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".
Thank you grapevine a very rational piece, that makes clear the issues that need to be addressed, just a shame you do not work for the press. We might get less hysteria.
I have an observation. The article seems to be claiming that EU legislation "trumps" UK legislation and that's why less good (more bad) cladding could legitimately be fitted. I'm not convinced that is the case.
My understanding, and I could well be wrong, is that there are three varieties of EU legislation: Exclusive, Shared and Supporting. Items considered to be exclusive matters consist of a very short list. I would think that fire regs would come under "supporting competences" in that they are to do with either "protection and improvement of human health" (my emphasis); or "civil protection". In such matters EU legislation does not require harmonisation. So, as long as UK law was as good as or better, it would not be trumped by EU law. (By way of example, on a different topic, the EU requires two-year warranties on electrical goods. We haven't subsumed that into UK legislation on the basis that we have, in theory and thanks to the statute of limitations, a six-year time limit on claims. The fact this is unwieldy, pretty much unworkable and requires the consumer to take the matter to court and prove the product is faulty is neither here nor there it seems!)
No doubt we await the outcome of the enquiry before the actual situation can be stated with any degree of accuracy.
But given the circumstances, it is essential the views of the victims are fully factored in. The government decides the terms of reference so it isn't unreasonable for them to do this. Especially as they have promised as much. Sometimes it isn't just about justic e being done, but being seen to be done.
We all want to learn EVERY lesson that can be learned from this - and one of those be be around listening to the concerns of non-experts. But let's do it properly and see.
But given the circumstances, it is essential the views of the victims are fully factored in. The government decides the terms of reference so it isn't unreasonable for them to do this. Especially as they have promised as much. Sometimes it isn't just about justic e being done, but being seen to be done.
We all want to learn EVERY lesson that can be learned from this - and one of those be be around listening to the concerns of non-experts. But let's do it properly and see.
But that's not the role of the Inquiry. As hard as you might find it, It's not about emotions, it's about facts. I'm struggling to comprehend why you cannot accept this.
The victims should be given all the support they require, whether housing, financial, emotional support as well as medical/mental health. That is not the function of the Inquiry. They did not carry out the works to the block, they did not specify the materials used, they did not sign off the work, they did not develop Part B, they did not maintain or test the fire safety equipment, they are not the fire brigade who enforce fire safety at the block or fight fires at the block, this and many more questions will be examined by the Inquiry.
If any criminal prosecutions result from the Inquiry, then this is the time to factor in the victims views - and not just those from Grenfell Tower.
But given the circumstances, it is essential the views of the victims are fully factored in. The government decides the terms of reference so it isn't unreasonable for them to do this. Especially as they have promised as much. Sometimes it isn't just about justic e being done, but being seen to be done.
We all want to learn EVERY lesson that can be learned from this - and one of those be be around listening to the concerns of non-experts. But let's do it properly and see.
But that's not the role of the Inquiry. As hard as you might find it, It's not about emotions, it's about facts. I'm struggling to comprehend why you cannot accept this.
The victims should be given all the support they require, whether housing, financial, emotional support as well as medical/mental health. That is not the function of the Inquiry. They did not carry out the works to the block, they did not specify the materials used, they did not sign off the work, they did not develop Part B, they did not maintain or test the fire safety equipment, they are not the fire brigade who enforce fire safety at the block or fight fires at the block, this and many more questions will be examined by the Inquiry.
If any criminal prosecutions result from the Inquiry, then this is the time to factor in the victims views - and not just those from Grenfell Tower.
After the revelations of a family living in the block who were sub letting from the real tenant and another tenant who has been living in Karachi for at least three years, I heard today that upwards of 20 of the social housing let's in the block have been sub let to third parties.
The Mayor has guaranteed them all immunity from prosecution if they come forward.
Let's hope he doesn't do the same for those who have sub let them the property in the first place.
Lots of information drip feeding out about the flats vacated in the Chalcots estate that is damning of both Camden Council and LFB.
No expert on fire safety but it seems to me that a large part of the problem was the chimney effect and lack of compartmentalisation, as much as inferior materials. Was the fitting to blame?
