Grenfell Tower fire in North Kensington - news and discussion

[Corax]

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.

With a custodial sentence though - which I think is what's in many people's minds when it comes to this - it all falls apart a bit. Sentencing fifty odd people to all serve a few weeks would only minorly inconvenience them, and give no sense that 'justice has been served' to the victims.

Besides - the burdens of proof you mention are an absolutely enormous difference.

 

[Corax]

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.

You say it doesn't apply to negligence, but it does - which you've then gone on to outline quite nicely!

A decision not to act is still mens rea. A decision not to be as thorough as needed - mens rea. A decision to prioritise something else instead, whether it be other work or golf - mens rea. Intent not to bother is still an intent.

 

[Cid]

You say it doesn't apply to negligence, but it does - which you've then gone on to outline quite nicely!

A decision not to act is still mens rea. A decision not to be as thorough as needed - mens rea. A decision to prioritise something else instead, whether it be other work or golf - mens rea. Intent not to bother is still an intent.

Not exactly. Mens rea requires a knowledge of the defendant's state of mind and that isn't required for gross negligence.

 

[Pac man]

Not exactly. Mens rea requires a knowledge of the defendant's state of mind and that isn't required for gross negligence.

Mens rea IS a gulity mind, which can include an omission too surely? This line of reasoning was used in the Supreme Court in Feb this year, Armes or NA vs Nottinghamshire Council, you can watch it on the website herer if interested https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2016-0004.html.
Vicarious liability and a Non delegable Duty of Care. The case has very similar legal principles a duty of care, vicarious liability and a non delagble duty.. Which the council in Grenfell Towers would most likely argue as there defense, that all responsibilty past to KCTMO, i doubut it would get away with it though after 3 years of complaints. Whilst the Armes case is about historical child abuse and the LAs duty of care to children in foster placements and other associated care facilities (homes). The outcome will have a bearing on the level of duty a LA has in a wide range of situations, Grenfell Towers included.Still awaiting the outcome of the Appeal from 8th and 9th Feb this year.

 

[Cid]

Mens rea IS a gulity mind, which can include an omission too surely? This line of reasoning was used in the Supreme Court in Feb this year, Armes or NA vs Nottinghamshire Council, you can watch it on the website herer if interested https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2016-0004.html.
Vicarious liability and a Non delegable Duty of Care. The case has very similar legal principles a duty of care, vicarious liability and a non delagble duty.. Which the council in Grenfell Towers would most likely argue as therer defense, that all responsibilty past to KCTMO, i doubut it would get away with it though after 3 years of complaints. Whilst the Armes case is about historical child abuse and the LAs duty of care to children in foster placements and other associated care facilities (homes). The outciome will have a bearing on the level of duty a LA has in a wide range of situations, Grenfell Towers included.Still awaiting the outcome of the Appeal from 8th and 9th Feb this year.

Negligence can be a type of mens rea, but mens rea is not always required to show negligence. Look, it's nearly 1am.

 

[Pac man]

but mens rea is not always required to show negligence. Look, it's nearly 1am.

Strict Liability offenses such as driving without due care and attention..

 

[Pickman's model]

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

Yeh. Right. What are those grounds again?

 

[Pickman's model]

Luxury flat residents complain rehousing Grenfell families 'unfair'

 

[andysays]

View attachment 109899
Luxury flat residents complain rehousing Grenfell families 'unfair'

Cunts gonna be cunts, unfortunately, though this does help to illustrate the utterly obscene classist assumptions which have at the very least contributed to this tragedy.

Part of me feels like those making such complaints deserve to be burnt out of their homes, if only as a lesson in appreciating some of the hardship others have to endure.

 

[Treacle Toes]

View attachment 109899
Luxury flat residents complain rehousing Grenfell families 'unfair'

Hate mongering cunts continue to hate monger.

The ES articles about these flats have succeeded in their mission to incite class prejudice and snobbery from existing residents and inspire envy in other social housing tenants. Perhaps these selfish idiots would have preferred everyone had died than shock, horror they get rehoused in decent accommodation. Cunts.

 

[danny la rouge]

"A number" of flats clad in combustible material. What number is not revealed.

High rise cladding 'combustible' says PM - BBC News

 

[Teaboy]

"A number" of flats clad in combustible material. What number is not revealed.

High rise cladding 'combustible' says PM - BBC News

I doubt they know.

As we speak there is almost certainly a lot of contractors, sub-contractors and merchants all scrawling through their old receipts to see what was actually put on the wall.

 

[squirrelp]

Yeh. Right. What are those grounds again?

The same grounds that police would use if they were doing a drugs bust. They are investigating criminal offences and wish to seize evidence before it can be destroyed.

