a lot of plastic items are poisonous when burnt majority of garden furniture, toys, kitchenware is plastic which when burnt can release poisonous gases, it was an accident a very tragic one at that and i do think something is being done to help the victims of it, not saying more cant be done but something is happening.
regarding hotels its not feasable to put people in the reference to ba thats usually an overnight thing, but these people need to have kitchens and adeqaute washing facilities i doubt there's many councils in England that have enough empty property to Rehome at least 400 people.
I'm sure it will be very difficult for some local authorities to re-house large numbers of people at short notice. But, that's their job.
We all expect the fire service to deal with fires, even when there are more than usual. We expect hospitals to cope with high volumes of patients. In the same way, we should expect the Housing Departments of local authorities to handle fluctuations in demand for housing. It's their only job.
@Chizz i agree ( 1st time for everything i suppose )
but the fact of the matter is the here and now we haven't got the property at our disposal. the country as a whole is mass populated even more so in london, the 32 boroughs if they could put up 5 properies each that would be 160 properties, of course people establish homes but i do think if you are on housing benefits etc, then you should take what is offered to you, as you have virtually given nothing to the system and taken a lot ( this is people that are able and choose not to work ) there are of course people that are in need of housing and looking after and they should be the 1st rehomed as close as possible.
I know it's not the quickest solution, but perhaps it is time to rethink our housing policy and start moving away from trying to fit as many families as possible per square metre in unfit-for-purpose tenements built by predatory profiteering building firms and instead consider long term sustainable housing and community living. Certainly one of the major contributors to death in tower block fires is that most people cannot exit immediately unless they live on the ground floor.
Tower blocks are perfectly safe if they are made with the correct materials and designed with fire safety as the number one priority. Grenfell House was neither. That has clearly got to be changed and remedial action on existing together with a root and branch overhaul of building regs for new builds.
Unless social engineering is part of the plan together with a huge investment in travel infrastructure then accept that people choose (and need) to live in big cities and space limitations mean that up is the only feasible solution.
Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.
And no, I am not relaxed about people living in unsafe housing - but calls for rehousing 'today' is just hyperbole.
I'm certainly not suggesting that all tower blocks are unsafe or that we should tear them down, which I feel your post implies. But tower blocks only exist for one purpose; to shove as many people in a tiny area as possible to maximise profits for the landowners. I have spoken in previous housing related discussions regarding the long term environmental, social, economic and sustainability consequences of such properties but I realise I am optimistic in hoping that our housing policy might take a more long-term sustainable view. I am also not suggesting that this specific tragedy ought to be a catalyst for change in this area, or that the disaster was inherently caused by the type of property (although it certainly exacaberated it as those trapped on higher levels had no viable escape route). I'm simply thinking out loud.
There are lots of areas to look at in the aftermath of this disaster and I would concede national housing policy is probably quite low on that list.
issue with a growing population, the actual people that are at fault for a lot of the housing crisis is landlords that buy multiple properties then let them to people without checks etc, but the discussion is about fire not englands growing population which of cause needs to be factored in more people = more houses.
It is called finding an excuse not to do the best you can for people and their safety when it is in your power to do so. It is called ignoring all the warnings/reccomendations from higher ranking safety officers than you, it is called insensitive and I think it is absolutely outrageous given your job.
What are you on about? Whose finding an excuse?
What the hell do you think I've been doing for the past seven years I've been doing my job? I've ignored nothing - indeed I've been proactive and taken unilateral decisions that I've been criticised for by Senior Staff.
I've also been heavily involved in working for the National Housing Federation Fire Safety Group who have been making recommendations for fire safety improvements, not least the retro fitting of sprinkler systems to high rise blocks for the past five years.
I do not make legislation, nor do have I had much influence (until recently) in getting my organisation to develop stock with sprinklers because of the cost/funding models/service charges. They put with my constant issue raising, normally with the mantra, 'we do what we have to do'.
If nothing else this horrific incident has put fire safety at the top of the political agenda - or until people become more interested in Brexit - and perhaps fire safety in this Country will become better resourced in all areas.
a lot of plastic items are poisonous when burnt majority of garden furniture, toys, kitchenware is plastic which when burnt can release poisonous gases, it was an accident a very tragic one at that and i do think something is being done to help the victims of it, not saying more cant be done but something is happening.
regarding hotels its not feasable to put people in the reference to ba thats usually an overnight thing, but these people need to have kitchens and adeqaute washing facilities i doubt there's many councils in England that have enough empty property to Rehome at least 400 people.
I'm sure it will be very difficult for some local authorities to re-house large numbers of people at short notice. But, that's their job.
We all expect the fire service to deal with fires, even when there are more than usual. We expect hospitals to cope with high volumes of patients. In the same way, we should expect the Housing Departments of local authorities to handle fluctuations in demand for housing. It's their only job.
@Chizz i agree ( 1st time for everything i suppose )
but the fact of the matter is the here and now we haven't got the property at our disposal. the country as a whole is mass populated even more so in london, the 32 boroughs if they could put up 5 properies each that would be 160 properties, of course people establish homes but i do think if you are on housing benefits etc, then you should take what is offered to you, as you have virtually given nothing to the system and taken a lot ( this is people that are able and choose not to work ) there are of course people that are in need of housing and looking after and they should be the 1st rehomed as close as possible.
take it on board but people want to live in london and dont want to live in the green belt of land
Problem is, that 'green belt' is a con. There's plenty of 'green belt' land that should be reclassified - loads of it near London. The reason it isn't is because it's in places where people with lots of money don't want anything built nearby them - especially not any lower class oiks
It is called finding an excuse not to do the best you can for people and their safety when it is in your power to do so. It is called ignoring all the warnings/reccomendations from higher ranking safety officers than you, it is called insensitive and I think it is absolutely outrageous given your job.