But given the circumstances, it is essential the views of the victims are fully factored in. The government decides the terms of reference so it isn't unreasonable for them to do this. Especially as they have promised as much. Sometimes it isn't just about justic e being done, but being seen to be done.
We all want to learn EVERY lesson that can be learned from this - and one of those be be around listening to the concerns of non-experts. But let's do it properly and see.
But that's not the role of the Inquiry. As hard as you might find it, It's not about emotions, it's about facts. I'm struggling to comprehend why you cannot accept this.
The victims should be given all the support they require, whether housing, financial, emotional support as well as medical/mental health. That is not the function of the Inquiry. They did not carry out the works to the block, they did not specify the materials used, they did not sign off the work, they did not develop Part B, they did not maintain or test the fire safety equipment, they are not the fire brigade who enforce fire safety at the block or fight fires at the block, this and many more questions will be examined by the Inquiry.
If any criminal prosecutions result from the Inquiry, then this is the time to factor in the victims views - and not just those from Grenfell Tower.
I'm struggling to comprehend why you can't accept that the government can set the terms of the enquiry. Of course it has to be conducted fairly, but the views and expectations of the victims can be taken into account when this is done. Especially as they were promised as much.
I manage over 700 social housing properties. Including some that have been bought on a lease. I have no doubt that there are a number of them sub let inappropriately. But unless you fund local authorities with enough resources to audit these properties regularly there will always be those who slip through the net. Unless the money is found to fund local authorities to do this there is always the risk that in an emergency some might die unknown and unrecognised. Public services are not cheap and taxes at local and national level need to reflect that.
But given the circumstances, it is essential the views of the victims are fully factored in. The government decides the terms of reference so it isn't unreasonable for them to do this. Especially as they have promised as much. Sometimes it isn't just about justic e being done, but being seen to be done.
We all want to learn EVERY lesson that can be learned from this - and one of those be be around listening to the concerns of non-experts. But let's do it properly and see.
But that's not the role of the Inquiry. As hard as you might find it, It's not about emotions, it's about facts. I'm struggling to comprehend why you cannot accept this.
The victims should be given all the support they require, whether housing, financial, emotional support as well as medical/mental health. That is not the function of the Inquiry. They did not carry out the works to the block, they did not specify the materials used, they did not sign off the work, they did not develop Part B, they did not maintain or test the fire safety equipment, they are not the fire brigade who enforce fire safety at the block or fight fires at the block, this and many more questions will be examined by the Inquiry.
If any criminal prosecutions result from the Inquiry, then this is the time to factor in the victims views - and not just those from Grenfell Tower.
I'm struggling to comprehend why you can't accept that the government can set the terms of the enquiry. Of course it has to be conducted fairly, but the views and expectations of the victims can be taken into account when this is done. Especially as they were promised as much.
I manage over 700 social housing properties. Including some that have been bought on a lease. I have no doubt that there are a number of them sub let inappropriately. But unless you fund local authorities with enough resources to audit these properties regularly there will always be those who slip through the net. Unless the money is found to fund local authorities to do this there is always the risk that in an emergency some might die unknown and unrecognised. Public services are not cheap and taxes at local and national level need to reflect that.
Agreed. It's difficult to manage amongst all the other demands required and with minimal resources.
I manage over 700 social housing properties. Including some that have been bought on a lease. I have no doubt that there are a number of them sub let inappropriately. But unless you fund local authorities with enough resources to audit these properties regularly there will always be those who slip through the net. Unless the money is found to fund local authorities to do this there is always the risk that in an emergency some might die unknown and unrecognised. Public services are not cheap and taxes at local and national level need to reflect that.
Agreed. It's difficult to manage amongst all the other demands required and with minimal resources.
Do you carry out regular tenancy checks?
We audit 10% per year. I suggested we do 100% and was laughed at. Priorities and all that.
After the revelations of a family living in the block who were sub letting from the real tenant and another tenant who has been living in Karachi for at least three years, I heard today that upwards of 20 of the social housing let's in the block have been sub let to third parties.
The Mayor has guaranteed them all immunity from prosecution if they come forward.
