Grenfell Tower fire in North Kensington - news and discussion

[bi0boy]

Corporate manslaughter cases against state-owned organisations seem a bit pointless to me. Am waiting to see if they will charge any individuals.

 

[A380]

ITV showing a documentary about the LFB response.

It's on now ( Thursday evening).

 

[Mr Retro]

ITV showing a documentary about the LFB response.

It's on now ( Thursday evening).

Brave people those firefighters. Humbling.

 

[butchersapron]

These charges would be lesser then the ones faced by the handful of Hillsborough accused. And carry no risk of a sentence. Why are they saying this already?

 

[teqniq]

limiting expectations?

 

[MAD-T-REX]

Realistically, no one is going to be prosecuted for gross negligence manslaughter. It's a hard offence to prove even when someone has done something that (at the time) was obviously reckless.

 

[Treacle Toes]

limiting expectations?

And limiting the scope of the investigation
just heard a lawyer explain that this approach can only result in fines, not individual charges.

 

[Crispy]

Architects for Social Housing have produced an excellent report on Grenfell Tower

The Truth about Grenfell Tower: A Report by Architects for Social Housing

This really is superb.

 

[cupid_stunt]

And limiting the scope of the investigation
just heard a lawyer explain that this approach can only result in fines, not individual charges.

It can still result in individuals being charged, but very hard in large organisations because of the need to identify a "controlling mind", but I would be surprised if any individual in K&C council or the TMO are charged.

However, things could be different with the various contractors involved.

In English law, proving corporate manslaughter and securing a conviction of an individual where the corporation involved is a small concern are easier where it is easier to identify a "controlling mind" (in R v OLL Ltd, 1994, about the Lyme Bay canoeing tragedy, managing director Peter Kite was convicted), but efforts to convict people in larger corporate entities tends to fail as the management structure is more diffuse making this identification more difficult. Instead, the prosecution stands more chance of pursuing a case successfully if it prosecutes simply on the grounds of a safety breach under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.

Corporate manslaughter in English law - Wikipedia

 

[Pickman's model]

It can still result in individuals being charged, but very hard in large organisations because of the need to identify a "controlling mind", but I would be surprised if any individual in K&C council or the TMO are charged.

However, things could be different with the various contractors involved.

i wondered whether something like malfeasance in a publick office might work

 

[butchersapron]

It can still result in individuals being charged, but very hard in large organisations because of the need to identify a "controlling mind", but I would be surprised if any individual in K&C council or the TMO are charged.

However, things could be different with the various contractors involved.

I believe the 'controlling mind' nonsense is well gone.

 

[cupid_stunt]

I believe the 'controlling mind' nonsense is well gone.

From my understanding the 'controlling mind' thing doesn't apply in respect of the new corporate manslaughter law applying to organisations, but the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act doesn't cover individuals.

Individuals can still be charged for gross negligence manslaughter, and that seems to require an element of 'controlling mind', in order to pin it on an individual.

Just found this link:

Gross negligence manslaughter

The CMCHA does not say anything about individuals within corporations being liable.

Individual directors at fault for work-related deaths may be prosecuted under the common-law offence of gross negligence manslaughter. Indeed, prosecutors still continue to charge individual directors particularly if their company is being prosecuted for corporate manslaughter.

Where a director is accused of causing a workplace death they may be prosecuted for being grossly negligent. To be negligent:

• the director must owe the deceased a duty of care
• the director must have breached that duty
• the breach must have caused the death.

But mere negligence is not enough. The duty of care failure must be “gross”. In other words, so extreme that the action or inaction of the director can be considered criminal i.e. conduct falling far below what’s reasonably expected. This final element makes the offence very difficult to establish. Even in high profile corporate failures such as the Hatfield train crash, no individual directors were actually convicted.

Corporate manslaughter and director liability

 

[butchersapron]

The thing the met is talking about has no 'controlling mind' element.

GNM is what duckenfield is now charged with and what the met is not talking about - it applies to individuals and so doesn't require a 'controlling mind' either.

My point above was that the met is talking up solely the first sort of charges. Almost as if this would be seen a public victory and getting people behind it rather than talking about GNM. There's some expectation management and shaping going on here.

 

[Pickman's model]

The thing the met is talking about has no 'controlling mind' element.

