How many sprinkler companies do you think are out there to carry out any retrofitting that everyone is expecting?
This, plus the lead times for raw materials will be massive - especially if all the orders go in at once. I fear that the pressure to do everything all at once and yesterday is going to lead to nothing getting done properly.
Now is the time to get things done properly, the purse strings are open - but just because every building has not been recladded and retrofitted with sprinklers yesterday doesn't mean nothing is happening.
Communication has been utter shite though, the government should have appointed a 'czar' for all comms to flow through, taking the strain of individual councils. The line needs to be, this is what we are doing and why it is the right way to do it. This 'czar' should be an expert from outside the government, to depoliticise this situation as much as possible.
i loved my time working for lewisham council, but despite the clear talent that did work for them in a lot of areas, comms was not where the best and the brightest went!
i do think that's the way it should be though, leave the experienced people to do their jobs, they shouldn't be fact finding and arse covering for their superiors. The government should take the heat right now and make changes at local level after a solution is in place (a solution to the crisis i mean). I bet a few councils are even spending some budget on crisis PR, just a hunch.
It always used to happen in education, if an MP asked our director a question, everything stopped until they had their answer, no matter how important the job we were doing at the time (providing SEN statements for kids btw) its a shocking waste of resources, and it seems to me that is what is happening now.
I'm not allowed to talk to the meeja - all has to go through my Comms team, (which has more members of staff than I do).
Had to turn important TV chanels down like BBC Asian network and RTE. High powered fire expert me - in great demand
I've had media training and it sounds like money for old rope, but it's not, and even though BBC Asia and RTE may sound like slim pickings, journalists can spin anything when they sense prey. Make a mistake locally and it goes national quickly.
I'm doing it because it matters to me despite being lucky enough to be in a position where I could tell them "I told you so" and telling them to stick it.
Not a single word of thanks either.
I know it doesn't really help Addickted, but thank you.
They take for ever then pick a controversial judge in relation to the specifics of this enquiry. Not saying he wouldn't be totally honest, but can't see how the families will accept the choice which has implications down the line. Are these people in authority really as stupid as they seemingly keep demonstrating?
They take for ever then pick a controversial judge in relation to the specifics of this enquiry. Not saying he wouldn't be totally honest, but can't see how the families will accept the choice which has implications down the line. Are these people in authority really as stupid as they seemingly keep demonstrating?
Unfortunately,they are. We all know this enquiry should be totally independent as its the only way to ensure theres no cover up.
They take for ever then pick a controversial judge in relation to the specifics of this enquiry. Not saying he wouldn't be totally honest, but can't see how the families will accept the choice which has implications down the line. Are these people in authority really as stupid as they seemingly keep demonstrating?
You seem to be falling for some journalistic spin. So, go on then, find me a judge anywhere in the UK working or retired who has served for a long period of time and you'll find one that has made "controversial decisions". (What does that even mean? In this case it seems to be that the graunidad has scrabbled around and found one mildly tricky matter. Big deal. Every judge has had decisions overturned. Sometimes they get things wrong. In any event the very nature of their work means they can't keep everyone happy all the time.)
As I pointed out to you previously the appointment was within the ambit of the Lord Chief Justice; not politicians. Without exception, every judge I have ever had to deal with has been unfailingly fair, extraordinarily intelligent and perhaps most importantly is able to quickly grasp and understand subject matter. Are you suggesting the Lord Chief Justice is in some way thick? Because if that's true and as he's presently the best of the bunch, we really are in the shit.
Chair of inquiry predicting there will be an outcry as his brief is strictly limited to grenfell tower fire and no wider.
Perhaps this is to ensure that we don't have the whole matter dragging out to save the survivors unnecessary anguish and drive new rules/laws more quickly?
I suspect that we might all feel short changed as surely this issue is due to systemic failures and therefore demands root and branch investigations.
I certainly wouldn't want to think at the end of this process, following on from so much pain that we didn't all know why a large percentage of the country is literally living and possibly working in death traps.
I get the feeling that whomever carries out the Inquiry, you'd find a reason to object.
You've already made your mind up.
You see, I think the irony is that to me your mind has been totally closed, given that you have strong expertise in the field that nobody else has, I have sensed from your posts an unwillingness to listen to the contributions of others. So thanks for judging me, I'll judge you back.
As for my point, it is an important one - the historic sex abuse enquiry had to change it's leader 4 times beacause not enough was done - on two occasions anyway to consider potential objections from victims. How the victims percieve this appointment, not me, is going to determine how smoothly the enquiry goes.
