No smilies, no avatars, no flashing gifs. Just discuss the issues of the day, from last night's telly via football to science or philosophy.
Started by DogBreath on Feb 18, 2021 9:56:00 AM
Grenfell Tower inquiry

Has it go to the point where they talk about the managing company threatening to sue the residents for complaining about fire safety of the the building yet?

Probably not.

HarveyRabbit - 18 Feb 2021 10:40:49 (#1 of 27)

No. the Inquiry is still at the stage of dealing with the building products, testing, marketing, sales of.

Complaints and communication with residents will be in the next module, so March/April. Probably.

There's a thread ->

DogBreath - 18 Feb 2021 11:14:45 (#2 of 27)


machiavelli - 12 Jan 2022 18:38:24 (#3 of 27)

Here's an accident waiting to happen

GreenFuture - 12 Jan 2022 18:43:41 (#4 of 27)

Thanks for the thread.

It's nearly half a decade now. We knew in a very short time that the cladding was illegal.

How many prosecutions or arrests so far?

Is it a round number?

HarveyRabbit - 12 Jan 2022 19:20:00 (#5 of 27)

We knew in a very short time that the cladding was illegal.

So why are you only asking that those involved with Grenfell should be prosecuted/arrested for using it?

At the time of the fire, apart from Grenfell Tower there were over 300 other high rise residential blocks, including schools, hotels, hospitals and student accommodation, as well as blocks of flats, in more than 60 other local authority areas which all used the very same kind of ACM rainscreen panels.

Should all the councillors in all those local authority areas be expecting your private police force to come and arrest them, GF?

indlovubill - 12 Jan 2022 19:25:00 (#6 of 27)

Come on, a young chap from the cladding manufacturers gave evidence saying the testing of the cladding was fraudulent. Anyone arrested yet? Thought not.

AdonisBlue - 12 Jan 2022 20:49:23 (#7 of 27)

We need to ask what went wrong in the safeguards to prevent this happening. People will always fake results and those that did at Grenfell should have the book thrown at them.

However that won't prevent this or other building accidents happening again. In my opinion Grenfell happened because there are no longer enough council employed Building Inspectors after years of Tory cuts to local authority funding. Private Inspectors are not objective or thorough. Ofc I would say that as I work for an LA as a consultee in the planning process, I protect human health from shortcuts taken by developers and hidden by their consultants. My job is to protect people's lives by reviewing the work of consultants employed by developers. Most other neighbouring councils lost their me equivalents to Tory cuts over the last decade. So we are creating and storing up hundreds of accidents waiting to happen.

Cordelia - 12 Jan 2022 20:58:17 (#8 of 27)

AdonisBlue - 12 Jan 2022 21:02:57 (#9 of 27)

Planners get a lot of stick. I'm not a planner, just a consultee. I don't know enough about building design to defend or attack that build.

But what most people don't get is it's not planners that design buildings,.drive development and build them. It's private development companies. Planners merely approve or reject applications after consulting (hopefully) a lot of experts in different areas. Well planners don't even approve in the end, committees of councillors do. But the planners take all the blame and the developers all the profits.

indlovubill - 12 Jan 2022 21:26:39 (#10 of 27)

I'll agree with you on the lack of inspection, Adonis the problems at Grenfell were many, not just the cladding. The windows should have had firestops around them to stop fire spreading up the cavity between the windows and the main structure. The windows were fitted in the cladding, forward of where the old windows were. The window fitters did what window fitters do, they're paid so much a window so cut every corner they can to get as many windows fitted in the shortest time.

champagnerocker - 12 Jan 2022 21:47:12 (#11 of 27)

Well there were some arrests

...just for people making poor jokes in bad taste on the internet, no arrests of anyone actually responsible for the disaster.

HarveyRabbit - 12 Jan 2022 22:09:54 (#12 of 27)

Also, several prosecuted for making fraudulent claims.

HarveyRabbit - 13 Jan 2022 00:56:18 (#13 of 27)

Come on, a young chap from the cladding manufacturers gave evidence saying the testing of the cladding was fraudulent. Anyone arrested yet? Thought not.

That would be the insulation manufacturers.

And yes, when the question was put to them at the Inquiry several representatives of those companies agreed that the way the test results were reported to their customers was misleading and in some cases intentionally so.

The manufacturers certainly tried hard to obfuscate and mislead in order to get their products used on high rise buildings, regardless of the risk of a catastrophic fire. But that wasn't the sole reason why the fire happened. Others at multiple levels in the system of regulation, testing, certification, approval and design ought to have stopped those products ever reaching a high rise building despite the manufacturers best efforts to deceive. Collectively, that system failed.