GNM is what duckenfield is now charged with and what the met is not talking about - it applies to individuals and so doesn't require a 'controlling mind' either.

My point above was that the met is talking up solely the first sort of charges. Almost as if this would be seen a public victory and getting people behind it rather than talking about GNM. There's some expectation management and shaping going on here.

so many of the people responsible for what happened are too posh to pull

 

[butchersapron]

so many of the people responsible for what happened are too posh to pull

Indeed - if you read the brilliant report that lurdan linked to you'll find many examples of this. For example:

In the face of the mounting evidence of corruption at every level of involvement in the refurbishment of Grenfell Tower it is important to distinguish between individual and systemic corruption. As an example of the former, the blog of the Grenfell Action Group has revealed that Councillor Feilding-Mellen, in his capacity as Cabinet Member for Housing, Property and Regeneration, was ultimately responsible for Kensington and Chelsea council’s 2015 decision to lease North Kensington Library to Notting Hill Prep School, thereby taking it out of public control and use. However, at the time of this deal – which was strongly opposed by the local community – Feilding-Mellen had two children on the long waiting list for the £5,800-a-term private school, which as part of the deal was allowed to skip the first year’s rent of £365,000.

 

[Lurdan]

On the 6th July the DCLG ordered full fire safety tests on 6 different cladding designs. These were tests of complete cladding systems not individual components. On Wednesday night Newsnight reported the result of the first of these tests which had employed the same combination of materials as used on Grenfell Tower.

It involved creating a test rig of panels with horizontal and vertical fire stopping, using PIR plastic foam insulation and aluminium panels with a combustible polyethylene plastic core.

This combination of materials completely failed the test.

Grenfell-style cladding design fails official fire test - BBC
(this includes a clip from the Newsnight report)

As was stated in the Newsnight report :

The critical thing about this test is that it is a test on the choice of materials used in Grenfell, installed perfectly.

This isn’t about “maybe they messed up the installation”, “maybe they didn’t include fire breaks”.

They conducted a test with all of the fire breaks in place and it burnt. The whole test was an absolute failure.’

So even before any consideration of whether there were additional issues relating to poor construction, substitution of materials and so on, this combination should never have been used. Had they been given a full fire test before installation they would have failed.

However as the Times reported on July 22nd

The cladding system used on Grenfell Tower was not subjected to a full fire safety test before being fixed to the wall, sources close to the building project have told The Times.

Instead of constructing a mock-up of the combination of materials and setting fire to it, it is understood that a “desktop study” was commissioned.

Both methods are accepted “routes to compliance” with building regulations but while a full two-day test at a recognised fire safety facility costs about £35,000, the desktop exercise can be done for less than £5,000.

Today it's being reported that either 60 (BBC) or 70 (Guardian) tower blocks are known to have been clad in systems employing this combination of materials.

Grenfell Tower: Sixty blocks 'fail new fire test' - BBC

It is thought nine blocks in Salford are the only local government-owned buildings to be affected so far.

Local Government Association chairman Lord Porter said housing associations and private sector landlords will be among those that own the 60 tower blocks which failed the new fire test.

And illustrating the new spirit of openness and transparency

He added that intellectual property rights on the installation of cladding systems means the identification of tower blocks affected by fire safety issues may not be made public.

The DCLG are expected to issue a statement later today.

 

[Lurdan]

The BRE report on this first fire safety test has been put online by the DCLG. (PDF here) along with advice for building owners (PDF here). From the latter

This wall system failed the test, which means it did not adequately resist the spread of fire over the wall to the standard required by the current Building Regulations guidance, and which is referred to in BR135. The Expert Panel’s advice is that, based on the test results, they do not believe any combination of these materials (ACM with unmodified polyethylene filler and foam insulation) would meet current Building Regulations guidance, and are not aware of any tests of such combinations meeting the performance criteria set out in BR135. This combination of materials therefore presents a significant fire hazard on buildings over 18m.

The fire test is intended to last 40 minutes but was terminated after 9 because the flames had already reached the top of the 9 metre test rig.

The accompanying press release states that

82 buildings are currently known to have this combination of materials in their wall cladding systems - 47 of which are local authority or housing association owned or managed

This is just the first of six of these tests using different combinations of materials. It will be interesting to see which of the others pass - or not.

