Go away you mad cuntI'm simply reading from (but not trusting those who submitted and approved) the planning application -
Grenfell Tower Regeneration Project SUSTAINABILITY AND ENERGY STATEMENT PLANNING APPLICATION
Personally, I would put fire safety as a more important priority than "insulation levels".
The planning application was submitted by Max Fordham, a building engineering services company hired by KCTMO.
Max Fordham - Wikipedia - Fordham's own firm's website which doesn't list Grenfell Tower as one of their projects. Presumably, that's because they deleted anything incriminating.
If charges of manslaughter and arrests are to be made then Max Fordham, the company and the man himself, should be in the dock, along with the engineers responsible for the planning application because the engineering was incompetently and recklessly done creating a very dangerous fire hazard.
The Guardian has a flow chart of the various companies also in the frame for corporate and individual manslaughter charges.
Complex chain of companies that worked on Grenfell Tower raises oversight concerns
Well arresting Max Fordham and putting him in the dock takes us straight to the top via all the kingdom's institutions, such as the University of Bath, which validated his so-called "professional competence", see his wikipedia entry where they are listed.
The kingdom's institutions who validated Fordham, all have the blessing, the approval, charters, etc of Her Majesty the Queen.
So really the Queen should be in the dock of the people's courts. But then as a republican, I would say that.
The local council which approved the planning application also is criminally negligent and culpable for being as naive as Humpty Dumpty for trusting Max Fordham and all the Queen's men.
Presumably the government inspectors and fire building codes are not up to scratch either.
The people are absolutely right to demand justice and to take this to the very top.
Grenfell Tower fire in North Kensington - news and discussion
- Thread starter JTG
- Start date
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
You're a fucking 'loon and no mistakeI'm simply reading from (but not trusting those who submitted and approved) the planning application -
Grenfell Tower Regeneration Project SUSTAINABILITY AND ENERGY STATEMENT PLANNING APPLICATION
Personally, I would put fire safety as a more important priority than "insulation levels".
The planning application was submitted by Max Fordham, a building engineering services company hired by KCTMO.
Max Fordham - Wikipedia - Fordham's own firm's website which doesn't list Grenfell Tower as one of their projects. Presumably, that's because they deleted anything incriminating.
If charges of manslaughter and arrests are to be made then Max Fordham, the company and the man himself, should be in the dock, along with the engineers responsible for the planning application because the engineering was incompetently and recklessly done creating a very dangerous fire hazard.
The Guardian has a flow chart of the various companies also in the frame for corporate and individual manslaughter charges.
Complex chain of companies that worked on Grenfell Tower raises oversight concerns
Well arresting Max Fordham and putting him in the dock takes us straight to the top via all the kingdom's institutions, such as the University of Bath, which validated his so-called "professional competence", see his wikipedia entry where they are listed.
The kingdom's institutions who validated Fordham, all have the blessing, the approval, charters, etc of Her Majesty the Queen.
So really the Queen should be in the dock of the people's courts. But then as a republican, I would say that.
The local council which approved the planning application also is criminally negligent and culpable for being as naive as Humpty Dumpty for trusting Max Fordham and all the Queen's men.
Presumably the government inspectors and fire building codes are not up to scratch either.
The people are absolutely right to demand justice and to take this to the very top.
teqniq
DisMembered
Me too not being a royalist and all but she has gone up in my estimation somewhat for meeting and speaking to survivors. Doubtless it was as has already been pointed out in part motivated by a desire to shaft May, but still.
ska invita
back on the other side
Ive been thinking about the possibility of a possible criminal conviction...i know others here are quite hot on law so would be curious if you have an opinion
my understanding so far is that no one will be convicted...i say this partially from my own experience in dealing with fire regulations in my own place of work. When Fire Regs people come around there is a legal basic limit of what has to be there, and everything on top is recommended, or advised, but not mandatory. The level of what becomes recommended as opposed to essential seems pretty wide and deep.
I gather the buildings cladding wasnt illegal (as it is in other countries), and internal building bits would've been signed off as a basic pass at some point. I expect all the things to blame for the fire would be "advisory" changes. Which just goes to show how diluted these laws are.
The list of who is guilty is long of course: from politicans who refused to pass laws down to all those in charge of making the decisions for Grenfell itself. Sadly I expect all those many levels of guilt will not translate into a criminal conviction - not because of a cover up, but because they acted within the confines of what seems to be to be very weak law.
I haven't looked closely at the list of complaints that the community blogger highlighted - was there a claim there that any of them contravened a law? Or was it a case of doing the 'advisory' bloody obvious good practice thing?
Thats all my impression anyhow.... Curious what others think
my understanding so far is that no one will be convicted...i say this partially from my own experience in dealing with fire regulations in my own place of work. When Fire Regs people come around there is a legal basic limit of what has to be there, and everything on top is recommended, or advised, but not mandatory. The level of what becomes recommended as opposed to essential seems pretty wide and deep.
