advertisement


Grenfell: inquest or public inquiry?

droodzilla said:
Still works for me and it's a bog-standard Twitter link so not sure what the problem is.

It's a clip of a Grenfell Tower manager saying she "binned" her notebooks even though she knew a public inquiry was underway.
Click to expand...

Working now. Weird.
 
Huge amounts of money have been set aside to deal with claims arising from Grenfell (and presumably Lakanal 2009). Only 2% has been paid out, each claimant has to go through surveyors and solicitors before claiming. Most properties are well known that have this cladding, it's another SERCO track and trace cash hoover.
 
Reports tonight of people trapped in unsaleable properties .. not necessarily high rise, which are clad with these materials..and some Tory Peer deciding these folks must contribute to the cost of removal/replacement. Typical ****ing Tory. Make the victim pay.
The people who installed this shit knew what they were doing and if they didn't they were criminally negligent. Eitherway, the builders/developers are obviously responsible.
Makes me seethe!!
 
Selling property with cladding has been all but impossible recently. Potential buyers and sellers are stuck , they cannot get the certifications needed.

There are some light rays - my wifes nephew lives in a block in S London and the cladding there is being replaced. Not to far to go now apparently. The tower is a mix of private and public housing - his on one of the upper floors is for sale - so far no viewings at all since July or so when it went on the market.
 
Cav said:
There is a criminal investigation which has yet to conclude - as does this Inquiry.
Click to expand...

Indeed.. and how many years on are we now? If I failed to pay my Road Tax I'd be in court in days or weeks. These bastards are still dodging bullets years on and you can guarantee that nobody from the cladding manufacturers, builders or developers will face any sanctions whatever.. much less criminal charges.
Meanwhile the lawyers clean up and the Govt. just keep kicking the whole mess down the road.
This country has gone to shit.
 
Criminal charges can only follow if there is clear line of culpability. Otherwise there is no chance of conviction and even more time and effort is just wasted. That line of culpability may (only may) come out of the enquiry, which is clearly quite complicated.
 
Mullardman said:
Reports tonight of people trapped in unsaleable properties .. not necessarily high rise, which are clad with these materials..and some Tory Peer deciding these folks must contribute to the cost of removal/replacement. Typical ****ing Tory. Make the victim pay.
The people who installed this shit knew what they were doing and if they didn't they were criminally negligent. Eitherway, the builders/developers are obviously responsible.
Makes me seethe!!
Click to expand...

Look around the world, loads of this was used and i bet 95% of the users didn't give a single moments thought to the fire implications. Composites are a great solution if you don't know the risks.

Fire risk had faded into the background and building regs have turned focus onto energy saving and simple construction.

The system is flawed and builders are cutting any corners they can with minimal oversight.

Pretty sure the fitting of horizontal stops will be a big issue in Grenfell.
 
JensenHealey said:
Criminal charges can only follow if there is clear line of culpability. Otherwise there is no chance of conviction and even more time and effort is just wasted. That line of culpability may (only may) come out of the enquiry, which is clearly quite complicated.
Click to expand...

I think it is only complicated by shed loads of lawyers, insurers an other vested interests lining up to obfuscate, defend the indefensible, shift blame, etc.

Who made the product, who tested the product, who approved the product for use in context, who certified building methods, who accepted/signed off the construction. All of that is known.

It is also both known AND obvious that the innocent in all of this are the victims of Grenfell, and those who are now landed with unsaleable properties or stuck in potetially unsafe rentals. In the case of the latter, builders, speculators, those who surveyed properties in relation to mortgages, rental landlords etc.,etc.. are all responsible. Why shoud the victim pay a penny?

This sort of shit is repeated endlessly in this country, in one context or another. The big money always contrives to manipulate the Govt. and the Law, to protect its own interests and the 'little guy' can just go whistle. Makes me sick.
 
Mullardman said:
I think it is only complicated by shed loads of lawyers, insurers an other vested interests lining up to obfuscate, defend the indefensible, shift blame, etc.

Who made the product, who tested the product, who approved the product for use in context, who certified building methods, who accepted/signed off the construction. All of that is known.

It is also both known AND obvious that the innocent in all of this are the victims of Grenfell, and those who are now landed with unsaleable properties or stuck in potetially unsafe rentals. In the case of the latter, builders, speculators, those who surveyed properties in relation to mortgages, rental landlords etc.,etc.. are all responsible. Why shoud the victim pay a penny?

This sort of shit is repeated endlessly in this country, in one context or another. The big money always contrives to manipulate the Govt. and the Law, to protect its own interests and the 'little guy' can just go whistle. Makes me sick.
Click to expand...

Hmmm - if it is so well known - why the enquiry?
Stuff is already being unearthed so it seems to have a point
 
The Inquiry and the Police investigation are completely separate although the process of the former might inform the direction of the latter - which is why some people refused to give evidence at the Inquiry. The Inquiry's Terms of Reference do not include allocating culpability, so far as I understand.
 
CHE said:
Truly shocked by this admission :- https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...-cladding-abused-testing-regimes-inquiry-told

It says that "Celotex, which made the bulk of the combustible foam insulation used, displayed a “widespread culture … of ignoring compliance”, which included distorting a full-scale fire test of its materials, the inquiry heard."

Is "ignoring compliance" the same as breaking the law, anyone ?

CHE
Click to expand...
Presumably they just ignored compliance in a limited and specific way?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top