Grenfell Inquiry - Phase 2.

[blue blue]

It appears a number of witnesses will only give evidence if they get immunity. Seems unfair on the victims families and friends who just want some honesty and closure.

Should they be allowed to withhold what they know?

 

[blue blue]

That captured the imagination of everyone then.

I'm probably more interested in the current Grenfell inquiry because I work in construction and it's only now that the inquiry is seriously questioning how the building itself became so dangerous. I speed read most of the major protagonists opening remarks and only the local council owned up to making any mistakes. All other parties basically blamed each other. The council really sound shambolic. Apparently they didn't respond to the planning application and just signed the works off at the end. Despite this, all the other parties are still in serious trouble and are only now saying they want immunity from future prosecutions if they are to give any further evidence. It seems this is not unusual and happened in the Steven Lawrence enquiry and many others.

It just seems to me that this inquiry is really important. 76 people died in that building. Is it right that the people that caused these deaths all get away it?

Reading the opening comments of the Architect, Fire consultant, main contractor, subcontractor, sub-subcontractor and others I recognised how each of these parties fell into the trap they now find themselves in. Changes in main contractor, changes in specification, contracts not being signed, scope of contract conditions disputed and budgets being "value engineered". I've seen all of these pitfalls in my time in construction and none of them are that unusual. Grenfell was waiting to happen and it will happen again unless there is route and branch reform in the construction industry.

The scope of this enquiry includes finding a way to prevent it happening again. This will only happen if all parties come clean about why they thought they could shirk their responsibilities in an open forum. So the answer to my earlier question is yes the people that caused Grenfell will have to get away with it if we are to find a way to prevent it happening again. The real crime would be if the industry didn't change sufficiently enough to prevent another Grenfell.

 

[DavidDeSchmikes]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[DavidDeSchmikes]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...n-into-confusion-over-legal-move-by-witnesses

 

[DavidDeSchmikes]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Abizzz]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...n-into-confusion-over-legal-move-by-witnesses

Read that earlier. Grim:

“Armed with the knowledge that its product was at best class E [combustible], and increasingly could not be sold in other markets, Arconic set out to increase sales in the UK market and win the Grenfell Tower project,” she said.

Losing a relative or friend in a tragedy is horrible enough, but this wasn't just avoidable, the people responsible were seemingly tempting fate in full knowledge of what they were doing .

 

[Rams]

It appears a number of witnesses will only give evidence if they get immunity. Seems unfair on the victims families and friends who just want some honesty and closure.

Should they be allowed to withhold what they know?

No.
Justice should be served and those responsible should be held accountable, trialed in a court of justice and sent down for a very long time for manslaughter. Each & everyone of those greedy selfish bastards.
Of course this won’t happen, the offenders will get away scot free and the wonderful British media will continue to focus on such evils as benefits or immigrants. Nothing to see here!

 

[mariachi-19]

That captured the imagination of everyone then.

I'm probably more interested in the current Grenfell inquiry because I work in construction and it's only now that the inquiry is seriously questioning how the building itself became so dangerous. I speed read most of the major protagonists opening remarks and only the local council owned up to making any mistakes. All other parties basically blamed each other. The council really sound shambolic. Apparently they didn't respond to the planning application and just signed the works off at the end. Despite this, all the other parties are still in serious trouble and are only now saying they want immunity from future prosecutions if they are to give any further evidence. It seems this is not unusual and happened in the Steven Lawrence enquiry and many others.

It just seems to me that this inquiry is really important. 76 people died in that building. Is it right that the people that caused these deaths all get away it?

Reading the opening comments of the Architect, Fire consultant, main contractor, subcontractor, sub-subcontractor and others I recognised how each of these parties fell into the trap they now find themselves in. Changes in main contractor, changes in specification, contracts not being signed, scope of contract conditions disputed and budgets being "value engineered". I've seen all of these pitfalls in my time in construction and none of them are that unusual. Grenfell was waiting to happen and it will happen again unless there is route and branch reform in the construction industry.