What are you on about? Whose finding an excuse?
What the hell do you think I've been doing for the past seven years I've been doing my job? I've ignored nothing - indeed I've been proactive and taken unilateral decisions that I've been criticised for by Senior Staff.
I've also been heavily involved in working for the National Housing Federation Fire Safety Group who have been making recommendations for fire safety improvements, not least the retro fitting of sprinkler systems to high rise blocks for the past five years.
I do not make legislation, nor do have I had much influence (until recently) in getting my organisation to develop stock with sprinklers because of the cost/funding models/service charges. They put with my constant issue raising, normally with the mantra, 'we do what we have to do'.
If nothing else this horrific incident has put fire safety at the top of the political agenda - or until people become more interested in Brexit - and perhaps fire safety in this Country will become better resourced in all areas.
I do not want to discuss with you after the crass comment you made. I have deleted from here what I feel about this because i don't think this is a productive direction for the thread to go and demeans this site.
Why do we still not know who is leading this public enquiry? A suggestion would be to have it led by the same person who led the Camberwell fire one if possible. Why are things taking so long? Is it to cover tracks? You have to ask this question when you are not seeing the pace and resolve you need to be seeing.
No, it isn't, but you knew that really didn't you? It is only 7 days since May announced there would be an enquiry. How quickly do you think these things can be sorted out?
It's obvious, to me at any rate, why we don't know who is leading the public enquiry yet.
First off, I'm assuming it will be a senior judge. It would, too, be helpful if the judge had a specialism in the field. Judges do indeed tend to have field specialities. So, I'm assuming, that you wouldn't want a random one from, say, the Family Division?
Second, it may surprise you to learn that Judges don't sit around doing nothing on the off-chance that a major two-year public enquiry is going to be falling into their purview. Because, they actually get on with, well, judging and tend to have a quite lengthy list of up-coming cases, some lasting many months. It will take a while before a suitable candidate(s) is identified, that that individual is actually available and probably most importantly whether they are going to be prepared to tie up virtually the whole of their life for a number of years.
So, ignoring the Family Division, that leaves Chancery Division, maybe but more likely Queen's Bench Division. But even then you'd ideally be looking for someone from the Technology and Construction Court rather than the Admiralty Court, yeah? Well, there's only six of those sitting in the High Court. What if none of them are available and/or interested?
For these reasons, it would not surprise me if a recently retired judge was selected. But, again, you'd have to find one that wasn't either in Tuscany or well past it.
You suggest using the same person as the individual who compiled the Lakanal enquiry. Well, as far as I can tell, there were three of those, done by the LFB, Met Police and the Coroner. Obviously it would have to be the latter for this matter and Frances Kirkham is indeed sitting as a circuit judge in the T&C Court in Birmingham. She would seem like a possible choice actually but she may not be deemed sufficiently senior (interestingly she's an ex-Bank of England employee and an ex-solicitor, not a barrister) and, being in her 70th year, might not want the gig.
So, please understand this is not like employing a trainee barista at Cafe Nero and it cannot happen overnight.
Edited to add: It's The Lord Chief Justice who is doing the recruiting - not the Government. If an answer is out in less than another week, that's quick.
I do agree there needs to be a bit of perspective here, we don't know the cause yet.
There will be millions of people including some on here that work in buildings made of polystyrene composite panels, that should be next in the list to look at
Why do we still not know who is leading this public enquiry? A suggestion would be to have it led by the same person who led the Camberwell fire one if possible. Why are things taking so long? Is it to cover tracks? You have to ask this question when you are not seeing the pace and resolve you need to be seeing.
No, it isn't, but you knew that really didn't you? It is only 7 days since May announced there would be an enquiry. How quickly do you think these things can be sorted out?
It's obvious, to me at any rate, why we don't know who is leading the public enquiry yet.
First off, I'm assuming it will be a senior judge. It would, too, be helpful if the judge had a specialism in the field. Judges do indeed tend to have field specialities. So, I'm assuming, that you wouldn't want a random one from, say, the Family Division?
Second, it may surprise you to learn that Judges don't sit around doing nothing on the off-chance that a major two-year public enquiry is going to be falling into their purview. Because, they actually get on with, well, judging and tend to have a quite lengthy list of up-coming cases, some lasting many months. It will take a while before a suitable candidate(s) is identified, that that individual is actually available and probably most importantly whether they are going to be prepared to tie up virtually the whole of their life for a number of years.
So, ignoring the Family Division, that leaves Chancery Division, maybe but more likely Queen's Bench Division. But even then you'd ideally be looking for someone from the Technology and Construction Court rather than the Admiralty Court, yeah? Well, there's only six of those sitting in the High Court. What if none of them are available and/or interested?
For these reasons, it would not surprise me if a recently retired judge was selected. But, again, you'd have to find one that wasn't either in Tuscany or well past it.
You suggest using the same person as the individual who compiled the Lakanal enquiry. Well, as far as I can tell, there were three of those, done by the LFB, Met Police and the Coroner. Obviously it would have to be the latter for this matter and Frances Kirkham is indeed sitting as a circuit judge in the T&C Court in Birmingham. She would seem like a possible choice actually but she may not be deemed sufficiently senior (interestingly she's an ex-Bank of England employee and an ex-solicitor, not a barrister) and, being in her 70th year, might not want the gig.
So, please understand this is not like employing a trainee barista at Cafe Nero and it cannot happen overnight.
Edited to add: It's The Lord Chief Justice who is doing the recruiting - not the Government. If an answer is out in less than another week, that's quick.
