Grenfell Tower fire in North Kensington - news and discussion

[Dr. Furface]

yeh. but who reads the comments on the evening standard?

They allow comments?!

 

[Wilf]

I was thinking that maybe the technical side of things should be taken to another thread, but I do think that it needs to be more widely understood how long these problems have been known about, and that the governments of all 3 major UK parties have taken bugger all action in 2-3 revisions of the regulations since that inquiry to address the concerns clearly expressed in 1999, and I'm fairly sure at other points as well.

Politicians of all stripes need to be held to account for not ensuring that these recommendations were implemented in the nearly 2 decades since the fire that led to that previous inquiry.

I'm fine about it staying here as the tech and the narrative about residents complaints are interlocked. However, when we get to the point of initial findings and the various reports that are bound to emerge and compete, there will be a need for more than 1 thread then. So yeah, if you want to. It at least gets round any qualms that people might have, as discussed in the last couple of pages.

 

[editor]

Developers of Battersea Power Station have just reneged on their affordable housing commitment to the tune of over 250 properties, the scum-fucks.

Despicable vile cunts.

 

[Buckaroo]

 

[agricola]

Developers of Battersea Power Station have just reneged on their affordable housing commitment to the tune of over 250 properties, the scum-fucks.

... which the local council are about to let them do.

 

[squirrelp]

Even if this cladding refurbishment passed statutory legislation for safety, there must surely be a common law offence of breach of duty of care or similar. Someone, possibly multiple people, should face criminal charges.

 

[Pickman's model]

Even if this cladding refurbishment passed statutory legislation for safety, there must surely be a common law offence of breach of duty of care or similar. Someone, possibly multiple people, should face criminal charges.

Yeh. What charges would you prefer?

 

[agricola]

Even if this cladding refurbishment passed statutory legislation for safety, there must surely be a common law offence of breach of duty of care or similar. Someone, possibly multiple people, should face criminal charges.

Misconduct in a Public Office still exists, though it is a lot less used than it was

 

[ViolentPanda]

... which the local council are about to let them do.

That goes without saying. Wandsworth happily bend over for developers.

 

[Cid]

Even if this cladding refurbishment passed statutory legislation for safety, there must surely be a common law offence of breach of duty of care or similar. Someone, possibly multiple people, should face criminal charges.

Only if someone has actually breached a duty of care, and it can be shown that that breach caused the fire. It is entirely possible that the blame is so diffused as to make it impossible to bring a prosecution.

 

[free spirit]

Misconduct in a Public Office still exists, though it is a lot less used than it was

Unfortunately most ministers could get away with the defence of not having understood the risks, even if they've been clearly laid out for them - I'm sorry your honor but I simply didn't read that document so wasn't aware of the risks involved.

Those who could make ministers aware of risks such as this are usually kept several steps away from the ministers, dealing with civil servants or in endless rounds of British / European Standards meetings during which most participants who know what they#re doing lose the will to live and it's just the bureaucrats left by the end (I'm involved in a similar process for solar PV regulation, which started off being mainly installers on the steering group, now there's often just one or 2 of us and a dozen reps from various bodies who've mostly never actually installed a solar panel).

A civil action against the Government for failing to sort out the regulatory regime after the fires and parliamentary inquiry of the late 90s, with the various organisations involved in setting the standards could potentailly work.

Probably alongside corporate manslaughter charges for the building owner, and cladding installation company, and / or the fire risk consultants who signed off on this work, and / or cladding and insulation manufacturers for not making it clearer on their datasheets exactly what the panels should and shouldn't be used for and just labeling them as Class 0.
Depending on which stage in the chain it's been that's made the fateful decision to use the reduced fire rated cladding.

Probably dubious chances of actually seeing anyone in jail that way, unless there's giveaway emails that show that relevant decisions were made by those at the top. (the controlling minds).

 

[Pac man]

Grenfell Tower: 16 council inspections failed to stop use of flammable cladding.
Grenfell Tower: 16 council inspections failed to stop use of flammable cladding

 

[gentlegreen]

Ripping all that lethal cladding off of buildings is going to cost a fortune and make a bloody awful mess.

 

[Pac man]

Only if someone has actually breached a duty of care, and it can be shown that that breach caused the fire.

The Council, I dont even think you would have to show a direct cause, just that the Council were consistently negligent and refused to heed warnings from residents about the risk to life that the building posed, complaints that KCTMO were repeatedly failing to protect tenants from harm/fire/electrical issues etc. The Couincil had 3 years of complaints, it should have sacked KCTMO long ago and employed a more competent ALMO..A constant and persistent breach of a basic duty of care by the council.[/QUOTE]

 

[classicdish]

 

[bimble]

Don't know why but always hated that song.

 

[crossthebreeze]

The articles about these flats are all really weird - basically gushing adverts for the luxury development, then tucked away in the article it's revealed the flats in question were purpose built social housing - so the flats will be used for the actual purpose they were built, they're just being completed a bit earlier.

This Guardian article doesn't even explain that the flats are social housing - it does show anyone moved there'll have a couple of horrors as neighbours though.

 

[Dogsauce]

Ripping all that lethal cladding off of buildings is going to cost a fortune and make a bloody awful mess.

They may be able to get away with adding extra fire breaks, and updating existing fire protection within the building (e.g. sprinklers, improved egress, being thorough about compartmentalisation). The problem with Grenfell wasn't just that the cladding appears to have caught fire rapidly, but that there was weak protection inside the building. Also if it happened again elsewhere I doubt anyone would stay in their flat as advised to on this occasion.