The scope of this enquiry includes finding a way to prevent it happening again. This will only happen if all parties come clean about why they thought they could shirk their responsibilities in an open forum. So the answer to my earlier question is yes the people that caused Grenfell will have to get away with it if we are to find a way to prevent it happening again. The real crime would be if the industry didn't change sufficiently enough to prevent another Grenfell.

https://www.claytonutz.com/knowledg...ladding-following-the-lacrosse-tower-judgment


This was the outcome in Australia regarding liability. The case is currently being appealed but it was significant regarding the liability of the consultants etc.

 

[CassiusClaymore]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

One rule for them....

 

[VeevaVee]

This cladding is still on loads of residences, including student halls. Anyone who's lived in them knows the fire brigade ends up at them every week. It's a fecking disgrace.

 

[mariachi-19]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

One rule for them....

Its not a case of one rule for them, the issue is what is otherwise known as the "flood gates" principal. That is, if these companies are found liable, what is the net impact on the local construction market regarding liability over all defective works or works that aren't compliant. If the UK system is anything like Australia (and it should be) these companies are already liable to remove the defective products if they do not comply with relevant standards.

The reality of Grenfell is that it is merely the tip of the iceberg and that cladding and non compliant building products are going to be bigger than asbestos.

 

[yumtum]

That is, if these companies are found liable, what is the net impact on the local construction market regarding liability over all defective works or works that aren't compliant. If the UK system is anything like Australia (and it should be) these companies are already liable to remove the defective products if they do not comply with relevant standards.

Hasnt it been confirmed that these companies used poor materials that they knew would be terrible in a fire? And they're not yet being made to remove it - I lived in a cladded building for 2 years and the last year of it we had 24hr personnel in each block, with god knows who fitting the bill.

I'm all for companies making good money, but they want to make more, putting lives at risk in the process, I'm sure if these companies went bust then the legit companies who don't use materials that kill people will win the contracts.

 

[George Owen]

Hasnt it been confirmed that these companies used poor materials that they knew would be terrible in a fire? And they're not yet being made to remove it - I lived in a cladded building for 2 years and the last year of it we had 24hr personnel in each block, with god knows who fitting the bill.

I'm all for companies making good money, but they want to make more, putting lives at risk in the process, I'm sure if these companies went bust then the legit companies who don't use materials that kill people will win the contracts.

They did it violating the law? or the regulators let them do it? Because if the latter, then who is really responsible?

 

[yumtum]

They did it violating the law? or the regulators let them do it? Because if the latter, then who is really responsible?

Unfortunately the building was signed as safe and meeting regulation standards by the council right? Meanwhile people knew the material was flammable, my guess is this will never be solved as enough of the right people who wanted this tower built passed all the correct documentation either through gross incompetence or something more sinister (as in, getting kick backs).

One this is for absolute certain is that someone should be going to prison for a very long time - unfortunately as I said above, they've all managed to cover themselves by jumping through all the necessary hoops in whatever fashion.

 

[Pexbo]

Its not a case of one rule for them, the issue is what is otherwise known as the "flood gates" principal. That is, if these companies are found liable, what is the net impact on the local construction market regarding liability over all defective works or works that aren't compliant. If the UK system is anything like Australia (and it should be) these companies are already liable to remove the defective products if they do not comply with relevant standards.

The reality of Grenfell is that it is merely the tip of the iceberg and that cladding and non compliant building products are going to be bigger than asbestos.

I would imagine that the net impact on the local construction market would be “safer practices”.

Do you know what the net impact of letting them get away with it will be? Another incident like this in the future. If not cladding, some other cost cutting trick which puts lives at risk that they know they will never be held responsible for.

 

[CassiusClaymore]

"Won't somebody think of the construction market!!?"

 

[CassiusClaymore]

Unfortunately the building was signed as safe and meeting regulation standards by the council right? Meanwhile people knew the material was flammable, my guess is this will never be solved as enough of the right people who wanted this tower built passed all the correct documentation either through gross incompetence or something more sinister (as in, getting kick backs).

One this is for absolute certain is that someone should be going to prison for a very long time - unfortunately as I said above, they've all managed to cover themselves by jumping through all the necessary hoops in whatever fashion.

This is more what I meant when I said "one rule for them..."

People did (and will continue to) die because of at best gross incompetence and at worst criminal negligence. Either way it stinks that people should be allowed to bargain with the outcome of the inquiry and any possible prosections that should result from it in return for the truth.