You can get people in at short notice - I have seen it happen - they can drop/postpone something they are doing presently. An important factor here is that we get quick answers - we can't afford to wait for obvious reasons. There are obstructors in life and doers - there are people who say you can't do this because of this or that and people who say - just do it!
At the very least, if it is impossible to sort out the enquiry quickly, you can set up an inquest and the findings of that inquest could inform the enquiry.
Why do we still not know who is leading this public enquiry? A suggestion would be to have it led by the same person who led the Camberwell fire one if possible. Why are things taking so long? Is it to cover tracks? You have to ask this question when you are not seeing the pace and resolve you need to be seeing.
No, it isn't, but you knew that really didn't you? It is only 7 days since May announced there would be an enquiry. How quickly do you think these things can be sorted out?
It's obvious, to me at any rate, why we don't know who is leading the public enquiry yet.
First off, I'm assuming it will be a senior judge. It would, too, be helpful if the judge had a specialism in the field. Judges do indeed tend to have field specialities. So, I'm assuming, that you wouldn't want a random one from, say, the Family Division?
Second, it may surprise you to learn that Judges don't sit around doing nothing on the off-chance that a major two-year public enquiry is going to be falling into their purview. Because, they actually get on with, well, judging and tend to have a quite lengthy list of up-coming cases, some lasting many months. It will take a while before a suitable candidate(s) is identified, that that individual is actually available and probably most importantly whether they are going to be prepared to tie up virtually the whole of their life for a number of years.
So, ignoring the Family Division, that leaves Chancery Division, maybe but more likely Queen's Bench Division. But even then you'd ideally be looking for someone from the Technology and Construction Court rather than the Admiralty Court, yeah? Well, there's only six of those sitting in the High Court. What if none of them are available and/or interested?
For these reasons, it would not surprise me if a recently retired judge was selected. But, again, you'd have to find one that wasn't either in Tuscany or well past it.
You suggest using the same person as the individual who compiled the Lakanal enquiry. Well, as far as I can tell, there were three of those, done by the LFB, Met Police and the Coroner. Obviously it would have to be the latter for this matter and Frances Kirkham is indeed sitting as a circuit judge in the T&C Court in Birmingham. She would seem like a possible choice actually but she may not be deemed sufficiently senior (interestingly she's an ex-Bank of England employee and an ex-solicitor, not a barrister) and, being in her 70th year, might not want the gig.
So, please understand this is not like employing a trainee barista at Cafe Nero and it cannot happen overnight.
Edited to add: It's The Lord Chief Justice who is doing the recruiting - not the Government. If an answer is out in less than another week, that's quick.
You can get people in at short notice - I have seen it happen - they can drop/postpone something they are doing presently. An important factor here is that we get quick answers - we can't afford to wait for obvious reasons. There are obstructors in life and doers - there are people who say you can't do this because of this or that and people who say - just do it!
At the very least, if it is impossible to sort out the enquiry quickly, you can set up an inquest and the findings of that inquest could inform the enquiry.
That's where you are so wrong.
It's important we get the correct answers, otherwise the whole exercise is pointless.
No, it is where I am right. Yes there are longer term lessons, but we have to find them in the short term too. To protect and re-assure residents. I am still speechlesss about the remark you made earlier - maybe it is best not to converse/quote me after that as I don't really want to type what I am thinking.
Why do we still not know who is leading this public enquiry? A suggestion would be to have it led by the same person who led the Camberwell fire one if possible. Why are things taking so long? Is it to cover tracks? You have to ask this question when you are not seeing the pace and resolve you need to be seeing.
No, it isn't, but you knew that really didn't you? It is only 7 days since May announced there would be an enquiry. How quickly do you think these things can be sorted out?
It's obvious, to me at any rate, why we don't know who is leading the public enquiry yet.
First off, I'm assuming it will be a senior judge. It would, too, be helpful if the judge had a specialism in the field. Judges do indeed tend to have field specialities. So, I'm assuming, that you wouldn't want a random one from, say, the Family Division?
Second, it may surprise you to learn that Judges don't sit around doing nothing on the off-chance that a major two-year public enquiry is going to be falling into their purview. Because, they actually get on with, well, judging and tend to have a quite lengthy list of up-coming cases, some lasting many months. It will take a while before a suitable candidate(s) is identified, that that individual is actually available and probably most importantly whether they are going to be prepared to tie up virtually the whole of their life for a number of years.
So, ignoring the Family Division, that leaves Chancery Division, maybe but more likely Queen's Bench Division. But even then you'd ideally be looking for someone from the Technology and Construction Court rather than the Admiralty Court, yeah? Well, there's only six of those sitting in the High Court. What if none of them are available and/or interested?
For these reasons, it would not surprise me if a recently retired judge was selected. But, again, you'd have to find one that wasn't either in Tuscany or well past it.
You suggest using the same person as the individual who compiled the Lakanal enquiry. Well, as far as I can tell, there were three of those, done by the LFB, Met Police and the Coroner. Obviously it would have to be the latter for this matter and Frances Kirkham is indeed sitting as a circuit judge in the T&C Court in Birmingham. She would seem like a possible choice actually but she may not be deemed sufficiently senior (interestingly she's an ex-Bank of England employee and an ex-solicitor, not a barrister) and, being in her 70th year, might not want the gig.
So, please understand this is not like employing a trainee barista at Cafe Nero and it cannot happen overnight.
Edited to add: It's The Lord Chief Justice who is doing the recruiting - not the Government. If an answer is out in less than another week, that's quick.
You can get people in at short notice - I have seen it happen - they can drop/postpone something they are doing presently. An important factor here is that we get quick answers - we can't afford to wait for obvious reasons. There are obstructors in life and doers - there are people who say you can't do this because of this or that and people who say - just do it!
