Tower Block Disaster - Grenfell
-
- Posts: 11010
- Joined: 7 Jul 2014, 9:45pm
- Location: Near Bicester Oxon
Re: Tower Block Disaster
What's the balance of harm though?
It's a real moral dilemma - we want to know what happened so it can be prevented in future, but to do so, has there has been at least tacit agreement that people who testify will not face punishment?
It's a real moral dilemma - we want to know what happened so it can be prevented in future, but to do so, has there has been at least tacit agreement that people who testify will not face punishment?
Re: Tower Block Disaster
Bonefishblues wrote:What's the balance of harm though?
It's a real moral dilemma - we want to know what happened so it can be prevented in future, but to do so, has there has been at least tacit agreement that people who testify will not face punishment?
It's just a get out of jail free card,they knew what was going on.
The whole system's set up in their favour and people die because of it.
It was ever thus.....
EDIT,perhaps I see things too black and white in situations like this,then again perhaps it's what's needed.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
Re: Tower Block Disaster
The problem facing the police and CPS in bringing manslaughter charges, is that there are multiple causal factors involved and numerous different people with different roles and responsibilities in the supply chain and with responsibility for commissioning and overseeing the refurbishment project. The defence for any manslaughter charge (whether of a corporation or an individual) will inevitably be to point the finger at everyone else's decisions and say that they were the 'real' cause of the disaster, and to minimise the the level of culpability of that particular defendant.
Anyone at Celotex charged will point the finger at Arconic who made the ACM panels, and at those who specified the outer ACM panels. It will be a never ending circle of pass the parcel of blame. Defence barristers will seek to make the whole course of events and the decisions as confusing a picture as possible and to overwhelm the jury with information (and as this inquiry is showing by its very length and complexity, there is a huge amount of information that needs to be absorbed to understand and appreciate what happened, and to then see the big picture and how each causal factor contributed to it).
It's generally accepted that complex fraud trials in the UK are extremely difficult to prosecute: they tend to be of extremely long duration, the complexity often makes it difficult for juries and many have collapsed. Prosecuting individuals for manslaughter for Grenfell probably has the potential to make a major fraud trial look like child's play.
I suspect the only way multiple persons involved in different aspects of the refurbishment project could be charged with manslaughter, would be if they were all tried together in a single court case. I think seperate court cases would inevitably fail, because in each case the defending barristers would find it much easier to point the finger at everyone else involved, to the extent that the jury would be reluctant to convict just the person accused in that case, i.e. it would look too much as if the accused was being made a scapegoat for others' failings. If they are all tried together, a single jury will be able to make decisions about the apportionment of blame between all of the defendants, and one by one for each defendant whether their culpability reaches the threshold for a manslaughter conviction. I think it would be the longest and most complex prosecution ever in the UK.
If there are not successful prosecutions for manslaughter of multiple individuals, then that will send a very clear signal to everyone in the various industry sectors and public authorities that the safety rules and regulations in the construction sector can be lethally undermined by seeking loopholes in the regulations which people know are completely counter to the intent of the regulations.
Anyone at Celotex charged will point the finger at Arconic who made the ACM panels, and at those who specified the outer ACM panels. It will be a never ending circle of pass the parcel of blame. Defence barristers will seek to make the whole course of events and the decisions as confusing a picture as possible and to overwhelm the jury with information (and as this inquiry is showing by its very length and complexity, there is a huge amount of information that needs to be absorbed to understand and appreciate what happened, and to then see the big picture and how each causal factor contributed to it).
It's generally accepted that complex fraud trials in the UK are extremely difficult to prosecute: they tend to be of extremely long duration, the complexity often makes it difficult for juries and many have collapsed. Prosecuting individuals for manslaughter for Grenfell probably has the potential to make a major fraud trial look like child's play.