I expect this could be another Hillsborough where it's brushed under the carpet and we only get the bigger picture many years down the line. If only there were some real journalists still around to keep the spotlight on them.

 

[blue blue]

This is more what I meant when I said "one rule for them..."

People did (and will continue to) die because of at best gross incompetence and at worst criminal negligence. Either way it stinks that people should be allowed to bargain with the outcome of the inquiry and any possible prosections that should result from it in return for the truth.

I expect this could be another Hillsborough where it's brushed under the carpet and we only get the bigger picture many years down the line. If only there were some real journalists still around to keep the spotlight on them.

I'm hoping it is a watershed moment for the construction industry. Every now and then it happens. The Bradford fire change football stadia in this country, Kings Cross changed smoking laws throughout the country and Grenfell should have a similar impact to the construction industry.

The opening statements from all the different parties catalogue a litany of excuses as to why it was somebody else's fault. Only the local building control office has held its hands up and admitted it signed the works off without checking.

The horror of what happened that day should not be forgotten. I question if it can be forgotten because the opening statement from the Bereaved, Survivors Residents is so damning.

https://www.grenfelltowerinquiry.org.uk/evidence/bsrs-team-1-opening-statement

I have read most of the opening statements and recognise most of the events described as I have worked on similar projects. Large elements of the construction industry are driven by cost alone and the level and quality of regulation is very poor. From the top to the bottom the industry is always looking to cut costs but regulation and quality are a low priority. There has been a dearth of proper training in the industry for 30 years or more and people just don't take construction seriously enough. Attitudes changed the day after Grenfell and a lot of construction professionals are now looking at projects a lot closer. What has become apparent is how few people actually know the building regulations or how building contracts work. Main contractors now taking on design and build contracts are looking at their responsibilities a lot more seriously now, whereas before they would always try to subrogate responsibility to their subcontractor and the architect. I suspect there will be fewer design and build contract from now on.

If anybody is interested they should read the evidence I have provided the link to above. For me it was a difficult read because I felt ashamed to be associated with such an incompetent and careless industry. The conclusions reached should lead to a watershed moment for construction.

 

[0le]

I have read most of the opening statements and recognise most of the events described as I have worked on similar projects. Large elements of the construction industry are driven by cost alone and the level and quality of regulation is very poor. From the top to the bottom the industry is always looking to cut costs but regulation and quality are a low priority. There has been a dearth of proper training in the industry for 30 years or more and people just don't take construction seriously enough. Attitudes changed the day after Grenfell and a lot of construction professionals are now looking at projects a lot closer. What has become apparent is how few people actually know the building regulations or how building contracts work. Main contractors now taking on design and build contracts are looking at their responsibilities a lot more seriously now, whereas before they would always try to subrogate responsibility to their subcontractor and the architect. I suspect there will be fewer design and build contract from now on.

This is interesting to read. I have seen a lot of consultancy jobs on job boards related to offering building services. I wonder if there has been a rise in those jobs or they are at the same level as before. I also agree with your other comments, that the level (standard) of construction can be hit or miss. When I attended university, after a rennovation to the campus, we had toilet leaks of raw sewage, raw sewage running down the walls, fire doors not installed correctly etc etc.

 

[blue blue]

"Won't somebody think of the construction market!!?"

That's what got them into this terrible state of affairs in the first place.

 

[DavidDeSchmikes]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[esmufc07]

Who signs off as BSc (Hons).

Twat.

 

[Mr Pigeon]

Who signs off as BSc (Hons).

Twat.

A super duper twat.

 

[sebsheep]

Who signs off as BSc (Hons).

Twat.

Amazingly it's not even the worst part of the e-mail.

 

[DavidDeSchmikes]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[DavidDeSchmikes]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[TheGame]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[TheGame]

Tory MP for Kensington voting against the bill. Do people regret their votes at the election yet or will it take some more damage to see that happen?

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[noodlehair]

Who signs off as BSc (Hons).

Twat.

Half the feckers in the industry.

 

[noodlehair]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

There is a reform coming and already in progress when it comes to the rules and regulations around fire safety, particularly in regards to buildings like Grenfell, and which has mostly been put into action due to Grenfell. Basically the entire way these buildings are looked at, and who is qualified to be allowed to look at and pass them, is changing. So there is a point about Labour trying to politicise it for point scoring. The vote will make little difference to what is put into place in that regard and they know that full well.