At the very least, if it is impossible to sort out the enquiry quickly, you can set up an inquest and the findings of that inquest could inform the enquiry.
Your suggestion is entirely the wrong way round.
Inquests are routinely opened and then adjourned pending the outcome of any criminal investigations. In addition if there is a public enquiry a Coroner must suspend an investigation into the deceased's death if it is likely that the cause of death will be adequately investigated by an inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005. A Coroner may not need to suspend the investigation if there appears an exceptional reason for not doing so. Rule 25(4) Coroners (Inquest) Rules 2013 Under Rule 25(4) a Coroner must adjourn an inquest and notify the DPP if during the course of the inquest, it appears to the Coroner that the death of the deceased is likely to have been due to a homicide offence and that a person may be charged in relation to the offence.
So, you see, it is important that a coroner's inquest does not second-guess the outcome of either criminal proceedings or a public enquiry. To do so would be entirely wrong in law, would make it difficult to populate juries and might prejudice any subsequent criminal trials.
In any event, even if the enquiry head was appointed quickly, the enquiry itself will and must drag on. This is for any number of reasons. Not the least of which is that evidence gathering is going to be a time-consuming business. Just by way of example, how quickly do you think the LFB's report on the fire will take to compile? You're not suggesting the enquiry should take place without one are you?
Why do we still not know who is leading this public enquiry? A suggestion would be to have it led by the same person who led the Camberwell fire one if possible. Why are things taking so long? Is it to cover tracks? You have to ask this question when you are not seeing the pace and resolve you need to be seeing.
No, it isn't, but you knew that really didn't you? It is only 7 days since May announced there would be an enquiry. How quickly do you think these things can be sorted out?
It's obvious, to me at any rate, why we don't know who is leading the public enquiry yet.
First off, I'm assuming it will be a senior judge. It would, too, be helpful if the judge had a specialism in the field. Judges do indeed tend to have field specialities. So, I'm assuming, that you wouldn't want a random one from, say, the Family Division?
Second, it may surprise you to learn that Judges don't sit around doing nothing on the off-chance that a major two-year public enquiry is going to be falling into their purview. Because, they actually get on with, well, judging and tend to have a quite lengthy list of up-coming cases, some lasting many months. It will take a while before a suitable candidate(s) is identified, that that individual is actually available and probably most importantly whether they are going to be prepared to tie up virtually the whole of their life for a number of years.
So, ignoring the Family Division, that leaves Chancery Division, maybe but more likely Queen's Bench Division. But even then you'd ideally be looking for someone from the Technology and Construction Court rather than the Admiralty Court, yeah? Well, there's only six of those sitting in the High Court. What if none of them are available and/or interested?
For these reasons, it would not surprise me if a recently retired judge was selected. But, again, you'd have to find one that wasn't either in Tuscany or well past it.
You suggest using the same person as the individual who compiled the Lakanal enquiry. Well, as far as I can tell, there were three of those, done by the LFB, Met Police and the Coroner. Obviously it would have to be the latter for this matter and Frances Kirkham is indeed sitting as a circuit judge in the T&C Court in Birmingham. She would seem like a possible choice actually but she may not be deemed sufficiently senior (interestingly she's an ex-Bank of England employee and an ex-solicitor, not a barrister) and, being in her 70th year, might not want the gig.
So, please understand this is not like employing a trainee barista at Cafe Nero and it cannot happen overnight.
Edited to add: It's The Lord Chief Justice who is doing the recruiting - not the Government. If an answer is out in less than another week, that's quick.
You can get people in at short notice - I have seen it happen - they can drop/postpone something they are doing presently. An important factor here is that we get quick answers - we can't afford to wait for obvious reasons. There are obstructors in life and doers - there are people who say you can't do this because of this or that and people who say - just do it!
At the very least, if it is impossible to sort out the enquiry quickly, you can set up an inquest and the findings of that inquest could inform the enquiry.
That's where you are so wrong.
It's important we get the correct answers, otherwise the whole exercise is pointless.
@Addickted in your opinion, can you see anyone taking the rap/responsibility/accountability/blame for this? The more I read the more I think it will be too hard to establish who and where blame lies. I suspect it will be multiple parties and each party to differing degrees of responsibility. My ultimate fear is that the whole thing is so complex and nuanced that no one party or parties will actually be punished.
Just wondered how you see it from your position in the industry etc
So we just hope there isn't another fire before we have dotted all the is I s and crossed all the T s then!
As far as the legal options are concerned. Yes, of course. You don't want prosecutions and changes made to legislation which might be entirely wrong-headed BEFORE any evidence has been tested do you? This is law we are talking about, it takes an age. I am always gobsmacked that anyone thinks this stuff can be dealt with quickly. The number of as yet unanswered questions are huge. Just think about buildings insurance and the complexities there.
That said, stuff will happen. Specs will change. Maybe residents' appliances will be tested (yeah right) and they'll all be provide with fire extinguishers.....
So we just hope there isn't another fire before we have dotted all the is I s and crossed all the T s then!
As we've seen in Camden, you don't need to wait for the outcome of an inquiry to pull down flammable cladding, this must be done, across the country, ASAP.
So we just hope there isn't another fire before we have dotted all the is I s and crossed all the T s then!
As we've seen in Camden, you don't need to wait for the outcome of an inquiry to pull down flammable cladding, this must be done, across the country, ASAP.
I think what was also interesting about Camden is that they said they specified fire resistant panels and have been found they are not! Thank heavens for a council of doers and not pontificators!
Action not words is needed so I'm glad some boroughs are on the ball. Our fire regulations need to be updated and Governments need to stop being so complacent about ignoring recommendations - lessons should have been learnt after the 2009 Southwark fire.