Let's hope he doesn't do the same for those who have sub let them the property in the first place.
Lots of information drip feeding out about the flats vacated in the Chalcots estate that is damning of both Camden Council and LFB.
what is he offering immunity from? I understand that subletting can be illegal but didn't think that the subtenant had committed an offence
How about focussing on those properties where you have had no contact for 12 months? No repair requests, no complaints, etc.
A good percentage of those residents you know about and can be sure they are bona fide. Then there are the serial non rent payers or those who constantly demanding repairs who you know they are who they say. Your gas engineers will also get into all properties with a supply.
All agencies should be able to support each other, from HMRC to the benefits agency to the energy and water suppliers so cross referencing can take place.
Perhaps this isn't the correct thread to discuss this.
Sub letting did not cause the fire and whilst it is real problem and a valid concern, it has nothing to do with the start and spread of the fire and the cause of the deaths and probably should be a point made on a seperate thread. Otherwise it may look that we are trying to find the wrong people to blame!
No expert on fire safety but it seems to me that a large part of the problem was the chimney effect and lack of compartmentalisation, as much as inferior materials. Was the fitting to blame?
It's a possibility, though I'm fairly sure there wasn't a void behind this cladding. They are generally filled with an insulation material as this is one of the benefits in installing this type of cladding.
It certainly appears there was a lack of both horizontal and vertical fire breaks, which would have, if not prevented the spread of flames, then certainly slowed it down.
How do we learn things? One way we have been learning things over the centuries is to test theories. If you test something and find it is false, you can discount it. You can have an enquiry about the fire starting and spreading so quickly, but the action which is going on now around the cladding and looking at fitting sprinklers suggests they have a pretty good idea of that. If the public enquiry is going to soley focus on that. as important as it is, it won't be what was promised to people.
There are questions that need answers. The questions the residents and families of the victims have. You can say it is unhelpful for people to make this political, but really it provides the opportunity to show it isn't. Let's look at the report from the Camberwell fire. Why was it not acted on? There has to be an answer. The answer may not incriminate any politicians - they may have been given advice from fire safety experts or civil servants, but we ought to know the answer and I'm not sure it needs to take that long.
Then you have the leaked letters to housing minsiters. Similar question - why were these not acted on? Again, the answer may absolve the politicians of blame, but we need to know why these strong warnings were not heeded.
Then the fears of residents conveyed to the council - Why were these fears not heeded? These questions are not political in themselves- the answers may or may not be, but they will be what they will be. The fact is, if you do not answer them, then the victims and others are going to believe there are political reasons for not doing so - possibly wrongly.
Then you have to ask why the support/response - which continues today - has been so poor in terms of adressing the needs of the victims/residents. It is important we understand the detail of what caused the fire - and also that we undertsand the processes that allowed this disaster to happen. And how we can help people in other disasters - different in nature possibly, but with numbers of victims.
We need to ask the questions and let the truth tell us what it needs to tell us, so we can learn and be better for it.
I do appreciate where you are coming from @MuttleyCAFC , but that is one hell of a remit.
Things need to be done now for those who have been affected by this terrible tragedy.
The Inquiry needs to deal solely with the fire, how it developed and why the measures put in place to ensure this didn't happen, fail so dramatically. It also needs to provide clear direction as to how we ensure this never happens again and providing our first responders with sufficient resources to do their job properly and save lives.
Finally, which I believe is your point, we need to fundamentally review all aspects of issues like construction, management of fire safety and how important we, as a nation, see H&S. The residents and those affected need to be at the heart of what needs to reviewed and the full extent in which all aspects are considered, both socially and politically.
It was one hell of a disaster so there should be one hell of a remit.
There are many aspects that we need to learn from - some of the lessons could serve us in different situations.
May promised the victims input into the terms of reference - it is as simple as that.
I don't see why it cannot be complex but fast tracked with interim conclusions.
Maxwellisation is the reason. This is the process whereby those who may be criticised in the published document (the Chilcot Enquiry was 12 volumes BTW) get the opportunity to read the draft and challenge or object to critical findings. Indeed, it was the Maxwellisation of Chilcot that was, alone, responsible for much of the horrendous delay in publication.