Sprinklers will be mandatory in any building over 11 metres which is a big thing in itself as there's a fairly convincing argument this on it's own would have prevented Grenfell from happening. The cladding is never coming back and basically you'll have a route of accountability when it comes to aspects like inspecting fire doors and compartmentation...which are already requirements and have been for a long time. Grenfell was not anywhere near up to the standards already in place and that's a bigger part of the issue here and presumably will be covered more in stage 2.

Stage 1 of the enquiry was a bit of a mess if I recall. I didn't fully follow it from start to finish but it seemed to be a lot of slagging off the fire brigade who were dealing with something they had never encountered or trained for before, and which all their training told them should never be happening in the first place. I didn't get what that was meant to achieve. The stay put policy is based on a building's compartmentation doing it's job. Once that fails it's already a disaster as the escape route is compromised if not by fire then by smoke. Then we have people refusing to give evidence because they don't want to end up in a court being prosecuted...and that straight off tells you where the blame mostly lies. Some of the emails sent back and forth have already been seen and they are damming enough. You can imagine what the conversations and emails people want to keep hidden must have entailed. It was known the cladding was an issue and the testing it's fire rating is based on was well known as being dubious.

I'm interested to know what was actually installed and what was inspected by the LA (if anything), but suspect that might be difficult to wrangle out of people afraid of going to jail.

 

[Jippy]

There is a reform coming and already in progress when it comes to the rules and regulations around fire safety, particularly in regards to buildings like Grenfell, and which has mostly been put into action due to Grenfell. Basically the entire way these buildings are looked at, and who is qualified to be allowed to look at and pass them, is changing. So there is a point about Labour trying to politicise it for point scoring. The vote will make little difference to what is put into place in that regard and they know that full well.

Sprinklers will be mandatory in any building over 11 metres which is a big thing in itself as there's a fairly convincing argument this on it's own would have prevented Grenfell from happening. The cladding is never coming back and basically you'll have a route of accountability when it comes to aspects like inspecting fire doors and compartmentation...which are already requirements and have been for a long time. Grenfell was not anywhere near up to the standards already in place and that's a bigger part of the issue here and presumably will be covered more in stage 2.

Stage 1 of the enquiry was a bit of a mess if I recall. I didn't fully follow it from start to finish but it seemed to be a lot of slagging off the fire brigade who were dealing with something they had never encountered or trained for before, and which all their training told them should never be happening in the first place. I didn't get what that was meant to achieve. The stay put policy is based on a building's compartmentation doing it's job. Once that fails it's already a disaster as the escape route is compromised if not by fire then by smoke. Then we have people refusing to give evidence because they don't want to end up in a court being prosecuted...and that straight off tells you where the blame mostly lies. Some of the emails sent back and forth have already been seen and they are damming enough. You can imagine what the conversations and emails people want to keep hidden must have entailed. It was known the cladding was an issue and the testing it's fire rating is based on was well known as being dubious.

I'm interested to know what was actually installed and what was inspected by the LA (if anything), but suspect that might be difficult to wrangle out of people afraid of going to jail.

I was reading up on phase2 yesterday and it's obviously damning re the company looking to cut costs and the one that helped them but creamed off £126k of that.
You mentioned new rules will increase accountability- I take it no-one in the industry expects any criminal convictions to result from this?

 

[DavidDeSchmikes]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[DavidDeSchmikes]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[jojojo]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

This is the classic - "quick, put them in the shredder" - approach to evidence of wrongdoing. I don't know if the ex-design manager is one of the guilty parties in the actual Grenfell story (his old job title suggests he was, but job titles don't always mean what they sound like). I do know whoever ordered/allowed the files to be deleted from the server sounds guilty of a whole bunch of stuff in terms of the cover up. I also wonder what exactly the police etc were doing at that stage.

 

[TrustInJanuzaj]

This whole case is an absolute disgrace, too much money at stake so as usual they just shut the door on it. Never has corruption been more prevalent in our societies and brazenly put right in front of our faces and yet still people can do nothing. Massively disheartening.