A lot of buildings have been rendered unsafe by the use of unsuitable cladding and this shouldn't have happened - presumably something can be done to prevent this happening again.
It only needs another fire in one of the affected blocks and we could go through the same scenario ago with rapidly spreading fire. This needs urgent attention.
If a car manufacturer built a car with an identifiable fire risk that had killed 70+ people I'd assume the cars would have to be recalled - these buildings need remedial action to minimise the fire risk.
Is the cladding just cosmetic or does it perform any other more structural function?
Cladding doesn't perform a structural function. It is either cosmetic, a rain barrier or thermal performance. In a few cases it might be for acoustic performance.
Why do we still not know who is leading this public enquiry? A suggestion would be to have it led by the same person who led the Camberwell fire one if possible. Why are things taking so long? Is it to cover tracks? You have to ask this question when you are not seeing the pace and resolve you need to be seeing.
No, it isn't, but you knew that really didn't you? It is only 7 days since May announced there would be an enquiry. How quickly do you think these things can be sorted out?
It's obvious, to me at any rate, why we don't know who is leading the public enquiry yet.
First off, I'm assuming it will be a senior judge. It would, too, be helpful if the judge had a specialism in the field. Judges do indeed tend to have field specialities. So, I'm assuming, that you wouldn't want a random one from, say, the Family Division?
Second, it may surprise you to learn that Judges don't sit around doing nothing on the off-chance that a major two-year public enquiry is going to be falling into their purview. Because, they actually get on with, well, judging and tend to have a quite lengthy list of up-coming cases, some lasting many months. It will take a while before a suitable candidate(s) is identified, that that individual is actually available and probably most importantly whether they are going to be prepared to tie up virtually the whole of their life for a number of years.
So, ignoring the Family Division, that leaves Chancery Division, maybe but more likely Queen's Bench Division. But even then you'd ideally be looking for someone from the Technology and Construction Court rather than the Admiralty Court, yeah? Well, there's only six of those sitting in the High Court. What if none of them are available and/or interested?
For these reasons, it would not surprise me if a recently retired judge was selected. But, again, you'd have to find one that wasn't either in Tuscany or well past it.
You suggest using the same person as the individual who compiled the Lakanal enquiry. Well, as far as I can tell, there were three of those, done by the LFB, Met Police and the Coroner. Obviously it would have to be the latter for this matter and Frances Kirkham is indeed sitting as a circuit judge in the T&C Court in Birmingham. She would seem like a possible choice actually but she may not be deemed sufficiently senior (interestingly she's an ex-Bank of England employee and an ex-solicitor, not a barrister) and, being in her 70th year, might not want the gig.
So, please understand this is not like employing a trainee barista at Cafe Nero and it cannot happen overnight.
Edited to add: It's The Lord Chief Justice who is doing the recruiting - not the Government. If an answer is out in less than another week, that's quick.
You can get people in at short notice - I have seen it happen - they can drop/postpone something they are doing presently. An important factor here is that we get quick answers - we can't afford to wait for obvious reasons. There are obstructors in life and doers - there are people who say you can't do this because of this or that and people who say - just do it!
At the very least, if it is impossible to sort out the enquiry quickly, you can set up an inquest and the findings of that inquest could inform the enquiry.
That's where you are so wrong.
It's important we get the correct answers, otherwise the whole exercise is pointless.
@Addickted in your opinion, can you see anyone taking the rap/responsibility/accountability/blame for this? The more I read the more I think it will be too hard to establish who and where blame lies. I suspect it will be multiple parties and each party to differing degrees of responsibility. My ultimate fear is that the whole thing is so complex and nuanced that no one party or parties will actually be punished.
Just wondered how you see it from your position in the industry etc
Yes I can and it's absolutely right they should do.
Southwark Council pleaded guilty to four offences under the Fire Safety Order in February of this year following prosecution for the Lakanal house fire. They were fined £570k (of Southwark tax payers money) and it proves how sick our system is, when their fine was £270k compared to the costs of £300k. That is almost eight years after the fire occurred.
Senior staff at Southwark should have been prosecuted under the Corporate Manslaughter Act and prison sentences should have been given. But this didn't happen. It should for whenever prosecutions happen in the this case and hopefully the executive at K&CTMO because unless this was arson, they are culpable.
The Fire Brigade were very lucky they couldn't prosecute themselves over Lakanal because they made some fatal errors on the day - which does not appear to be the case at Grenfell Towers.
At the moment, all the blame seems to be with the cladding sub contractor, but the main contractor's senior management should also take some responsibility. But we need to wait and see what the fire brigades report says before jumping to conclusions,
I'm disgusted that no one has put their hands up and resigned voluntarily over this.
Why do we still not know who is leading this public enquiry? A suggestion would be to have it led by the same person who led the Camberwell fire one if possible. Why are things taking so long? Is it to cover tracks? You have to ask this question when you are not seeing the pace and resolve you need to be seeing.
No, it isn't, but you knew that really didn't you? It is only 7 days since May announced there would be an enquiry. How quickly do you think these things can be sorted out?
It's obvious, to me at any rate, why we don't know who is leading the public enquiry yet.
First off, I'm assuming it will be a senior judge. It would, too, be helpful if the judge had a specialism in the field. Judges do indeed tend to have field specialities. So, I'm assuming, that you wouldn't want a random one from, say, the Family Division?
Second, it may surprise you to learn that Judges don't sit around doing nothing on the off-chance that a major two-year public enquiry is going to be falling into their purview. Because, they actually get on with, well, judging and tend to have a quite lengthy list of up-coming cases, some lasting many months. It will take a while before a suitable candidate(s) is identified, that that individual is actually available and probably most importantly whether they are going to be prepared to tie up virtually the whole of their life for a number of years.
