Massive fire at high rise flats in London

[Michael W]

3 minutes ago, ayrmad said:

I'm hoping this isn't the case as it'll just let those at the top off the hook, those at the top are supposed to put legislation in place that protects the public from unscrupulous/profit driven/greedy b*****d/corner cutting cowboy b*****ds.

I don't think it will let them off the hook at all - the damage has already been more than done. The legislation clearly wasn't sufficient and that is a failure or government; they can't escape from that. 

In saying that, that doesn't excuse the council, management association and contractors, and whoever else made the choices that contributed to this. 

[Sergeant Wilson]

5 minutes ago, ayrmad said:

I'm hoping this isn't the case as it'll just let those at the top off the hook, those at the top are supposed to put legislation in place that protects the public from unscrupulous/profit driven/greedy b*****d/corner cutting cowboy b*****ds.

Unfortunately they are the same people.

[Hillonearth]

28 minutes ago, dorlomin said:

Rachel Johnson: 'Theresa May Is A Victim Of The Grenfell Fire As Well'

Ooof.

I somehow doubt Boris Johnson's sister - although "living nearby" doesn't live in a 22-storey Zippo of a building clad in the same stuff they make firelighters out of.

[falkirkthebigclub]

38 minutes ago, Melanius Mullarkey said:

 

Yes.

 

Or wrong colour of perpetrators 

[ayrmad]

27 minutes ago, dorlomin said:

 

 

This would be an articulate variation of what people were saying yesterday. (This is not at the protest)

He's right, if he was wrong the SNP and independence would still be an irrelevance in Scotland.

[ayrmad]

19 minutes ago, Michael W said:

I don't think it will let them off the hook at all - the damage has already been more than done. The legislation clearly wasn't sufficient and that is a failure or government; they can't escape from that. 

In saying that, that doesn't excuse the council, management association and contractors, and whoever else made the choices that contributed to this. 

For me the contractors are at the bottom of that list.

14 minutes ago, Sergeant Wilson said:

Unfortunately they are the same people.

No doubt.

[blanco]

2 hours ago, whiskychimp said:

There won't be riots. Maybe the odd scuffle but nothing substantial. The mood is not as angry as the media are portraying. 

The media are almost instigating trouble with emotive reporting beyond the actual events

 

Just wait until it's wine o'clock, people will be jousting with those hastily made placards.

[Benjamin_Nevis]

4 minutes ago, blanco said:

Just wait until it's wine o'clock, people will be jousting with those hastily made placards.

f**k off, you utterly tedious c**t. 

[blanco]

3 minutes ago, jupe1407 said:

f**k off, you utterly tedious c**t. 

How rude. 

The place will be like a war zone by the time big brothers on.

[pandarilla]

 
 
This would be an articulate variation of what people were saying yesterday. (This is not at the protest)

This guy should be put in charge of the council.

Incredibly knowledgeable, passionate, and articulate.

Take a bow son.

[Tamdunk]

18 hours ago, HibeeJibee said:

Inflammable means easily set alight, btw. Just saying ...

 

[Monkey Tennis]

2 hours ago, Michael W said:

To me, this seems a bit like the Titanic and the lifeboats - legal, but not appropriate and I don't think it is good enough as a defence. They have breached their duty of care and have not acted properly in making the choice that they did. 

There are actually a few Titanic parallels.

As mentioned, there's the question of inadequate regulation and there's obviously the general complacency, as well as the extremes of wealth and poverty being side by side.  The big difference here of course, is that it's only the poor who have suffered.

Another similarity is that this disaster has already become a metaphor for society's ills, as well as a dreadful human tragedy.

Edited June 17, 2017 by Monkey Tennis

[Jacksgranda]

1 hour ago, ayrmad said:

For me the contractors are at the bottom of that list.

 

A "competent and experienced" contractor should have pointed out the inadequacy of the proposed cladding. Whether he should have then installed what was proposed would be between his conscience and his bank balance, unfortunately.

[Panda Pies]

There are actually a few Titanic parallels.
As mentioned, there's the question of inadequate regulation and there's obviously the general complacency, as well as the extremes of wealth and poverty being side by side.  The big difference here of course, is that it's only the poor who have suffered.

A "competent and experienced" contractor should have pointed out the inadequacy of the proposed cladding. Whether he should have then installed what was proposed would be between his conscience and his bank balance, unfortunately.