Another independent review of building regulations and fire safety has been announced. Led by Dame Judith Hackitt, former Chair of the HSE and currently Chair of EEF, the Manufacturers’ Organisation, it will look at current building regulations and fire safety with a particular focus on high rise residential buildings.

Tucked away at the bottom of the announcement of this review

The government expects that building owners will fund measures designed to make a building fire safe, and will draw on their existing resources to do so. We will work with relevant bodies so current restrictions on the use of their financial resources do not prevent them from making essential fire safety upgrades to buildings.

So no offer of central government funds.

 

[Wilf]

The FA have banned Joey Barton from playing in a charity game to raise funds for the victims of Grenfell, because it's an 'FA sanctioned game' (and he's on a ban)
Joey Barton hits out at FA after being banned from Game 4 Grenfell

 

[Wookey]

So my mum lives in a housing association block with half of its cladding currently off, the other half on while they wait for government guidance.

82 buildings have failed the fire test, and we're not allowed to know if hers is one of them because of intellectual property rights??!

They aren't learning anywhere near fast enough that this kind of treatment is just unacceptable.

 

[Nylock]

limiting expectations?

A warning shot maybe? 'This is the least that's going to come of this'...?

 

[butchersapron]

A warning to who though?

 

[Nylock]

Had a few ciders when I wrote that. But I think my thought process went along the lines of 'maybe they've found evidence that at the least implicates several highups in corporate manslaughter and that some may seven end up doing serious time for this from either the LA or the contractors'. It's likely I'm wrong but was offering a drunk opinion...

 

[Cid]

Had a few ciders when I wrote that. But I think my thought process went along the lines of 'maybe they've found evidence that at the least implicates several highups in corporate manslaughter and that some may seven end up doing serious time for this from either the LA or the contractors'. It's likely I'm wrong but was offering a drunk opinion...

Corporate manslaughter is only punishable with a fine.

It was a sop to assuage public opinion after the repeated failure of the gross negligence manslaughter laws. But the problem is still there.

 

[Pickman's model]

Corporate manslaughter is only punishable with a fine.

It was a sop to assuage public opinion after the repeated failure of the gross negligence manslaughter laws. But the problem is still there.

And any fine will come out of k&c's capacious reserves

 

[Cid]

And any fine will come out of k&c's capacious reserves

Yep, I believe the recommendation is a percentage of annual turnover, it's not going to be a problem for them. The key figures might have to resign, but they'll have no trouble finding places to go. Probably just do a bit of job swap with some untainted cronies.

 

[Nylock]

Corporate manslaughter is only punishable with a fine.

It was a sop to assuage public opinion after the repeated failure of the gross negligence manslaughter laws. But the problem is still there.

Yeah, i re-read that after I responded. That'll teach me to read to the end of the thread before replying and respond to a thread when sober...

 

[spliff]

And any fine will come out of k&c's capacious reserves

K&C's money is not their money it's OURS. How capacious is it?
I get pissed off with government bodies particularly the Met Police paying out undisclosed sums for some wrong-doing on their part.
That's my fucking money you cunts, it was money for you to protect me not yourselves.

 

[Pickman's model]

K&C's money is not their money it's OURS. How capacious is it?
I get pissed off with government bodies particularly the Met Police paying out undisclosed sums for some wrong-doing on their part.
That's my fucking money you cunts, it was money for you to protect me not yourselves.

Maybe so. But they have the money and it's in their reserves

 

[maomao]

K&C's money is not their money it's OURS. How capacious is it?
I get pissed off with government bodies particularly the Met Police paying out undisclosed sums for some wrong-doing on their part.
That's my fucking money you cunts, it was money for you to protect me not yourselves.

Almost any other council or public organisation and I'd be in complete agreement. This is the council that's been chucking out CT rebates in the posh half of their borough to buy votes. Fuck 'em.

 

[spliff]

Almost any other council or public organisation and I'd be in complete agreement. This is the council that's been chucking out CT rebates in the posh half of their borough to buy votes. Fuck 'em.

I agree 100% , I'm not going to Wiki it but isn't this the borough that Lady Tesco got done and buggered off to Israel to avoid charges of gerrymandering?
Probably been addressed in post's #4 or #9 or something. However spliffycomelately Got to get the oar in.