Why not try to get the chair of the Camberwell fire enquiry? There would be lots of learned expertise there. If they couldn't at least let people know they were the first choice! Also worrying that this judge is saying the enquiry will only focus on how fire started and spread - that seems to go against what politicians have been openly promising.
You can bet your life that many of those who have been screaming blue murder of corruption and neglect by the councils and government are the same dirty bstds that have used their flats that they have been given and rented them fraudulently exploiting the same people they are crying about ,
During the the enquiry I hope that we learn all the facts and we expose not only those who took back handers within the building contracts but also dig deep and hard to expose the ease of which the scum who deliberately sub let and exploit those in need and put things in place to stop it
Those that rented out rooms to family's meaning in some of those flats there were 3 x the amount of people living in there than what was believed are as guilty of them dying as the builders and government
Why not try to get the chair of the Camberwell fire enquiry? There would be lots of learned expertise there. If they couldn't at least let people know they were the first choice! Also worrying that this judge is saying the enquiry will only focus on how fire started and spread - that seems to go against what politicians have been openly promising.
We've done this to death. She's now retired from UK judging. But she's still working. She's a Justice of the Qatar International Court and Dispute Resolution Centre. Would that be "controversial" at all, do you think? I refer you to the construction deaths on the World Cup stadia..... Just chill and stop assuming everyone is corrupt.
Why not try to get the chair of the Camberwell fire enquiry? There would be lots of learned expertise there. If they couldn't at least let people know they were the first choice! Also worrying that this judge is saying the enquiry will only focus on how fire started and spread - that seems to go against what politicians have been openly promising.
We've done this to death. She's now retired from UK judging. But she's still working. She's a Justice of the Qatar International Court and Dispute Resolution Centre. Would that be "controversial" at all, do you think? I refer you to the construction deaths on the World Cup stadia..... Just chill and stop assuming everyone is corrupt.
A lot of people are - but my point is that the judge has to satisfy the victims not me. I haven't made any direct comment about his honesty. Nothing will be served by this judge being pressured off like the historic abuse ones. Getting these things right from the beginning is important and promises were made to the residents that have to be kept. You shouldn't be telling me to chill but the residents! I am just making what seems to be an obvious point! That it is lost on you that it is not political but practical is not my fault!
But the Inquiry is not taking place to satisfy the victims.
It's there to examine the facts. How the fire started, how it was able to spread so rapidly, what precautions were in place to prevent the spread of fire, what steps were taken to alert residents of a fire and why was the stay put policy ineffective.
The result of the inquiry will then allow the CPS to take the decision if any criminal prosecutions are necessary. If there have been any deliberate and criminal activities that have taken place then quite rightly those involved should be prosecuted and receive heavy sentences, rather than just the fines given to Southwark after the Lakanal inquiry which punished nobody but Southwark Council tax payers.
I really hope to see some Corporate Manslaughter convictions, though I expect this will be very difficult to prove.
From my point of view, I want to know what went wrong, how it went wrong and what is the best course of action to ensure this disaster is not repeated.
Thank you again Addickted - I struggle with some modern day mentality.
It is not for people to impose any requirement on the nature of the enquiry. Society's need is to understand why the scale of the Grenfell Tower fire and loss of life happened. It is about determining a chain of events, the contributing elements to those events, the reasons for those elements and who was responsible for them before, during & after the events.
No enquiry can be all things to all parties. It will deliver a range of findings to bring clarity to the victims of the fire and lay down a pathway to justice for their loss. There will be matters arising from each finding including the pursuit of accountability and due legal process.
I am sure local residents will want a number of social challenges addressed but let them come from the facts of the enquiry. To force a broader remit up front, will complicate, delay and likely dilute the process.
Trial by media will pervert the course of justice. Stop prejudging the issues. Stop trying to rewrite the process of law.
Facts will out.
We had that stain on humanity Morgan lambasting a Minister for not divulging more of the current situation. His interview screamed of his self importance as he chose to insert himself into a matter of national importance as per his US gun debate fiasco.
No government official can determine the number of dead if the nature of the fire & building stability inhibits the collection of corpses/ DNA from certain areas (no matter how many people you throw at it). Areas of the building are not safe. Pursuit of this aspect of peoples' loss is voyeuristic. Are 80 dead not enough? People will know their loss if loved ones have not been found. If you suggest the recovery services do not know the victims' need for closure try spending a day in their shoes.