I suspect the only way multiple persons involved in different aspects of the refurbishment project could be charged with manslaughter, would be if they were all tried together in a single court case. I think seperate court cases would inevitably fail, because in each case the defending barristers would find it much easier to point the finger at everyone else involved, to the extent that the jury would be reluctant to convict just the person accused in that case, i.e. it would look too much as if the accused was being made a scapegoat for others' failings. If they are all tried together, a single jury will be able to make decisions about the apportionment of blame between all of the defendants, and one by one for each defendant whether their culpability reaches the threshold for a manslaughter conviction. I think it would be the longest and most complex prosecution ever in the UK.
If there are not successful prosecutions for manslaughter of multiple individuals, then that will send a very clear signal to everyone in the various industry sectors and public authorities that the safety rules and regulations in the construction sector can be lethally undermined by seeking loopholes in the regulations which people know are completely counter to the intent of the regulations.
Re: Tower Block Disaster
Boney
Manufacturing Consent:- https://youtu.be/tTBWfkE7BXU
Manufacturing Consent:- https://youtu.be/tTBWfkE7BXU
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
Re: Tower Block Disaster
Bonefishblues wrote:It's a real moral dilemma - we want to know what happened so it can be prevented in future, but to do so, has there has been at least tacit agreement that people who testify will not face punishment?
The undertaking is explicit. Attorney General's second statement:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/attorney-general-extends-undertaking-for-grenfell-tower-inquiry
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/888999/Grenfell_Undertaking_Extension_-_Factsheet.pdf
Jonathan
-
- Posts: 36776
- Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm
Re: Tower Block Disaster
I's reiterate my suggestion above that the Executive Summary of the Phase 1 Report at least is worth reading.
On the matter of whether more might have been done by way of planning / training to be ready for a fire of this type, at 2.9 (referring to Ch 8 of the Report) it outlines how a broadly similar, but much smaller fire occurred in Lakanal House in London. The subsequent recommendations went largely unimplemented.
The LFB: planning and preparation is covered at 2.17 et seq (referring to Ch 27) My summary of the Executive Summary is there was very little.
I feel that my assessment is supported by the evidence of the then Commissioner who was seen on the tv coverage of her evidence saying that even with the benefit of hindsight, she would do nothing differently on the night of the fire. She said she would not train firefighters for a cladding fire any more than she would train them for “a space shuttle landing on the Shard”.
It's also worth repeating this at 2.9
Finally, I cannot quickly find it now so this is from memory. One of the LFB's chief officers had written an internationally recognised paper on fires in tower blocks and IIRC, the Commissioner's evidence was that she was unaware of its existence.
On the matter of whether more might have been done by way of planning / training to be ready for a fire of this type, at 2.9 (referring to Ch 8 of the Report) it outlines how a broadly similar, but much smaller fire occurred in Lakanal House in London. The subsequent recommendations went largely unimplemented.
The LFB: planning and preparation is covered at 2.17 et seq (referring to Ch 27) My summary of the Executive Summary is there was very little.
I feel that my assessment is supported by the evidence of the then Commissioner who was seen on the tv coverage of her evidence saying that even with the benefit of hindsight, she would do nothing differently on the night of the fire. She said she would not train firefighters for a cladding fire any more than she would train them for “a space shuttle landing on the Shard”.
It's also worth repeating this at 2.9
... The firefighters who attended the tower displayed extraordinary courage and selfless devotion to duty ...
Finally, I cannot quickly find it now so this is from memory. One of the LFB's chief officers had written an internationally recognised paper on fires in tower blocks and IIRC, the Commissioner's evidence was that she was unaware of its existence.
-
- Posts: 11010
- Joined: 7 Jul 2014, 9:45pm
- Location: Near Bicester Oxon
Re: Tower Block Disaster
Jdsk wrote:Bonefishblues wrote:It's a real moral dilemma - we want to know what happened so it can be prevented in future, but to do so, has there has been at least tacit agreement that people who testify will not face punishment?
The undertaking is explicit. Attorney General's second statement:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/attorney-general-extends-undertaking-for-grenfell-tower-inquiry
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/888999/Grenfell_Undertaking_Extension_-_Factsheet.pdf
Jonathan
I'm obliged.