To be concerned only with arresting a few individuals or prosecuting the managers of some rogue companies would be to miss the bigger failing which is that the system which should protect us against such rogues failed, completely, massively and at Lakanal, Grenfell, etc, catastrophically.

indlovubill - 13 Jan 2022 07:10:16 (#14 of 27)

Harvey the problem isn't how the test results were reported, the testing was fraudulent, rigged in other words. And it was the CLADDING that was tested, the young chap was from the cladding manufacturers, the insulation is sandwiched in the cladding between thin sheets of aluminium.

Test rigging is widespread, testing is extremely expensive and if the product passes the testing it's a licence to print money. Failure isn't an option and the companies carrying out the testing turn a blind eye to cheating or alter the criteria so that products pass.

GreenFuture - 13 Jan 2022 13:21:57 (#15 of 27)


Of course all unlawful cladding should be investigated, which needn't mean immediate arrests, even if the imagined prospect makes for good hyperbolic flourish on your part.

I understand you may think the idea of implementing law on safe housing is ludicrous. Lots of people probably do. It's likely some kind of "libertarian" credo.

But there's a stand-out difference in the Grenfell case.

Can you guess what it is for 5 points?

That's right Harvers, it's the scores of dead people.

HarveyRabbit - 13 Jan 2022 16:58:29 (#16 of 27)


I understand you may think the idea of implementing law on safe housing is ludicrous.

If that's what you understand then you really do have your head up your arse. Please quote the posts of mine which could possibly lead you to that understanding.

You on the other hand, are obsessed with having people arrested as repeatedly asking how many arrests have been made yet is your sole response to any post on this and the other thread.

You of course know that while a public inquiry is in progress, any prosecutions will be on hold and it would be utterly pointless for the police to be arresting anyone. Even if they held them in detention for 36hrs in order to feed the tabloids and satisfy some ignorant van bangers, they would have to be released without charge. The police have not been sitting on their hands. They have investigated as far as due process allows them to. What evidence there is will have been collected and there will be a time for arrests and prosecutions once the inquiry is over.

Now, you said it was obvious to you, soon after the Grenfell fire that the cladding was "illegal". But being wise after the event isn't so clever. The pertinent question why wasn't it obvious to you before that. It can't have been the lack of fires and dead people as the very same "illegal" cladding had caused fires and killed people before.

It's likely some kind of "libertarian" credo.

WTF are you talking about?

GreenFuture - 13 Jan 2022 17:12:41 (#17 of 27)


Not enough time to answer all that soz

First tho: your sarcasm begets sarcasm.

2nd: asking about arrests is far from the only thing I do on those threads.

You seem to mistake legit keen interest for obsession.

It is pertinent and instructive to keep reminding ourselves of inconsistent (if any) application of law based on class.

If you don’t get that, then you’re in no place to tell where my head is, due to the lack of light and possible distracting smell of where your own might be found.

I don’t want a spat tho. I’ll get back to you in general, hoping we both find ourselves in better humour.

GreenFuture - 13 Jan 2022 17:14:00 (#18 of 27)

Anyone mentioned the horrific tower fire in Brooklyn yet?

Similarities and differences might be interesting.

Notable difference: billions in lawsuits are under way in no time

indlovubill - 13 Jan 2022 17:17:16 (#19 of 27)

Grenfell will be another case of ' lessons learned, carry on as normal '. Testing and accreditation is riddled with fraud, the product samples tested go into the skip after testing, evidence destroyed so nothing can be proved.

Ginmonkey - 13 Jan 2022 17:23:15 (#20 of 27)

The Brooklyn one seems to have been caused by a space heater catching fire and the occupants of the affected flat leaving the front door open, allowing fire and smoke to quickly spread through corridors.

There are anecdotal reports of residents saying they initially ignored the smoke alarms as they "were always going off".

The failure to evacuate issue is a tricky one. Anyone who has lived in a block of flats knows it isn't like work or school. Unless there is a caretaker or building manager on site, residents need to respond to alarms themselves.

I once lived in flat where the half built flats behind our block caught fire one night. We woke at 1am to our building smoke alarms going off, flames leaping up behind our building and the police banging on our windows and doors telling us to get out now.

There were still people hanging out of the upper floor windows asking if " they really needed to leave".

Check Subscriptions
Home » UK News