 

[squirrelp]

Only if someone has actually breached a duty of care, and it can be shown that that breach caused the fire. It is entirely possible that the blame is so diffused as to make it impossible to bring a prosecution.

I can't see how a tower block can be turned into a death trap without someone having breached a duty of care.

David Lammy is making a good point in a Guardian interview
David Lammy: ‘If burning in your home is not political, I don’t know what is’ – video

Have the police started seizing documents from the Council / Contractors before they can mysteriously vanish? If not why not? This needs to happen.

 

[Pickman's model]

I can't see how a tower block can be turned into a death trap without someone having breached a duty of care.

David Lammy is making a good point in a Guardian interview
David Lammy: ‘If burning in your home is not political, I don’t know what is’ – video

Have the police started seizing documents from the Council / Contractors before they can mysteriously vanish? If not why not? This needs to happen.

What grounds would you suggest exist for them to seize documents from the council?

 

[marty21]

How can you calm their fears when those fears may well be justified?

The council wants us to calm their fears , I have doubts that it'll work. Saw about 20 residents this afternoon, some were very worried ,some were surprisingly unconcerned . All seemed grateful that we had descended on the estate.

 

[kabbes]

The council wants us to calm their fears , I have doubts that it'll work. Saw about 20 residents this afternoon, some were very worried ,some were surprisingly unconcerned . All seemed grateful that we had descended on the estate.

You're missing my point, though. The phrase "calm their fears" contains within it the implication that the fears are unfounded and thus it is right to calm them. In this case, there is no reason particularly to assume that the fears are unfounded. Is it appropriate to tell somebody not to worry about something if actually they probably should be worried about it?

 

[Cid]

I can't see how a tower block can be turned into a death trap without someone having breached a duty of care.

David Lammy is making a good point in a Guardian interview
David Lammy: ‘If burning in your home is not political, I don’t know what is’ – video

Have the police started seizing documents from the Council / Contractors before they can mysteriously vanish? If not why not? This needs to happen.

It will depend hugely on what the actual causes are... I'm... Kind of hopeful. But, if it is possible, it's more likely to fall on the installation subcontractors than on KCTMO and the edifice of corporate landlordism. The problem is that there are likely a large number of causes, and each individual cause might not amount to the level of negligence required for gross negligence manslaughter. For example the TMO might say they consulted <x> who said that the best policy for tower block fire safety was no alarms and compartmentalisation. Or they might say they contracted building safety out to <y>, and that they therefore can't be held responsible for <z>. Certainly KCTMO can say they contracted the building works out to Studio E. Studio E can say that, on the type of construction contract, they weren't able to properly supervise work and had no control over the final products used. It's been a while since I studied any of this mind you, need to brush up (but the case law is fucking depressing).

Basically it's not a simple area of law in the first place, and this is likely to be a complicated case. And KCTMO and Rydon at least will have very good lawyers.

 

[alex_]

Just surprised you didn't use "sheeple", you mug.

It was a dupe post.

 

[ddraig]

It was a dupe post.

Don't start this crap, please

 

[squirrelp]

It will depend hugely on what the actual causes are... I'm... Kind of hopeful. But, if it is possible, it's more likely to fall on the installation subcontractors than on KCTMO and the edifice of corporate landlordism. The problem is that there are likely a large number of causes, and each individual cause might not amount to the level of negligence required for gross negligence manslaughter. For example the TMO might say they consulted <x> who said that the best policy for tower block fire safety was no alarms and compartmentalisation. Or they might say they contracted building safety out to <y>, and that they therefore can't be held responsible for <z>. Certainly KCTMO can say they contracted the building works out to Studio E. Studio E can say that, on the type of construction contract, they weren't able to properly supervise work and had no control over the final products used. It's been a while since I studied any of this mind you, need to brush up (but the case law is fucking depressing).

Basically it's not a simple area of law in the first place, and this is likely to be a complicated case. And KCTMO and Rydon at least will have very good lawyers.

I haven't studied law but it seems to me to be totally unsatisfactory if an overall liability can be avoided by splitting up around various parties. Surely the only fair result would be to sue all parties, the judge finds them all negligent together (unless a party truly covered themselves), and then splits up the debt according to how responsible they were?

 

[squirrelp]

What grounds would you suggest exist for them to seize documents from the council?

They probably wouldn't need a court order. They could go round and ask for them. Refusal wouldn't look too hot.

 

[Cid]

I haven't studied law but it seems to me to be totally unsatisfactory if an overall liability can be avoided by splitting up around various parties. Surely the only fair result would be to sue all parties, the judge finds them all negligent together (unless a party truly covered themselves), and then splits up the debt according to how responsible they were?

Suing is a very different situation from criminal conviction.

 

[squirrelp]

Suing is a very different situation from criminal conviction.

Balance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt, other than that I don't know what would be pertinent.

Well that's the only fair way I can see, if I am wrong then the law seems wrong to me.

 

[Cid]

Balance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt, other than that I don't know what would be pertinent.

Well that's the only fair way I can see, if I am wrong then the law seems wrong to me.

In normal criminal law you'd require mens rea, guilty mind. i.e someone would have to intend to do something. Obviously that doesn't apply in negligence, but it's still not really in the public interest to prosecute people for many types of negligent behaviour. They can be liable in a civil sense, but the criminal question is whether they need to be punished. It's not simply a different standard of proof, it's a different standard of behaviour... Gross negligence manslaughter requires that the conduct be so bad as to amount to a crime. In a complex case with multiple causes, where different parties may be responsible for different actions or omissions, it may be difficult to say that a particular action was, on its own, grossly negligent.