So, ignoring the Family Division, that leaves Chancery Division, maybe but more likely Queen's Bench Division. But even then you'd ideally be looking for someone from the Technology and Construction Court rather than the Admiralty Court, yeah? Well, there's only six of those sitting in the High Court. What if none of them are available and/or interested?
For these reasons, it would not surprise me if a recently retired judge was selected. But, again, you'd have to find one that wasn't either in Tuscany or well past it.
You suggest using the same person as the individual who compiled the Lakanal enquiry. Well, as far as I can tell, there were three of those, done by the LFB, Met Police and the Coroner. Obviously it would have to be the latter for this matter and Frances Kirkham is indeed sitting as a circuit judge in the T&C Court in Birmingham. She would seem like a possible choice actually but she may not be deemed sufficiently senior (interestingly she's an ex-Bank of England employee and an ex-solicitor, not a barrister) and, being in her 70th year, might not want the gig.
So, please understand this is not like employing a trainee barista at Cafe Nero and it cannot happen overnight.
Edited to add: It's The Lord Chief Justice who is doing the recruiting - not the Government. If an answer is out in less than another week, that's quick.
You can get people in at short notice - I have seen it happen - they can drop/postpone something they are doing presently. An important factor here is that we get quick answers - we can't afford to wait for obvious reasons. There are obstructors in life and doers - there are people who say you can't do this because of this or that and people who say - just do it!
At the very least, if it is impossible to sort out the enquiry quickly, you can set up an inquest and the findings of that inquest could inform the enquiry.
That's where you are so wrong.
It's important we get the correct answers, otherwise the whole exercise is pointless.
@Addickted in your opinion, can you see anyone taking the rap/responsibility/accountability/blame for this? The more I read the more I think it will be too hard to establish who and where blame lies. I suspect it will be multiple parties and each party to differing degrees of responsibility. My ultimate fear is that the whole thing is so complex and nuanced that no one party or parties will actually be punished.
Just wondered how you see it from your position in the industry etc
Yes I can and it's absolutely right they should do.
Southwark Council pleaded guilty to four offences under the Fire Safety Order in February of this year following prosecution for the Lakanal house fire. They were fined £570k (of Southwark tax payers money) and it proves how sick our system is, when their fine was £270k compared to the costs of £300k. That is almost eight years after the fire occurred.
Senior staff at Southwark should have been prosecuted under the Corporate Manslaughter Act and prison sentences should have been given. But this didn't happen. It should for whenever prosecutions happen in the this case and hopefully the executive at K&CTMO because unless this was arson, they are culpable.
The Fire Brigade were very lucky they couldn't prosecute themselves over Lakanal because they made some fatal errors on the day - which does not appear to be the case at Grenfell Towers.
At the moment, all the blame seems to be with the cladding sub contractor, but the main contractor's senior management should also take some responsibility. But we need to wait and see what the fire brigades report says before jumping to conclusions,
I'm disgusted that no one has put their hands up and resigned voluntarily over this.
I think the days of people resigning voluntarily are long gone....
So we just hope there isn't another fire before we have dotted all the is I s and crossed all the T s then!
As we've seen in Camden, you don't need to wait for the outcome of an inquiry to pull down flammable cladding, this must be done, across the country, ASAP.
I think what was also interesting about Camden is that they said they specified fire resistant panels and have been found they are not! Thank heavens for a council of doers and not pontificators!
It's a shame that Camden Council didn't ensure this was the case during construction.
If what was installed was not what was specified they could at least look at suing the installers for breach of contract.
I'm really not sure how they can remove this cladding without effecting the original envelope of the building. At the very least they will become an aesthetic eyesore and at worst non-habitable.
Croydon Council are shouting from the roof tops that they're going to retrofit sprinklers in all their stock of ten storeys or more. Very admirable until you see they're actually not - they're going to bring the question to the Council's scrutiny panel in September.
Why do we still not know who is leading this public enquiry? A suggestion would be to have it led by the same person who led the Camberwell fire one if possible. Why are things taking so long? Is it to cover tracks? You have to ask this question when you are not seeing the pace and resolve you need to be seeing.
No, it isn't, but you knew that really didn't you? It is only 7 days since May announced there would be an enquiry. How quickly do you think these things can be sorted out?
It's obvious, to me at any rate, why we don't know who is leading the public enquiry yet.
First off, I'm assuming it will be a senior judge. It would, too, be helpful if the judge had a specialism in the field. Judges do indeed tend to have field specialities. So, I'm assuming, that you wouldn't want a random one from, say, the Family Division?
Second, it may surprise you to learn that Judges don't sit around doing nothing on the off-chance that a major two-year public enquiry is going to be falling into their purview. Because, they actually get on with, well, judging and tend to have a quite lengthy list of up-coming cases, some lasting many months. It will take a while before a suitable candidate(s) is identified, that that individual is actually available and probably most importantly whether they are going to be prepared to tie up virtually the whole of their life for a number of years.
So, ignoring the Family Division, that leaves Chancery Division, maybe but more likely Queen's Bench Division. But even then you'd ideally be looking for someone from the Technology and Construction Court rather than the Admiralty Court, yeah? Well, there's only six of those sitting in the High Court. What if none of them are available and/or interested?
For these reasons, it would not surprise me if a recently retired judge was selected. But, again, you'd have to find one that wasn't either in Tuscany or well past it.
You suggest using the same person as the individual who compiled the Lakanal enquiry. Well, as far as I can tell, there were three of those, done by the LFB, Met Police and the Coroner. Obviously it would have to be the latter for this matter and Frances Kirkham is indeed sitting as a circuit judge in the T&C Court in Birmingham. She would seem like a possible choice actually but she may not be deemed sufficiently senior (interestingly she's an ex-Bank of England employee and an ex-solicitor, not a barrister) and, being in her 70th year, might not want the gig.