Any work over a certain limit done for any government body, nhs, local authority etc. Goes out for tender and it's the client that tends to via a consultant, designer that would specify what is to be used or what's not to be used. The client is more or less looking for the cheapest cost to get the job done. Which in turn forces the contractors to under cut one & other and cost save where they can i.e. cheap labour/cheap inferior materials.
The bullet stop with the client as they have overall control of any project.

[dorlomin]

Quote

Following R v. Prentice,[5] a breach of duty amounts to 'gross negligence' when there is:

... indifference to an obvious risk of injury to health; actual foresight of the risk coupled with the determination nevertheless to run it; appreciation of the risk coupled with an intention to avoid it but also coupled with such a high degree of negligence in the attempted avoidance as the jury consider justifies conviction, and inattention or failure to advert to a serious risk which goes 'beyond inadvertence' in respect of an obvious and important matter which the defendant's duty demanded he should address.

The Law Commission's 1996 report on involuntary manslaughter found that the gross negligence formula overcomes the problems of having to find one particular officer who has the mens rea for the offence and allows emphasis to be placed on the company’s attitude to safety.[6] This question would only arise where the company has chosen to enter a field of activity that carries a risk to others, such as transport, manufacture or medical care. The steps the company has taken to discharge the "duty of safety" and the systems devised for running its business, will be directly relevant.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_manslaughter_in_English_law

 

I have been pointed in this direction with respect to possible legal action. I have little or no legal knowledge so cannot really comment on its applicability. 

[Jamaldo]

In a couple of weeks this won't be getting talked about and the government will be out of the woods, sorry to say.

People saying the government will collapse because of this are going to be disappointed.

[Jacksgranda]

2 minutes ago, Panda Pies said:

 

 

 

 

 

Any work over a certain limit done for any government body, nhs, local authority etc. Goes out for tender and it's the client that tends to via a consultant, designer that would specify what is to be used or what's not to be used. 1/ The client is more or less looking for the cheapest cost to get the job done. 2/ Which in turn forces the contractors to under cut one & other and cost save where they can i.e. cheap labour/cheap inferior materials.
The bullet stop with the client as they have overall control of any project.

 

 

 

 

 

1/ Naturally enough

2/ They cannot use "inferior materials". Materias have to be up to spec. If the spec isn't right that's a different argument.

[Monkey Tennis]

9 minutes ago, Jamaldo said:

In a couple of weeks this won't be getting talked about and the government will be out of the woods, sorry to say.

People saying the government will collapse because of this are going to be disappointed.

I suspect you're right.

I'll actually confess to a sliver of sympathy for May over this, much as I can't stand the woman.  I think the charge of being essentially indifferent to this type of suffering is a pretty severe one and I actually doubt if it's the case.   She's just a bit emotionally constipated and socially awkward.  

There's obviously a debate about whether someone handicapped in this way is PM material, but I do see something a little opportunistic and gratuitous in some of the personal attacks she's now facing.

[dorlomin]

Just now, Monkey Tennis said:

I'll actually confess to a sliver of sympathy for May over this, much as I can't stand the woman.  I think the charge of being essentially indifferent to this type of suffering is a pretty severe one and I actually doubt if it's the case.   She's just a bit emotionally constipated and socially awkward.  

She was home secretary for 6 years. She will have attended many training sessions for incidents like this, she will have been involved in the planning for them. This is her bread and butter. Yet the site of the relief operation was chaos for days and mostly dependent on volunteers. She could have been onsite early on then hauled the council head to the site with a phonecall to get him cracking at organizing the relief and been making it blindingly clear that if something was needed she would bulldoze the obstacles. 

 

This should have remade her reputation.

Her looking like an out of touch tourist seeking to do the minimum to mollify the press has instead been the breaking of it. 

[Monkey Tennis]

2 minutes ago, dorlomin said:

She was home secretary for 6 years. She will have attended many training sessions for incidents like this, she will have been involved in the planning for them. This is her bread and butter. Yet the site of the relief operation was chaos for days and mostly dependent on volunteers. She could have been onsite early on then hauled the council head to the site with a phonecall to get him cracking at organizing the relief and been making it blindingly clear that if something was needed she would bulldoze the obstacles. 

 

This should have remade her reputation.

Her looking like an out of touch tourist seeking to do the minimum to mollify the press has instead been the breaking of it. 

I wouldn't disagree with any of that.  Her professional response to this could scarcely have been less impressive.

I maintain though that incompetence doesn't necessarily equate to, or reflect, indifference.