It doesn't help that the scope of the investigation will be so narrow it's only going to repeat what we already know about sprinklers and cladding.
Grenfell Tower Fire | 14th June 2017
- Thread starter Cheesy
- Start date
I think that's about typical. Aircraft accident reports usually take about that long and I'd say this is quite similar in terms of complexity and evidence destroyed.
I know that the judge hinted as much, however the terms of reference are not yet confirmed. Nevertheless, one of Its purpose shall be to make recommendations (we do learn lessons eventually).
Criminal prosecutions are in the hands of the police and the CPS however. This doesn't preclude the possibility of a civil case down the road, should evidence stack up in the right ways.
Criminal prosecutions are in the hands of the police and the CPS however. This doesn't preclude the possibility of a civil case down the road, should evidence stack up in the right ways.
I know, and in some cases it can be nearer two years. But if these are only going to be preliminary, something a little earlier than a year might be possible. We don't want to see the repeated postponements which afflicted Chilcott.
A pity that Lord Cullen is now in his 80s :: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Cullen,_Baron_Cullen_of_Whitekirk
Impressive record with regard to public inquiries.
I find the conspiracy stuff hugely frustrating but with Hillsborough in the news it is a timely reminder that our authorities are not always open and honest.
He's going to discover that a freezer exploded, the fire in the flat was put out, but then the firefighters noticed that the cladding outside had caught fire.
The survivors want to know why they weren't listened to. They want to know who made the decisions. They want to know how far up local and national government it went. They want to know who had conflicts of interest and who benefited.
The survivors want to know why they weren't listened to. They want to know who made the decisions. They want to know how far up local and national government it went. They want to know who had conflicts of interest and who benefited.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40453054
Key parts:
Key parts:
and
Seems like it will come down to whether anyone told the councillor in charge it was an additional fire risk above the official safety rating, and who gave it that safety rating.
Seems like the fire regs are at best unclear or at worst downright dangerous.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...fell-tower-takes-legal-action-against-council
Lovely, Rydon is now threatening to sue Camden council.
Lovely, Rydon is now threatening to sue Camden council.
Lowlife.
CourtNewsUK @CourtNewsUK
Man in court accused of lying about losing his family in the Grenfell Tower to get accommodation plus £10k of clothes and household items
CourtNewsUK @CourtNewsUKMan in court accused of lying about losing his family in the Grenfell Tower to get accommodation plus £10k of clothes and household items
I agree with them to be honest. She came out running her mouth for publicity without a thought for the residents in the buildings and without knowing anything about the situation.
Nicholas Paget-Brown has resigned.
Good riddance.
Good riddance.
I suspect the governments stepped in to demand these resignations.
First the CEO of the Tenant management organisation, then the council leader and now the deputy council leader have announced they're stepping down in a matter of hours.
First the CEO of the Tenant management organisation, then the council leader and now the deputy council leader have announced they're stepping down in a matter of hours.
Hopefully there is no deals in place.
He's still a councillor though. He had a fecking mare yesterday during that meeting.
Why haven't the government stepped in and taken over the authority like they did in Tower Hamlets and Rotherham? Because it's a Tory council
Well they have effected regime change quite well.
Took their sweet time over it
Grenfell group threatens to boycott inquiry if judge is not changed
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...rs-boycott-inquiry-judge-not-changed-justice/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...rs-boycott-inquiry-judge-not-changed-justice/
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Why are we straight to acting like this is some big establishment cover up? The inquiry hasnt even started yet. Let it do it's job before they start accusing people of social cleansing and other such nonsense. The default position now always seems to be outrage and anger.
From what I read the inquiry will be based on the events on what happened that day and what followed. The residents want the events leading up to the fire to be included especially as they have been complaining about fire hazards months before this happened.
Because Lilly Allen said so
Group who weren't listened to find they continue not to be listened to after scores died despite their warnings and protestations. 11101 would like to know why their default position is to be outraged and angry.
Let's just bow down to our tory overlords and be thankful for their eternal grace.
Please sir. Can i have some less sir.
That's got nothing to do with them complaining the inquiry is led by an old white bloke though.
The crazy thing is this isn't about race but race is allowed to be brought into it. This is about corporate greed and race is being highlighted. It's irrelevant but will be used. It's a disgrace in my opinion for this to even be a consideration in the media and then into the public domain. The reality is this is about corporate greed and when they turn it towards a race issue then people tend to loose focus on those cnuts responsible. They are masters at deflection.
Of course nothing in the Telegraph article says that "they" are complaining because he's old and white though. You are co-opting the opinion of Lammy and presenting it here as the opinion of this group. It may be, but nothing in the article suggests it. Rather the spokeswoman for the Grenfell victims is reported as advocating his removal because the group believes he has the wrong specialism and a less than stellar record given the previous accusation of social cleansing.
Last edited:
Grenfell survivors issue 12 demands to PM to overhaul response to tragedy
The one consolation is that these lawyers are supposedly offering their services for free, otherwise they'd be snacking upon the emotions of the Grenfell residents for the purposes of immediate profit as well as exposure. Half of the above demands are either inconsistent or unreasonable.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...demands-to-pm-to-overhaul-response-to-tragedy
The one consolation is that these lawyers are supposedly offering their services for free, otherwise they'd be snacking upon the emotions of the Grenfell residents for the purposes of immediate profit as well as exposure. Half of the above demands are either inconsistent or unreasonable.
Last edited:
The link above rather conveniently does say that.
The advice they are getting seems pretty poor and to be aimed at serving interests other than the survivors'.
As soon as it was an inquiry instead of an inquest you knew there would be controversy.
What seems to have been completely forgotten about and left unmentioned is that the regulations require there to be fire barriers between the cladding to stop in spreading in the way it did.
The safety rating of the cladding itself is based on how easily and quickly the cladding burns, but what enabled the fire to spread quickly, in theory (I say theory but it's blatantly obvious), was it being able too get into the cavity between the cladding and the buiding, so it was able to spread freely from one panel to another regardless of how quicky the panels themselves were burning. It effectively had a chimney to travel up. The fire regs already state that this isn't allowed for exactly this reason.
So it's not so much about how fire ratings work or why the regs are wrong, as finding out why the regs in place already were ignored. Someone already also let slip that fire doors were not correctly installed within the building...again there are already regulations very clearly saying this isn't allowed. When a person (building owner) carries out this type of work it is their responsibility to ensure they apply for Building Regulations correctly and ensure the work is carried out in accordance with them. It's the Building Control body's responsibility to not sign off or approve the work until they're satisfied this is the case...in this instance both the building owner and building control body are the Kensington Council (i.e. local government)...so there's n escaping that they are the ones to be helld responsible.
So the residents are right to be extremely wary of a public enquiry that is willing to work with the Council. We are aready seeing an attempt by the government to hide blame behind outdated fire regulations or cladding panels having slightly different fire ratings. The simple fact is the regulations in place NOW weren't followed, and somewhere, someone is responsible for that.
All this "we wont let this drag on" stuff is now begining to grate because we're at a stage where this is exactlly what should be getting investigated, and instead the government are still piffing around trying to avoid admitting it is even what happened.
I also know someone who was involved checking the towers in Camden, and they weren't evacuated due to having the same type of cladding, they were evacuated because again, they didn't come close to complying with the CURRENT regulations. To the point they were deemed a danger to live in, under those same current regulations.
This is I suspect part of what is angering the residents. This drive to focus the enquiry on how the regulations can be improved, instead of looking at why it was deemed unecessary to bother meeting the regulationns already in place.