 

[gentlegreen]

In Bristol the council maybe 20 years ago used polystyrene insulation then high tech sticky render on the local tower blocks - the same as used on terraced houses in my street - my neighbour has recently done his whole back wall.
Certainly perfectly safe on low-rise ... doubtless much more expensive and higher maintenance to use render rather than rigid panels.

I was melting holes in polystyrene yesterday and the thought of vast amounts of that going up doesn't bear thinking about it I believe napalm is similar material.

 

[Pickman's model]

The same grounds that police would use if they were doing a drugs bust. They are investigating criminal offences and wish to seize evidence before it can be destroyed.

right. so you think the police can just turn up and say 'we suspect criminal offences' and grab a load of stuff, they don't know what it is, and make off with it. a giant fishing expedition as it were. not to mention a range of the material they'll be after will be in the rbkc archives. do you think archivists would be complicit in this sort of destruction activity? if cops were doing a drugs bust they would have powers of entry: what power of entry do you suggest the police use in this instance?

 

[squirrelp]

With a custodial sentence though - which I think is what's in many people's minds when it comes to this - it all falls apart a bit. Sentencing fifty odd people to all serve a few weeks would only minorly inconvenience them, and give no sense that 'justice has been served' to the victims.

Besides - the burdens of proof you mention are an absolutely enormous difference.

Yes, in favour of the plaintiff. I would guess an action taken under a duty of care breach would be a civil action.

A decision not to act is still mens rea. A decision not to be as thorough as needed - mens rea. A decision to prioritise something else instead, whether it be other work or golf - mens rea. Intent not to bother is still an intent.

A duty of care requires action where necessary. "Qui tacet consentire videtur" - he who stays silent, consents

 

[squirrelp]

right. so you think the police can just turn up and say 'we suspect criminal offences' and grab a load of stuff, they don't know what it is, and make off with it. a giant fishing expedition as it were. not to mention a range of the material they'll be after will be in the rbkc archives. do you think archivists would be complicit in this sort of destruction activity? if cops were doing a drugs bust they would have powers of entry: what power of entry do you suggest the police use in this instance?

I suggest they simply knock on the door

 

[J Ed]

IDS and Mogg in parliament arguing that all tower blocks should now be torn down, no doubt to make way for their developer mates. Sick fuckers see the potential for grift in all of this.

 

[Pickman's model]

I suggest they simply knock on the door

so now you're conceding you don't believe they have an actual power of entry in this case

 

[squirrelp]

so now you're conceding you don't believe they have an actual power of entry in this case

No, I'm suggesting it's not necessary (to apply for the court order).

 

[Pickman's model]

No, I'm suggesting it's not necessary (to apply for the court order).

i suggest you don't have a scooby what you're on about

 

[danny la rouge]

I doubt they know.

As we speak there is almost certainly a lot of contractors, sub-contractors and merchants all scrawling through their old receipts to see what was actually put on the wall.

Well, indeed. And meanwhile an indeterminate number of working class families are going to bed tonight in potential tinderboxes.

 

[Yossarian]

IDS and Mogg in parliament arguing that all tower blocks should now be torn down, no doubt to make way for their developer mates. Sick fuckers see the potential for grift in all of this.

Somebody should ask those twats why they think it is that places like Hong Kong and Singapore have been able to put most of their populations in public housing tower blocks without this kind of fire happening.

 

[danny la rouge]

IDS and Mogg in parliament arguing that all tower blocks should now be torn down, no doubt to make way for their developer mates. Sick fuckers see the potential for grift in all of this.

We've had this all before. It's the same debate as a century ago.

 

[Pac man]

Property hazards and landlords Duty of Care..
Worth reading from Duty of Care onwards.


Property Hazards and the Landlord's Duty of Care

 

[Teaboy]

I've said before on this site I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with pulling down these 60's and 70's high rise blocks, I just don't think they're fit for purpose. The big caveat to this is that they would need to be replaced with something that was fit for purpose and the residents re-housed in the new block. As this is clearly never going to happen under a tory or labour regime they will have to stay.

 

[squirrelp]

i suggest you don't have a scooby what you're on about

Thank you for your advice!

 

[Pickman's model]

Thank you for your advice!

let us hear no more of your prating on the law, you turn out to know rather less about it than diamond.

 

[bimble]

This tower (before & after pics below) is where 'mr bimble' lives at the moment, on 14th floor. It was clad as part of the transformation from 70s brutalist office block to swanky flats. There is cladding on so many buildings now, I have no clue of course if this building was done safely whilst Grenfell wasn't but am sure they'll find residents asking questions even here.

 

[Pickman's model]

This tower (before & after pics below) is where 'mr bimble' lives at the moment, on 14th floor. It was clad as part of the transformation from 70s brutalist office block to swanky flats. There is cladding on so many buildings now, I have no clue of course if this building was done safely whilst Grenfell wasn't but am sure they'll find residents asking questions even here.
View attachment 109909

so that's the 66m tall archway tower