On the other hand the process can open up fresh lines of enquiry which might involve further work and a different conclusion being reached.
(It all began with, of course, Robert Maxwell. He appealed his lack of a "right to reply" on a 1969 DTI report which stated that he was "unfit to hold the stewardship of a public company". Maxwell took the matter to court, where the DTI was said by Mr Justice Forbes to have "virtually committed the business murder" of Maxwell.
To avoid any repeat of the Judge's ruling, official policy was altered to ensure prior notice would be given of critical findings. Relevant witnesses are shown the specific extracts of reports relating to them.
Of course, the DTI were entirely right on Maxwell.)
Local lad (to me) who tragically died yet his parents were denied legal help despite all others involved in the inquest, including the coroner due to the legal complexities, all had barristers at public expense. Similar thing at Hillsborough and other corporate negligence tragedies. Doubt Latimer Rd will be different.
I see the judge has now said the enquiry remit will be broader than he originally stated. I am coming to the conclusion that a judge led enquiry is not the best solution - certainly not with a judge who went to the scene being totally oblivious to how ridiculous his starting position in these circumstances- judges know the law but you can always consult people who know the law. This enquiry is about interpreting the causes and requires a different skillset.
We should also be looking to have interim findings announced as soon as issues that need addressing become apparent. Why not design the enquiry to actually give everybody what is needed?
Local lad (to me) who tragically died yet his parents were denied legal help despite all others involved in the inquest, including the coroner due to the legal complexities, all had barristers at public expense. Similar thing at Hillsborough and other corporate negligence tragedies. Doubt Latimer Rd will be different.
A very sad case. Was the coroner's verdict wrong though, I wonder?
The parents at the Zane Gbangbola inquest were there as witnesses. (My emphasis) There were 70-odd witnesses giving evidence at the inquest.
It would, surely, take a complete re-think of law in this country (and just about everywhere else in the world) if witnesses in court had there own legal representation. Where would it end? How much would it cost the public purse? What benefits would it bring? What would be the downsides?
Take Zane's dreadful death. Would Zane's parents testimony have been any different if they'd had legal representation? If it would have been, why was that so? Was their testimony in some way incorrect in the first place? Legal complexities are not a matter for them are they? It's just the facts of the matter that should concern them and then the courts consider those facts and hand down a ruling.
In Zane's tragic case, the coroner found that he died of carbon monoxide poisoning.
His parents denied that during the flood they had used a hired petrol-driven water pump in an enclosed space in the house other than to briefly test it was working. This is not a matter of legal complexity. It is a matter of who is telling the truth. When your house is flooded, why hire a pump and set it up but not use it? Where did the full tank of petrol provided with it go if it was not used in the pump? Just for those who might not know, here's what the coroner thought.
In his Findings and Conclusions the Coroner determined that, on balance, Zane had died at approximately 10.30pm as a result of inhaling CO fumes emitted by the petrol driven pump downstairs at no.243. He did not accept the evidence of Zane’s parents as to their limited use of the pump, which he found “inherently improbable”. He found that the pump had been hired with a full tank of petrol. In his view the pump had been on for up to 6 hours on 7th February 2014, and had been located in an inadequately ventilated location within the property. He also said it only stopped when the petrol ran out. The parents' claim that Zane died and his father was badly affected by cyanide poisoning from a landfill site. The coroner concluded: "I find it very unlikely (my emphasis) for hydrogen cyanide to enter in a plume in the house. I find the single reading of hydrogen cyanide insufficient to conclude the cause of Zane’s death, with the reading taken at the open front door triggered by oxides of nitrogen probably caused by the fire engines outside.”
I see the judge has now said the enquiry remit will be broader than he originally stated. I am coming to the conclusion that a judge led enquiry is not the best solution - certainly not with a judge who went to the scene being totally oblivious to how ridiculous his starting position in these circumstances- judges know the law but you can always consult people who know the law. This enquiry is about interpreting the causes and requires a different skillset.
We should also be looking to have interim findings announced as soon as issues that need addressing become apparent. Why not design the enquiry to actually give everybody what is needed?