Nor can government determine the legality of the materials used. They can speak to their interpretation of the regulations. The legality or otherwise is a matter for due legal process.
The role of central government is to CONSTRUCT the law.
The role of an independent judiciary & police is to interpret, implement & uphold the law.
THE EVIDENCE suggests there is the real possibility this IS going to go back decades and way beyond party politics. Every government ultimately fails but central government has never had the capacity to micro manage local government.
Cladding products using flammable material have been used on social & private housing and commercial use tower blocks, across the country, under ALL POLITICAL national & local administrations. Initial concerns were raised in 1990. The Camden refit was 2006/2009. Yet some remain determined to link their political ideology to the specific causes of the Grenfell Tower. It is the blame politics of the gutter.
The Lakanal Tower fire report as clarified by its author who spent 41yrs in the fire service did NOT mandate the use of sprinklers systems. The recommendation "encourages" property managers "to give every consideration" to the retrograde installation of sprinklers alongside a number of fire protection systems. Where death has occurred Coroners have rightly made recommendations under Rule 43 reports.
It is unclear what action this government took in response to coroner calls for sprinkler systems.
Government communications, circa May 2013; a) indicate local government funding to develop guidance on the management of fire risk in tower blocks where housing sector feedback was deemed positive and sufficient to address issues highlighted b) refer to a letter sent to social housing companies after the deaths of Southampton fire fighters.
The DCLG (subject to legal process) advise it will not make the letters public.
Fire protections systems are crucial to saving lives but no fire protection system is designed to counter underlying construction failure. The first focus must be the spread of the fire. Prevention is the priority. Protection is a close 2nd.
Where this government may today be held accountable is any delay in revisiting fire regulations. It asserted in 2013 it would consider if “revised documentation” was needed. Its role will become clear under the public enquiry.
I await the facts but there appears to be a real misunderstanding of how UK regulations are structured. Regulations today are based on governing principles not specifics being "purposefully" designed to prevent the creation and manipulation of loopholes.
It is the responsibility of those operating within the sphere of such governance to uphold those principles.
The results of the current cladding tests suggest a clear disconnect.
Regulations may set a product standard but that does not absolve any entity from a professional and personal duty of care. No set of regulations can cover every combination of building design/ construct/ materials and their interaction. You would need to rewrite/ relearn new regulations every 3mnths. Nothing would get built/ upgraded. Hence product certification is oft deferred to industry bodies but adherence to governing principles throughout is paramount. Thousands in the industry will follow such due diligence.
If you build a house on sand it will fall down. If you go to sea in a boat full of holes it will sink. If you install flammable material IT WILL BURN.
We all make decisions within/ without regulatory guidelines. I made my commercial decisions, against a background of Bank Regulation, but with a working knowledge of the industries in which I sought to invest and an appraisal of those charged with delivering to the investment. I was accountable.
It is never a tick box exercise.
Yet it appears there have been council executives, administrations, property managers, building contractors, service providers, building regulators, fire officials across the country for possibly 25yrs under the governing principles of the regulations who have apparently allowed use of flammable products in upgrading premises.
I sometimes think we need to introduce a basic course of civics into our school curriculum. No matter the regulations - under common law there is the "requirement of every citizen to do no harm to others".
If an individual or group of individuals contract out the installation of flammable products then they, and all parties to such decision will be jointly & severally liable. It is an inherent duty of care. There is a case to answer for each contract.
Much will depend on the details of the contracts entered into. If councils & their agencies have merely relied on general reference to prevailing building & fire regulations then the interpretation of those building & fire regulations and any ambiguity therein will be key.
If contracts specifically detail the standard of materials to be used and different sub standard materials have been used then there is a breach of contract and duty of care. If the contractor has gained financial benefit from such change then a fraud will have been committed. Where death has occurred by the pursuit of such practices then individual, collective & corporate manslaughter must be a consideration.
Though shocked at the scale of it, regrettably recalling my 1980 experiences I cannot on reflection say I am overly surprised. Too many people did not take these issues seriously enough. Perfectly capable but unthinking business managers simply did not reflect on their duty of care.
Even today we see the actions of some understandably upset residents refusing to leave their premises. I appreciate their trauma, their upset and the uncertainty in leaving your home for any given period but by remaining in those properties they place others, notably fire & emergency personnel charged with their care, at risk.
I can but repeat it is the responsibility of us all to "do no harm to others".