I gather the buildings cladding wasnt illegal (as it is in other countries), and internal building bits would've been signed off as a basic pass at some point. I expect all the things to blame for the fire would be "advisory" changes. Which just goes to show how diluted these laws are.
The list of who is guilty is long of course: from politicans who refused to pass laws down to all those in charge of making the decisions for Grenfell itself. Sadly I expect all those many levels of guilt will not translate into a criminal conviction - not because of a cover up, but because they acted within the confines of what seems to be to be very weak law.
I haven't looked closely at the list of complaints that the community blogger highlighted - was there a claim there that any of them contravened a law? Or was it a case of doing the 'advisory' bloody obvious good practice thing?
Thats all my impression anyhow.... Curious what others think
teqniq
DisMembered
Maybe, maybe not. But it certainly had that effect unintended or otherwise.
Barking_Mad
Non sibi sed omnibus
Reports in press those tube lines have been partly closed for fear of building collapsing.
Circle, Hammersmith and City Tube.
Barking_Mad
Non sibi sed omnibus
Another person on Twitter reporting the words of a firefighter.
Sasaferrato
Super Refuser!
New things create precedents. If we relied on precedents, nothing would ever change.
Barking_Mad
Non sibi sed omnibus
There's a police update on the situation shortly. Sky video report here
You can write the conspiracy theory now if it were to fall over.
You can write the conspiracy theory now if it were to fall over.
gosub
~#
It was clearly trolling after 'I cant meet the people cos of security'
frogwoman
No amount of cajolery...
Florkleshnort
Member
The thought of the media crowding round trying to capture footage of bodies being carried out kind of sickens me..
Cid
Proper break this time
I actually know someone who worked for MF back around 2012, perfectly reputable company far as I know.
"morgue set up inside building...
a lot of the delay is due to fears around building stability"
Can both of those really be true?
Gah... This whole thing could do with a lot fewer unsubstantiated reports. And more official ones.
"morgue set up inside building...
a lot of the delay is due to fears around building stability"
Can both of those really be true?
Gah... This whole thing could do with a lot fewer unsubstantiated reports. And more official ones.
Ptolemy
like an unwound clock, I just don't seem to care.
Quite right, as May is perfectly capable of shafting herself without HM's help.
<abitflippantsorry>that will send the conspiracy nuts into orbit!
</abitflippantsorry>
Casual Observer
enough
I'm no expert but I'd say there was a strong case for criminal manslaughter against individuals at KCTMO. I expect KCC will be very lucky and escape with a heavy fine.
The fire seems to have been caused by an electrical fault in one of the flats, either a fault with an appliance (possibly a fridge) in the flat itself or with the power supply into the flat (a power surge).
There was a previous incident with a power surge at Grenfell Tower in 2013 which was reported to KCTMO. The only KCTMO response was to tell the residents to get contents insurance. In other words, they knew about the problem and decided to do nothing about it. This information doesn't come from press speculation by the way, it's all recorded in the KCTMO's own board meeting notes.
I've trawled through the board meeting minutes from the end of 2013 onwards (that's as far back as they go on their site). Beyond the one mention that I've referred to, there's no word of any electrical power supply inspections or maintenance being done. There are numerous boasts on the £10m 2015/16 refurbishment project and what it brings (a new heating system, exterior cladding, enhanced entrance and lobby, new flats on the lower floors, boxing room, nursery etc. ) but there's no mention of enhancements to or safeguarding of the electrical supply.
As I say, I'm no expert but that looks like manslaughter to me.
Last edited:
Florkleshnort
Member
To be fair, at this stage concerns for her security in the area would be pretty valid..
Barking_Mad
Non sibi sed omnibus
Making it safe obviously comes with serious risks.
LDC
On est tous des pangolins
No, a morgue on the ground floor makes no sense. Heat, dirt, no sanitary storage, inability to examine bodies, danger of collapse, etc etc.
Anyway, while I understand why all this speculation is going on, I actually think it's not politically helpful to engage in it too much. We don't need to start entertaining conspiracies and wild rumors to know the fucked up politics behind this disaster, and to do so might in some way dis-credit better more political explanations.
mauvais
on reddit or something
Probably obvious, but from what I've read to date, the fire service's prohibitive concerns about structural integrity seem to be very different from concerns about the structural integrity of the whole thing. That is, more about a floor collapsing in any given area than the whole thing coming down.
Bahnhof Strasse
Met up with Hannah Courtoy a week next Tuesday
We are her subjects and when we suffer something bad she feels she should be there for us. That's how she sees her role in life, so of course she went there and met the people. Pretty sure she'd have raised a wry smile once she saw how shit her actions made May look.
Similar threads