 

[Pexbo]

Utterly utterly depressing. This country is broken.

 

[Jippy]

Haven't they got enough evidence to make some charges stick even without this?

 

[VeevaVee]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

If his job is what I think it is, it’s not to be an expert on fire regulations, or cladding, or the safety of every material (which shouldn’t even have to come into question anyway). There should be people involved that are experts on fire regs, the cladding company should know what they’re dealing with, and the law should stop any issue anyway.

Pretty terrifying that it’s being partially pinned on him.

 

[blue blue]

If his job is what I think it is, it’s not to be an expert on fire regulations, or cladding, or the safety of every material (which shouldn’t even have to come into question anyway). There should be people involved that are experts on fire regs, the cladding company should know what they’re dealing with, and the law should stop any issue anyway.

Pretty terrifying that it’s being partially pinned on him.

Apart from my overall frustration with this inquiry I'm starting to get a bit suspicious of the shear quantity of questioning that Harley (the cladding subcontractor) are facing. They have been in the chair for much longer than the architect ever was. The architect is responsible for co-ordinating the design as a whole. He should check that all materials are suitable and sign off any options put before him.
There is more than enough evidence to find out what went wrong at Grenfell. Go on the inquiry website and look at it.

I've been watching this inquiry for a while and it seems obvious a bus has been driven through building fire regulations and the material manufacturers promises of compliance. This has been done by multiple participants each with their own interest at heart over a long time. Each thinking that ultimately any non-compliance is somebody else's responsibility. Different material manufacturers tricking subcontractors, main-contractors and Architects into believing their material complies. Subcontractors, main-contractors and Architects blaming each other for taking responsibility for every element of design and the local building control not even checking the end result. Thats everybody blaming each other.

I can see how we have ended up in this mess but can't see how we are going to get out of it. The inquiry was instigated with all good intentions but it will fail in bringing about the right type of change. Left to its own devices the construction industry will find a way to misinterpret regulations. Without a properly resourced and independently funded regulatory body the market forces within the industry will find a way to get things wrong. Local authority building controllers have to accept what the industry produces because the people they are meant to be checking on have a hundred times more resources.

 

[VeevaVee]

Apart from my overall frustration with this inquiry I'm starting to get a bit suspicious of the shear quantity of questioning that Harley (the cladding subcontractor) are facing. They have been in the chair for much longer than the architect ever was. The architect is responsible for co-ordinating the design as a whole. He should check that all materials are suitable and sign off any options put before him.
There is more than enough evidence to find out what went wrong at Grenfell. Go on the inquiry website and look at it.

I've been watching this inquiry for a while and it seems obvious a bus has been driven through building fire regulations and the material manufacturers promises of compliance. This has been done by multiple participants each with their own interest at heart over a long time. Each thinking that ultimately any non-compliance is somebody else's responsibility. Different material manufacturers tricking subcontractors, main-contractors and Architects into believing their material complies. Subcontractors, main-contractors and Architects blaming each other for taking responsibility for every element of design and the local building control not even checking the end result. Thats everybody blaming each other.

I can see how we have ended up in this mess but can't see how we are going to get out of it. The inquiry was instigated with all good intentions but it will fail in bringing about the right type of change. Left to its own devices the construction industry will find a way to misinterpret regulations. Without a properly resourced and independently funded regulatory body the market forces within the industry will find a way to get things wrong. Local authority building controllers have to accept what the industry produces because the people they are meant to be checking on have a hundred times more resources.

From what I’d read it sounded like Harley subbed out the cladding, and this poor fella was a project manager of sorts. If he was working for the cladding firm he probably should know a bit more about the cladding, but he’s likely a glorified salesperson so I don’t reckon he’s required to know more than being told it does the job correctly.

You’re 100% right. Something big needs to change, and it’s frankly scary and incredibly negligent from the government that it hasn’t yet and probably won’t. They should surely be driving this change.

I’m lucky that wherever I’ve worked has had people dealing with fire. I don’t think they’d pick up on cladding if we were told it is compliant and will work though, but at least it wouldn’t be me in the firing line (I’m a PM). The thought of that is terrifying. I consider myself an expert on running a project, not every material.

I think getting control of this has to happen at manufacturing level, which I think is what you’re saying?