Comments
Now is the time to get things done properly, the purse strings are open - but just because every building has not been recladded and retrofitted with sprinklers yesterday doesn't mean nothing is happening.
Communication has been utter shite though, the government should have appointed a 'czar' for all comms to flow through, taking the strain of individual councils. The line needs to be, this is what we are doing and why it is the right way to do it. This 'czar' should be an expert from outside the government, to depoliticise this situation as much as possible.
The media are finding plenty of non government experts to act as talking heads, could start there.
Had to turn important TV chanels down like BBC Asian network and RTE. High powered fire expert me - in great demand
i do think that's the way it should be though, leave the experienced people to do their jobs, they shouldn't be fact finding and arse covering for their superiors. The government should take the heat right now and make changes at local level after a solution is in place (a solution to the crisis i mean). I bet a few councils are even spending some budget on crisis PR, just a hunch.
It always used to happen in education, if an MP asked our director a question, everything stopped until they had their answer, no matter how important the job we were doing at the time (providing SEN statements for kids btw) its a shocking waste of resources, and it seems to me that is what is happening now.
As I pointed out to you previously the appointment was within the ambit of the Lord Chief Justice; not politicians. Without exception, every judge I have ever had to deal with has been unfailingly fair, extraordinarily intelligent and perhaps most importantly is able to quickly grasp and understand subject matter. Are you suggesting the Lord Chief Justice is in some way thick? Because if that's true and as he's presently the best of the bunch, we really are in the shit.
You've already made your mind up.
He agreed that someone could be re-housed in Milton Keynes.
Perhaps this is to ensure that we don't have the whole matter dragging out to save the survivors unnecessary anguish and drive new rules/laws more quickly?
I suspect that we might all feel short changed as surely this issue is due to systemic failures and therefore demands root and branch investigations.
I certainly wouldn't want to think at the end of this process, following on from so much pain that we didn't all know why a large percentage of the country is literally living and possibly working in death traps.
As for my point, it is an important one - the historic sex abuse enquiry had to change it's leader 4 times beacause not enough was done - on two occasions anyway to consider potential objections from victims. How the victims percieve this appointment, not me, is going to determine how smoothly the enquiry goes.
During the the enquiry I hope that we learn all the facts and we expose not only those who took back handers within the building contracts but also dig deep and hard to expose the ease of which the scum who deliberately sub let and exploit those in need and put things in place to stop it
Those that rented out rooms to family's meaning in some of those flats there were 3 x the amount of people living in there than what was believed are as guilty of them dying as the builders and government
It's there to examine the facts. How the fire started, how it was able to spread so rapidly, what precautions were in place to prevent the spread of fire, what steps were taken to alert residents of a fire and why was the stay put policy ineffective.
The result of the inquiry will then allow the CPS to take the decision if any criminal prosecutions are necessary. If there have been any deliberate and criminal activities that have taken place then quite rightly those involved should be prosecuted and receive heavy sentences, rather than just the fines given to Southwark after the Lakanal inquiry which punished nobody but Southwark Council tax payers.
I really hope to see some Corporate Manslaughter convictions, though I expect this will be very difficult to prove.
From my point of view, I want to know what went wrong, how it went wrong and what is the best course of action to ensure this disaster is not repeated.
It is not for people to impose any requirement on the nature of the enquiry. Society's need is to understand why the scale of the Grenfell Tower fire and loss of life happened. It is about determining a chain of events, the contributing elements to those events, the reasons for those elements and who was responsible for them before, during & after the events.
No enquiry can be all things to all parties. It will deliver a range of findings to bring clarity to the victims of the fire and lay down a pathway to justice for their loss. There will be matters arising from each finding including the pursuit of accountability and due legal process.
I am sure local residents will want a number of social challenges addressed but let them come from the facts of the enquiry. To force a broader remit up front, will complicate, delay and likely dilute the process.
Trial by media will pervert the course of justice. Stop prejudging the issues. Stop trying to rewrite the process of law.
Facts will out.
We had that stain on humanity Morgan lambasting a Minister for not divulging more of the current situation. His interview screamed of his self importance as he chose to insert himself into a matter of national importance as per his US gun debate fiasco.
No government official can determine the number of dead if the nature of the fire & building stability inhibits the collection of corpses/ DNA from certain areas (no matter how many people you throw at it). Areas of the building are not safe. Pursuit of this aspect of peoples' loss is voyeuristic. Are 80 dead not enough? People will know their loss if loved ones have not been found. If you suggest the recovery services do not know the victims' need for closure try spending a day in their shoes.