The length of time was the reason given. I think he said a "full" enquiry could take 5 years to complete.
That is why I am against a judge enquiry now - I don't think a judge can get to the facts at the required speed. They can't even be clear on the remit before they meet the victims. It is a different world and what is needed is getting to teh truth quickly IMO. At the very least, have interim updates as soon as relevant info is available. The problem is, and I have seen people do it on here - you get the line - you can'tdo it like that - when of course you can do it however you want to do it in reality!
Comments
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".
I have an observation. The article seems to be claiming that EU legislation "trumps" UK legislation and that's why less good (more bad) cladding could legitimately be fitted. I'm not convinced that is the case.
My understanding, and I could well be wrong, is that there are three varieties of EU legislation: Exclusive, Shared and Supporting. Items considered to be exclusive matters consist of a very short list. I would think that fire regs would come under "supporting competences" in that they are to do with either "protection and improvement of human health" (my emphasis); or "civil protection". In such matters EU legislation does not require harmonisation. So, as long as UK law was as good as or better, it would not be trumped by EU law. (By way of example, on a different topic, the EU requires two-year warranties on electrical goods. We haven't subsumed that into UK legislation on the basis that we have, in theory and thanks to the statute of limitations, a six-year time limit on claims. The fact this is unwieldy, pretty much unworkable and requires the consumer to take the matter to court and prove the product is faulty is neither here nor there it seems!)
No doubt we await the outcome of the enquiry before the actual situation can be stated with any degree of accuracy.
We all want to learn EVERY lesson that can be learned from this - and one of those be be around listening to the concerns of non-experts. But let's do it properly and see.
https://colinwiles.com/2017/06/29/reflections-on-the-grenfell-tower-catastrophe/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-40461581
The victims should be given all the support they require, whether housing, financial, emotional support as well as medical/mental health. That is not the function of the Inquiry. They did not carry out the works to the block, they did not specify the materials used, they did not sign off the work, they did not develop Part B, they did not maintain or test the fire safety equipment, they are not the fire brigade who enforce fire safety at the block or fight fires at the block, this and many more questions will be examined by the Inquiry.
If any criminal prosecutions result from the Inquiry, then this is the time to factor in the victims views - and not just those from Grenfell Tower.
The Mayor has guaranteed them all immunity from prosecution if they come forward.
Let's hope he doesn't do the same for those who have sub let them the property in the first place.
Lots of information drip feeding out about the flats vacated in the Chalcots estate that is damning of both Camden Council and LFB.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/17/grenfell-tower-victims-consulted-public-inquiry/
Unless the money is found to fund local authorities to do this there is always the risk that in an emergency some might die unknown and unrecognised.
Public services are not cheap and taxes at local and national level need to reflect that.
Do you carry out regular tenancy checks?
Priorities and all that.
How about focussing on those properties where you have had no contact for 12 months? No repair requests, no complaints, etc.
A good percentage of those residents you know about and can be sure they are bona fide. Then there are the serial non rent payers or those who constantly demanding repairs who you know they are who they say. Your gas engineers will also get into all properties with a supply.
All agencies should be able to support each other, from HMRC to the benefits agency to the energy and water suppliers so cross referencing can take place.
Perhaps this isn't the correct thread to discuss this.
It certainly appears there was a lack of both horizontal and vertical fire breaks, which would have, if not prevented the spread of flames, then certainly slowed it down.
There are questions that need answers. The questions the residents and families of the victims have. You can say it is unhelpful for people to make this political, but really it provides the opportunity to show it isn't. Let's look at the report from the Camberwell fire. Why was it not acted on? There has to be an answer. The answer may not incriminate any politicians - they may have been given advice from fire safety experts or civil servants, but we ought to know the answer and I'm not sure it needs to take that long.
Then you have the leaked letters to housing minsiters. Similar question - why were these not acted on? Again, the answer may absolve the politicians of blame, but we need to know why these strong warnings were not heeded.
Then the fears of residents conveyed to the council - Why were these fears not heeded? These questions are not political in themselves- the answers may or may not be, but they will be what they will be. The fact is, if you do not answer them, then the victims and others are going to believe there are political reasons for not doing so - possibly wrongly.