- simonineaston
- Posts: 8003
- Joined: 9 May 2007, 1:06pm
- Location: ...at a cricket ground
Flats with flammable cladding...
I've a large amount of sympathy for folks that find themselves living in accomodation that may be a fire-risk. I thought that sort of thing was what building reg.s were all about. So where does the buck stop? Whenever I've bought property - which doesn't happen very often... I've got a professional to survey it, so I'm aware of the pitfalls and advantages of the property I'm considering buying. I'm fairly sure that if a report had pointed out that my dwelling was clad in flammible sheets, I'd have thought twice about moving in. 'Specially if 15 stories up, say.
So, I'm wondering if the folk stuck in these potentially dangerous flats got a survey done before they splashed the cash & moved in. Is a survey compulsory when buying lease-hold? If so, did they read it properly. Or if they did and their survey rubber-stamped the property and suggested it was as safe as (coughcough) houses, isn't the surveyor liable to some extent?
So, I'm wondering if the folk stuck in these potentially dangerous flats got a survey done before they splashed the cash & moved in. Is a survey compulsory when buying lease-hold? If so, did they read it properly. Or if they did and their survey rubber-stamped the property and suggested it was as safe as (coughcough) houses, isn't the surveyor liable to some extent?
S
(on the look out for Armageddon, on board a Brompton nano & ever-changing Moultons)
(on the look out for Armageddon, on board a Brompton nano & ever-changing Moultons)
Re: Flats with flammable cladding...
It's... complex.
Yes, surveyors can be liable.
But there's a lot more to it than caveat emptor, whether the emptor took professional advice or not, eg:
https://www.rics.org/uk/news-insight/la ... adding-qa/
https://www.local.gov.uk/publications/s ... ing-issues
https://www.blakemorgan.co.uk/cladding- ... landscape/
https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... in-england
Jonathan
Yes, surveyors can be liable.
But there's a lot more to it than caveat emptor, whether the emptor took professional advice or not, eg:
https://www.rics.org/uk/news-insight/la ... adding-qa/
https://www.local.gov.uk/publications/s ... ing-issues
https://www.blakemorgan.co.uk/cladding- ... landscape/
https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... in-england
Jonathan
Last edited by Jdsk on 29 Apr 2021, 1:28pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 36776
- Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm
Re: Flats with flammable cladding...
That cladding was legal & installed according to manufacturer & building standards. There was nothing for a surveyor to find, unless they had very specific specialist knowledge about cladding systems.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
Re: Flats with flammable cladding...
Shall I merge the threads?
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
Re: Flats with flammable cladding...
I'd support that.
Jonathan
Jonathan
Re: Flats with flammable cladding...
No. As the Grenfell Inquiry is slowly revealing, various parties in the construction industry - in particular the manufacturers of the cladding but also others such as architects, contractors etc. - misinterpreted, ignored and bent the rules that applied to using such materials. That was not something which a chartered surveyor could be expected to have known about, nor could they have been expected to do the sort of investigation which would have revealed it.
After the Grenfell fire the police and others took samples of the unburnt insulation and cladding and arranged for them to be fire tested. They failed the tests. There are a number of different factors and causes involved, but one reason for this in the case of the Celotex insulation (as opposed to the Arconic panels), was that Celotex changed the formula of its product without ensuring that the new version would still meet the test.
In future however, now that this is a known problem, surveyors will be raising the issue in any report that they prepare for a flat in a building with these types of cladding and insulation. Unfortunately that will not help much, because the surveyors will not themselves be able to tell whether the materials are safe/would pass the tests or not. So they will cover their backsides and say that the materials might not be safe and that tests should be undertaken and/or a specialist consultant appointed to investigate. That would be very expensive and is unrealistic for someone buying an individual flat. In practice the freeholder/local authority/management agency will need to address the issue for the whole building to determine whether or not the cladding is a problem and what should be done about it.
Re: Flats with flammable cladding...
The topic title made me expect another rant against non clippy pedals! Then I spotted the board it's on.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.