Nor can government determine the legality of the materials used. They can speak to their interpretation of the regulations. The legality or otherwise is a matter for due legal process.
The role of central government is to CONSTRUCT the law.
The role of an independent judiciary & police is to interpret, implement & uphold the law.
THE EVIDENCE suggests there is the real possibility this IS going to go back decades and way beyond party politics. Every government ultimately fails but central government has never had the capacity to micro manage local government.
Cladding products using flammable material have been used on social & private housing and commercial use tower blocks, across the country, under ALL POLITICAL national & local administrations. Initial concerns were raised in 1990. The Camden refit was 2006/2009. Yet some remain determined to link their political ideology to the specific causes of the Grenfell Tower. It is the blame politics of the gutter.
The Lakanal Tower fire report as clarified by its author who spent 41yrs in the fire service did NOT mandate the use of sprinklers systems. The recommendation "encourages" property managers "to give every consideration" to the retrograde installation of sprinklers alongside a number of fire protection systems. Where death has occurred Coroners have rightly made recommendations under Rule 43 reports.
It is unclear what action this government took in response to coroner calls for sprinkler systems.
Government communications, circa May 2013;
a) indicate local government funding to develop guidance on the management of fire risk in tower blocks where housing sector feedback was deemed positive and sufficient to address issues highlighted
b) refer to a letter sent to social housing companies after the deaths of Southampton fire fighters.
The DCLG (subject to legal process) advise it will not make the letters public.
Fire protections systems are crucial to saving lives but no fire protection system is designed to counter underlying construction failure. The first focus must be the spread of the fire. Prevention is the priority. Protection is a close 2nd.
Where this government may today be held accountable is any delay in revisiting fire regulations. It asserted in 2013 it would consider if “revised documentation” was needed. Its role will become clear under the public enquiry.
I await the facts but there appears to be a real misunderstanding of how UK regulations are structured. Regulations today are based on governing principles not specifics being "purposefully" designed to prevent the creation and manipulation of loopholes.
It is the responsibility of those operating within the sphere of such governance to uphold those principles.
The results of the current cladding tests suggest a clear disconnect.
Regulations may set a product standard but that does not absolve any entity from a professional and personal duty of care. No set of regulations can cover every combination of building design/ construct/ materials and their interaction. You would need to rewrite/ relearn new regulations every 3mnths. Nothing would get built/ upgraded. Hence product certification is oft deferred to industry bodies but adherence to governing principles throughout is paramount. Thousands in the industry will follow such due diligence.
If you build a house on sand it will fall down. If you go to sea in a boat full of holes it will sink. If you install flammable material IT WILL BURN.
We all make decisions within/ without regulatory guidelines. I made my commercial decisions, against a background of Bank Regulation, but with a working knowledge of the industries in which I sought to invest and an appraisal of those charged with delivering to the investment. I was accountable.
It is never a tick box exercise.
Yet it appears there have been council executives, administrations, property managers, building contractors, service providers, building regulators, fire officials across the country for possibly 25yrs under the governing principles of the regulations who have apparently allowed use of flammable products in upgrading premises.
I sometimes think we need to introduce a basic course of civics into our school curriculum. No matter the regulations - under common law there is the "requirement of every citizen to do no harm to others".
If an individual or group of individuals contract out the installation of flammable products then they, and all parties to such decision will be jointly & severally liable. It is an inherent duty of care. There is a case to answer for each contract.
Much will depend on the details of the contracts entered into. If councils & their agencies have merely relied on general reference to prevailing building & fire regulations then the interpretation of those building & fire regulations and any ambiguity therein will be key.
If contracts specifically detail the standard of materials to be used and different sub standard materials have been used then there is a breach of contract and duty of care. If the contractor has gained financial benefit from such change then a fraud will have been committed. Where death has occurred by the pursuit of such practices then individual, collective & corporate manslaughter must be a consideration.
Though shocked at the scale of it, regrettably recalling my 1980 experiences I cannot on reflection say I am overly surprised. Too many people did not take these issues seriously enough. Perfectly capable but unthinking business managers simply did not reflect on their duty of care.
Even today we see the actions of some understandably upset residents refusing to leave their premises. I appreciate their trauma, their upset and the uncertainty in leaving your home for any given period but by remaining in those properties they place others, notably fire & emergency personnel charged with their care, at risk.
I can but repeat it is the responsibility of us all to "do no harm to others".