So, please understand this is not like employing a trainee barista at Cafe Nero and it cannot happen overnight.
Edited to add: It's The Lord Chief Justice who is doing the recruiting - not the Government. If an answer is out in less than another week, that's quick.
You can get people in at short notice - I have seen it happen - they can drop/postpone something they are doing presently. An important factor here is that we get quick answers - we can't afford to wait for obvious reasons. There are obstructors in life and doers - there are people who say you can't do this because of this or that and people who say - just do it!
At the very least, if it is impossible to sort out the enquiry quickly, you can set up an inquest and the findings of that inquest could inform the enquiry.
That's where you are so wrong.
It's important we get the correct answers, otherwise the whole exercise is pointless.
@Addickted in your opinion, can you see anyone taking the rap/responsibility/accountability/blame for this? The more I read the more I think it will be too hard to establish who and where blame lies. I suspect it will be multiple parties and each party to differing degrees of responsibility. My ultimate fear is that the whole thing is so complex and nuanced that no one party or parties will actually be punished.
Just wondered how you see it from your position in the industry etc
Yes I can and it's absolutely right they should do.
Southwark Council pleaded guilty to four offences under the Fire Safety Order in February of this year following prosecution for the Lakanal house fire. They were fined £570k (of Southwark tax payers money) and it proves how sick our system is, when their fine was £270k compared to the costs of £300k. That is almost eight years after the fire occurred.
Senior staff at Southwark should have been prosecuted under the Corporate Manslaughter Act and prison sentences should have been given. But this didn't happen. It should for whenever prosecutions happen in the this case and hopefully the executive at K&CTMO because unless this was arson, they are culpable.
The Fire Brigade were very lucky they couldn't prosecute themselves over Lakanal because they made some fatal errors on the day - which does not appear to be the case at Grenfell Towers.
At the moment, all the blame seems to be with the cladding sub contractor, but the main contractor's senior management should also take some responsibility. But we need to wait and see what the fire brigades report says before jumping to conclusions,
I'm disgusted that no one has put their hands up and resigned voluntarily over this.
Well you shouldn't be. Here's a bog standard clause chosen at random. It's from Axa's public liability insurance policy booklet. But it could be from anyone's; they'll all have something similar. "You may not accept, negotiate, pay, settle, admit (my emphasis) or repudiate any claim without our written consent."
If people want victims to actually get paid out at the end of the day, you just have to comply with what your insurance company tells you. Someone resigning and "holding their hands up" is likely to be in breach of the policy and is just not going to happen. So don't be disgusted about it. Accept it for what it is. In the event that any culpability is shared amongst varying entities, the insurance costs will have to be too: that's the only way it can work. Everything happens like this. Your car insurer tells you never to admit guilt or say sorry. The truth of the matter is that the vast majority of people are not actually suitably clued up to be able to discern whether or not they are actually culpable and to what degree.
From what I've read it was mainly about insulation.
most cladding these days is for thermal insulation. Cladding has been used as a rain screen for centuries though. Tiles and slates for example.
The government may have provided incentives to local authorities in the form of grants similar to the Green Deal Eco. Lots of installations under these schemes were inappropriate as new cowboy companies popped up and disappear as soon as the grant period ends.
Environmentally friendly materials not based on petrochemicals were almost never allowed to be used with grant aid under these schemes. Cynics might say this is because the Government minister don't have shares in environmentally friendly companies. I honestly have no idea of the reason.
Wood fibre board or cork insulation panels for example are admittedly less thermally efficient but tend to just char rather than burn in the way the PIR panels did on Grenfell. I am pretty sure that they don't off gas cyanide either.
If the PIR boards were rendered rather than clad with an air gap creating a chimney effect, the disaster is likely to have been avoided in my opinion.
Comments
There are lots of areas to look at in the aftermath of this disaster and I would concede national housing policy is probably quite low on that list.
What the hell do you think I've been doing for the past seven years I've been doing my job? I've ignored nothing - indeed I've been proactive and taken unilateral decisions that I've been criticised for by Senior Staff.
I've also been heavily involved in working for the National Housing Federation Fire Safety Group who have been making recommendations for fire safety improvements, not least the retro fitting of sprinkler systems to high rise blocks for the past five years.
I do not make legislation, nor do have I had much influence (until recently) in getting my organisation to develop stock with sprinklers because of the cost/funding models/service charges. They put with my constant issue raising, normally with the mantra, 'we do what we have to do'.
If nothing else this horrific incident has put fire safety at the top of the political agenda - or until people become more interested in Brexit - and perhaps fire safety in this Country will become better resourced in all areas.
It's obvious, to me at any rate, why we don't know who is leading the public enquiry yet.
First off, I'm assuming it will be a senior judge. It would, too, be helpful if the judge had a specialism in the field. Judges do indeed tend to have field specialities. So, I'm assuming, that you wouldn't want a random one from, say, the Family Division?
Second, it may surprise you to learn that Judges don't sit around doing nothing on the off-chance that a major two-year public enquiry is going to be falling into their purview. Because, they actually get on with, well, judging and tend to have a quite lengthy list of up-coming cases, some lasting many months. It will take a while before a suitable candidate(s) is identified, that that individual is actually available and probably most importantly whether they are going to be prepared to tie up virtually the whole of their life for a number of years.
So, ignoring the Family Division, that leaves Chancery Division, maybe but more likely Queen's Bench Division. But even then you'd ideally be looking for someone from the Technology and Construction Court rather than the Admiralty Court, yeah? Well, there's only six of those sitting in the High Court. What if none of them are available and/or interested?