Then you have to ask why the support/response - which continues today - has been so poor in terms of adressing the needs of the victims/residents. It is important we understand the detail of what caused the fire - and also that we undertsand the processes that allowed this disaster to happen. And how we can help people in other disasters - different in nature possibly, but with numbers of victims.
We need to ask the questions and let the truth tell us what it needs to tell us, so we can learn and be better for it.
Things need to be done now for those who have been affected by this terrible tragedy.
The Inquiry needs to deal solely with the fire, how it developed and why the measures put in place to ensure this didn't happen, fail so dramatically. It also needs to provide clear direction as to how we ensure this never happens again and providing our first responders with sufficient resources to do their job properly and save lives.
Finally, which I believe is your point, we need to fundamentally review all aspects of issues like construction, management of fire safety and how important we, as a nation, see H&S. The residents and those affected need to be at the heart of what needs to reviewed and the full extent in which all aspects are considered, both socially and politically.
There are many aspects that we need to learn from - some of the lessons could serve us in different situations.
May promised the victims input into the terms of reference - it is as simple as that.
I don't see why it cannot be complex but fast tracked with interim conclusions.
On the other hand the process can open up fresh lines of enquiry which might involve further work and a different conclusion being reached.
(It all began with, of course, Robert Maxwell. He appealed his lack of a "right to reply" on a 1969 DTI report which stated that he was "unfit to hold the stewardship of a public company". Maxwell took the matter to court, where the DTI was said by Mr Justice Forbes to have "virtually committed the business murder" of Maxwell.
To avoid any repeat of the Judge's ruling, official policy was altered to ensure prior notice would be given of critical findings. Relevant witnesses are shown the specific extracts of reports relating to them.
Of course, the DTI were entirely right on Maxwell.)
Local lad (to me) who tragically died yet his parents were denied legal help despite all others involved in the inquest, including the coroner due to the legal complexities, all had barristers at public expense. Similar thing at Hillsborough and other corporate negligence tragedies. Doubt Latimer Rd will be different.
We should also be looking to have interim findings announced as soon as issues that need addressing become apparent. Why not design the enquiry to actually give everybody what is needed?
The parents at the Zane Gbangbola inquest were there as witnesses. (My emphasis) There were 70-odd witnesses giving evidence at the inquest.
It would, surely, take a complete re-think of law in this country (and just about everywhere else in the world) if witnesses in court had there own legal representation. Where would it end? How much would it cost the public purse? What benefits would it bring? What would be the downsides?
Take Zane's dreadful death. Would Zane's parents testimony have been any different if they'd had legal representation? If it would have been, why was that so? Was their testimony in some way incorrect in the first place? Legal complexities are not a matter for them are they? It's just the facts of the matter that should concern them and then the courts consider those facts and hand down a ruling.
In Zane's tragic case, the coroner found that he died of carbon monoxide poisoning.
His parents denied that during the flood they had used a hired petrol-driven water pump in an enclosed space in the house other than to briefly test it was working. This is not a matter of legal complexity. It is a matter of who is telling the truth.
When your house is flooded, why hire a pump and set it up but not use it? Where did the full tank of petrol provided with it go if it was not used in the pump? Just for those who might not know, here's what the coroner thought.
In his Findings and Conclusions the Coroner determined that, on balance, Zane had died at approximately 10.30pm as a result of inhaling CO fumes emitted by the petrol driven pump downstairs at no.243. He did not accept the evidence of Zane’s parents as to their limited use of the pump, which he found “inherently improbable”. He found that the pump had been hired with a full tank of petrol. In his view the pump had been on for up to 6 hours on 7th February 2014, and had been located in an inadequately ventilated location within the property. He also said it only stopped when the petrol ran out.
The parents' claim that Zane died and his father was badly affected by cyanide poisoning from a landfill site. The coroner concluded: "I find it very unlikely (my emphasis) for hydrogen cyanide to enter in a plume in the house. I find the single reading of hydrogen cyanide insufficient to conclude the cause of Zane’s death, with the reading taken at the open front door triggered by oxides of nitrogen probably caused by the fire engines outside.”