acceptable to fit something known to be flammable.  In response to that question, the answer "Because it was allowed" will not be adequate.

I'm not sure I follow.

In terms of a criminal investigation then if the materials used for the regulations then "because it was allowed" will be adequate to avoid prosecution.

It won't be enough for those who warned that the standards weren't good enough to avoid moral condemnation and potentially the sack but again I don't see them facing prosecution.

Only if the work wasn't up to standards, corners were cut or there is criminal action will prosecution follow.

[Rugeley Villa]

5 minutes ago, djdabush said:

This is what I was referring to. I'd missed the article in the Express because it's not front page.

Shifting blame or just asking the question?

[Genie]

1 minute ago, TrentVilla said:

I'm not sure I follow.

In terms of a criminal investigation then if the materials used for the regulations then "because it was allowed" will be adequate to avoid prosecution.

It won't be enough for those who warned that the standards weren't good enough to avoid moral condemnation and potentially the sack but again I don't see them facing prosecution.

Only if the work wasn't up to standards, corners were cut or there is criminal action will prosecution follow.

Its around this point company directors start falling from their penthouse balcony's...

[Raver50032]

1 minute ago, TrentVilla said:

I'm not sure I follow.

In terms of a criminal investigation then if the materials used for the regulations then "because it was allowed" will be adequate to avoid prosecution.

It won't be enough for those who warned that the standards weren't good enough to avoid moral condemnation and potentially the sack but again I don't see them facing prosecution.

Only if the work wasn't up to standards, corners were cut or there is criminal action will prosecution follow.

Indeed - I work in a very heavily regulated and audited industry (owner of the rails). If something is checked and audited to have occurred as compliant to the standard, you (including the royal we) cannot be prosecuted. That's my understanding.

[Genie]

1 minute ago, Rugeley Villa said:

Shifting blame or just asking the question?

They can only 'ask the question' as they don't have any evidence to support what they are very strongly hinting at.

[Genie]

6 minutes ago, TrentVilla said:

I'm not sure I follow.

In terms of a criminal investigation then if the materials used for the regulations then "because it was allowed" will be adequate to avoid prosecution.

It won't be enough for those who warned that the standards weren't good enough to avoid moral condemnation and potentially the sack but again I don't see them facing prosecution.

Only if the work wasn't up to standards, corners were cut or there is criminal action will prosecution follow.

I thought the criminal investigation was launched into the initial cause of the fire (i.e. potential of arson or carelessness).

[peterms]

9 minutes ago, TrentVilla said:

I'm not sure I follow.

In terms of a criminal investigation then if the materials used for the regulations then "because it was allowed" will be adequate to avoid prosecution.

It won't be enough for those who warned that the standards weren't good enough to avoid moral condemnation and potentially the sack but again I don't see them facing prosecution.

Only if the work wasn't up to standards, corners were cut or there is criminal action will prosecution follow.

It is not the case that you can do anything that is not expressly forbidden.  If someone knowingly creates a risk, or knows of a risk and does nothing about it, then they face possible prosecution.

In this case, if a building material is known by the manufacturer and by the industry to be dangerous in some applications or in some situations and is used anyway, then the fact of regulations not having kept up with recent developments and the introduction of new materials won't be an adequate defence.  Yes, anyone facing investigation will start by saying that regulations did not prohibit the use of such material.  Obviously the questioning will not stop there, and will quickly get into the area of what the manufacturers say about where it can be used and how it should be fitted, and what the contractors knew or should have known about all that.

If it was known in the industry that such material was a fire risk (and the things I linked earlier seem to show that), then using it on the basis that regulations have not yet forbidden it will be an extremely weak defence. 

[peterms]

13 minutes ago, Genie said:

I thought the criminal investigation was launched into the initial cause of the fire (i.e. potential of arson or carelessness).

I assumed the criminal investigation will be in respect of H&S law.  If the fire investigation shows any basis for thinking arson occurred, then that will certainly be another investigation, but the most obvious thing to investigate is why the cladding burnt as it did.  Questions will be around what did you know, and what should you have known about the suitability of the material used, and answers based on complying with regulations which may be old and which don't consider the materials in question, will be a very weak defence.

[ml1dch]

28 minutes ago, Rugeley Villa said:

Shifting blame or just asking the question?

Asking the wrong questions in order to further their morally repugnant agendas.

[Demitri_C]

 

[TrentVilla]

33 minutes ago, peterms said:

It is not the case that you can do anything that is not expressly forbidden.  If someone knowingly creates a risk, or knows of a risk and does nothing about it, then they face possible prosecution.

In this case, if a building material is known by the manufacturer and by the industry to be dangerous in some applications or in some situations and is used anyway, then the fact of regulations not having kept up with recent developments and the introduction of new materials won't be an adequate defence.  Yes, anyone facing investigation will start by saying that regulations did not prohibit the use of such material.  Obviously the questioning will not stop there, and will quickly get into the area of what the manufacturers say about where it can be used and how it should be fitted, and what the contractors knew or should have known about all that.

If it was known in the industry that such material was a fire risk (and the things I linked earlier seem to show that), then using it on the basis that regulations have not yet forbidden it will be an extremely weak defence. 

I think there are a lot of assumptions within this, we shall see but I don't think anyone will be prosecuted over this certainly not at a senior level over the construction materials.

[Demitri_C]

What a absolute muppet, why they even interviewing this clown trying to stir up more hatred between communities? I get your angry but seriously shut up this has nothing to do with religion or race.

Before this she is actually slating the police and fire crews. These guys are heroes risking their lives trying to protect us. Take your anger out on the politicians the people responsible for the structure not the people who are underpaid trying their damnest to keep us safe. 

[blandy]

1 hour ago, Rugeley Villa said:

Shifting blame or just asking the question?

Shifting blame. It's the way they work, it's what they do. They want, need and create bogeymen.

[PaulC]

Christos Fairbairn,what a harrowing account  of how he escaped