For these reasons, it would not surprise me if a recently retired judge was selected. But, again, you'd have to find one that wasn't either in Tuscany or well past it.
You suggest using the same person as the individual who compiled the Lakanal enquiry. Well, as far as I can tell, there were three of those, done by the LFB, Met Police and the Coroner. Obviously it would have to be the latter for this matter and Frances Kirkham is indeed sitting as a circuit judge in the T&C Court in Birmingham. She would seem like a possible choice actually but she may not be deemed sufficiently senior (interestingly she's an ex-Bank of England employee and an ex-solicitor, not a barrister) and, being in her 70th year, might not want the gig.
So, please understand this is not like employing a trainee barista at Cafe Nero and it cannot happen overnight.
Edited to add: It's The Lord Chief Justice who is doing the recruiting - not the Government. If an answer is out in less than another week, that's quick.
At the very least, if it is impossible to sort out the enquiry quickly, you can set up an inquest and the findings of that inquest could inform the enquiry.
It's important we get the correct answers, otherwise the whole exercise is pointless.
Inquests are routinely opened and then adjourned pending the outcome of any criminal investigations.
In addition if there is a public enquiry a Coroner must suspend an investigation into the deceased's death if it is likely that the cause of death will be adequately investigated by an inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005. A Coroner may not need to suspend the investigation if there appears an exceptional reason for not doing so.
Rule 25(4) Coroners (Inquest) Rules 2013
Under Rule 25(4) a Coroner must adjourn an inquest and notify the DPP if during the course of the inquest, it appears to the Coroner that the death of the deceased is likely to have been due to a homicide offence and that a person may be charged in relation to the offence.
So, you see, it is important that a coroner's inquest does not second-guess the outcome of either criminal proceedings or a public enquiry. To do so would be entirely wrong in law, would make it difficult to populate juries and might prejudice any subsequent criminal trials.
In any event, even if the enquiry head was appointed quickly, the enquiry itself will and must drag on. This is for any number of reasons. Not the least of which is that evidence gathering is going to be a time-consuming business. Just by way of example, how quickly do you think the LFB's report on the fire will take to compile? You're not suggesting the enquiry should take place without one are you?
Just wondered how you see it from your position in the industry etc
That said, stuff will happen. Specs will change. Maybe residents' appliances will be tested (yeah right) and they'll all be provide with fire extinguishers.....
FWIW I think you are both right, we need the correct/factual truth and ASAP. No point getting it wrong but quickly and also we can't wait 3 years.
I think things are moving, seems they have established the numbers effected, the scale of the issue means it won't happen over night.
A lot of buildings have been rendered unsafe by the use of unsuitable cladding and this shouldn't have happened - presumably something can be done to prevent this happening again.
It only needs another fire in one of the affected blocks and we could go through the same scenario ago with rapidly spreading fire. This needs urgent attention.
If a car manufacturer built a car with an identifiable fire risk that had killed 70+ people I'd assume the cars would have to be recalled - these buildings need remedial action to minimise the fire risk.
Southwark Council pleaded guilty to four offences under the Fire Safety Order in February of this year following prosecution for the Lakanal house fire. They were fined £570k (of Southwark tax payers money) and it proves how sick our system is, when their fine was £270k compared to the costs of £300k. That is almost eight years after the fire occurred.
Senior staff at Southwark should have been prosecuted under the Corporate Manslaughter Act and prison sentences should have been given. But this didn't happen. It should for whenever prosecutions happen in the this case and hopefully the executive at K&CTMO because unless this was arson, they are culpable.
The Fire Brigade were very lucky they couldn't prosecute themselves over Lakanal because they made some fatal errors on the day - which does not appear to be the case at Grenfell Towers.
At the moment, all the blame seems to be with the cladding sub contractor, but the main contractor's senior management should also take some responsibility. But we need to wait and see what the fire brigades report says before jumping to conclusions,
I'm disgusted that no one has put their hands up and resigned voluntarily over this.
If what was installed was not what was specified they could at least look at suing the installers for breach of contract.
I'm really not sure how they can remove this cladding without effecting the original envelope of the building. At the very least they will become an aesthetic eyesore and at worst non-habitable.
Croydon Council are shouting from the roof tops that they're going to retrofit sprinklers in all their stock of ten storeys or more. Very admirable until you see they're actually not - they're going to bring the question to the Council's scrutiny panel in September.
If people want victims to actually get paid out at the end of the day, you just have to comply with what your insurance company tells you. Someone resigning and "holding their hands up" is likely to be in breach of the policy and is just not going to happen. So don't be disgusted about it. Accept it for what it is. In the event that any culpability is shared amongst varying entities, the insurance costs will have to be too: that's the only way it can work. Everything happens like this. Your car insurer tells you never to admit guilt or say sorry. The truth of the matter is that the vast majority of people are not actually suitably clued up to be able to discern whether or not they are actually culpable and to what degree.
The government may have provided incentives to local authorities in the form of grants similar to the Green Deal Eco. Lots of installations under these schemes were inappropriate as new cowboy companies popped up and disappear as soon as the grant period ends.
Environmentally friendly materials not based on petrochemicals were almost never allowed to be used with grant aid under these schemes. Cynics might say this is because the Government minister
don't have shares in environmentally friendly companies. I honestly have no idea of the reason.
Wood fibre board or cork insulation panels for example are admittedly less thermally efficient but tend to just char rather than burn in the way the PIR panels did on Grenfell. I am pretty sure that they don't off gas cyanide either.
If the PIR boards were rendered rather than clad with an air gap creating a chimney effect, the disaster is likely to have been avoided in my opinion.