merseymouth wrote:Sorry PWA, I think that you have jumped to a premature or even false conclusion.
The published e:mails would appear to reveal that questions about the fire safety of the cladding were asked but the answers ignored. The manufacturers knew that it was an unsuitable product for the intended use, but continued to manufacture & market the material for an unsafe deployment!
So money didn't talk, it screamed!!! The Contractors & architects knew but money again coloured their judgement.
So to blame the Government is far too simplistic, where they demand full details for every building project, with them also being required to approve or disapprove these projects then serious delay would be inevitable! Then they would get kicked for delaying affairs!!!
The need for a moral compass occurs in most areas of activity, but that won't earn them a productivity bonus from the movers & shakers. MM
I would not be surprised if it turns out that blame lies at more than one level, but for the deployment of inappropriate cladding to be so widespread suggests to me that the regulatory system was at fault. Government ought to regulate and monitor, protecting us from cowboys. It will be convenient for those in Whitehall if the buck stops somewhere else, but if dodgy practices are happening in the construction of tower blocks, who, if not government, should be protecting us?