Grenfell Tower Culpability Thread.

Ruperts slippers

maybe not but the management company entrusted with maintaining Grenfell is private and iit is they who will be brought to account as well as the company who fitted the cladding and possibly a number of councillors.Questions will need to be asked and appropriate answers given
The only good thing to come out of this dreadful tragedy is I suspect no expense will be spared to make all social housing safe.What also needs to happen , in my view , is that in future it should be councils who run these buildings like they once did and not private companies who are more interested in profit making

nheather

I cannot possibly imagine why people are angry.. Said with extreme sarcasm. There are and have been an abundance of long running social justice issues, these people were housed in a building with the Landlord responsible for the safety and habitability of the building, which quite obviously wasn't safe, the evidence of which is the events that unfolded and the pictures that every person watches the news can see. All legislative processes both written and human action failed, inc the construction materials. That is an undeniable fact, fact is an oft overused word, but undeniable in this case, there is no alternative argument. The building burnt, with people inside, 'Duty of Care' failed at all levels.

To press, the reaction and actions so far by the chain of authority has been appalling.

la gran siete

And they are going to carry on hiding now.  Watching reports of frankly scary and violent protests at the same time seeing protesters saying "where are the council representatives we haven't seen a single one".

Well before you started rioting I would have agreed with their sentiment, but now I just think that a council member would be foolish to turn up becuase they could be lynched by the angry mob.

They have blown any chances of seeing any council members now.

Cheers,

Nigel

olisun

there are reputedly 1300 empty properties ,some of them luxury ones,  in the area.Will the authorities have the guts to take them over  as a temporary measure to house these poor people who have endured so much?

olisun

While I do take anything by the dailymail with a pinch of salt but there seems to be some truth in the following article.

Hope people don't get carried away by the recent biased reporting by the BBC considering it's the national broadcaster paid by the taxpayer and expected to stay neutral.

DAILY MAIL COMMENT: Shame of playing politics with tragedy | Daily Mail Online

Rasczak

The question is why should people give up their properties for something they have worked so hard?

Looks like Labour is getting to desperate to come to power and will not stop at anything.

The Dude

The irony...quoting the Daily Mail and then complaining that the BBC is biased!

"It should have been a week for politicians to join in demanding how such a catastrophe could happen in a first-world country"

No. It should have been a week for politicians to hang their head in shame and accept terrible mistakes were made on their watch.

Perhaps because they are part of society? Besides, AFAIK there has been no suggestion that such individuals are not reimbursed for any compulsory takeover of their properties.

nheather

Not to mention the small fact that the government cant just seize peoples properties on a whim because Jeremy Corbyn said so.

His attempts at stirring up a class war using an unfortunate event such as this are absolutely shameless, it truly didn't take long for the mask to slip. Does anybody watching his behaviour over this event seriously think he didn't attend IRA funerals etc as has been alleged?

Solomon Grundy

Who is culpable?

Apologies, not read the thread fully so this may have been said already, but my first response would be "for what aim" - is it someone you want to imprison or is it compensation you want, the two may or may not result in the same answer.

But my view

Manufacturer - no, although their business is being unfairly smeared.  Their website and catalogues clearly show they have different products for different purposes.  The cladding used is clearly described as not fire-rated.

Architect - maybe.  Did he specify the exact cladding to be used.  If his design went that far they he should share the blame.

Advisory engineers - maybe, did the architect hand over the specification to specialist engineers.  If so then they should spare the blame.

Contractor - possibily.  If they followed the instructions given by the architect/engineers then they would argue that it is not their specialiaty.   If the selection of the product was their responsibility then they should share the blame.  The contractor is out of business now, you can still oursue the directors - if the aim is imprisonment then that would work but if the aim is for compensation then that isn't going to go very far.

Fire regulation (building regs) officer - yes.  Assuming the product was not correct for use - and that seems to be the case because the product is described as not fire rated and banned for this use in Germany and the USA.  Accrediting the fire safety of the design was this person's/department's sole purpose and they failed.  So they are definitely culpable.  That could mean imprisonment for the specific people and compensation from their employer (the council).

The council - indirectly as those culpable were employed by them.

The London Mayor - the council falls under his control but the link is getting rather tenuous at that point - so unlikely.

Cheers,

Nigel

apolloa

Comments like these also manipulate the victims into a socialist agenda. Pawns. It's unsavoury, to say the least.

"Put the poor people next to the rich people, that'll upset the capitalist apple cart"