East Dulwich (Mobile) Forum

Who goes to jail for Grenfell?

So far, not one council official, not one contractor, not one minister have been threatened with charges over the Grenfell disaster. Yet one man who posted pictures on the internet of one of the victim’s has been jailed for three months. How nuts is that??
Of course no-one will go jail.
We had a fake war illegally and no-one went down for it, even though it's having severe and frequent repercussions (possibly for decades to come).
No. Accountability.
The guy who was jailed unzipped a body bag took 5 photos of the deceased and uploaded them onto Facebook.
He was jailed for his own safety as a backlash was feared.
Ah, didn't know that, still seems a bit harsh.




Parker1 Wrote:

The guy who was jailed unzipped a body bag took 5
photos of the deceased and uploaded them onto
Facebook.
He was jailed for his own safety as a backlash was
feared.
It's a bit soon to bring charges of the scope and complexity that are going to be involved here.
Tough one-to my mind (and I'm no expert) the fault lies with using the curtain wall material with the plastic filling rather than the mineral filling which is obviously less flammable.
I grew up in that area in a similar block (Built earlier though) Any fire in our block would have been pretty much contained to the flat or the floor due to all the concrete providing the person who's house was on fire alerted the neighbours ON the floor and closed the door upon leaving-It appears to me the fire spread externally and then in through peoples open windows due to the hot weather.
I believe that particular cladding is banned in some countries or states due to its higher flammibility.
The problem lies with the fact that the law requires a certain level of fire retardence for things to be deemed safe-the law does not take into account the worst case scenereo which this was.
The law needs to be changed so that the worst case scenereo (sorry I cannot spell!) is always treated as the norm in factors of safety of materials in multi-occupancy buildings.
I hope this makes sense-this whole affair is very close to my heart having grown up and spent almost 50years living in the Notting Hill area and living in social housing until my 20's when I left home.
My Parents saw out their lives in a similar flat a woman in her 80's died in this fire it could have been my mother.
My parents block was not 'gentrified' it was not clad to make it socially acceptable for its wealthier neighbours.
its still a concrete block and to my eyes more beautiful for it and certainly safer.

There had been problems and questions raised about safety in Grenfell for a LONG time.
Those who are interested should google Grenfell action group.
its a wordpress site which warned about a possible fire disaster in that block during the construction work.
Its a tough read but I do encourage people to read it in order to see how poorly managed everything was.
ALSO did you know there were several 'gentrified' flats in that block on the higher floors being rented out privately for £2000 a month?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit was june 17, 09:05pm by NewWave.

There's no doubt someone will go to jail. At least 58 people are dead because they wanted to save (if I have it correct) about £5,000 on the cladding. The PM has gotten herself personally involved in an effort to appear less of an android, and there's widespread anger in the community. Someone is going to jail.


Whether it's the right person/people, is another question entirely. Scapegoats will do them nicely if they can't/won't/don't want to pin the blame on the actually guilty party.
As a postscript-if you do read the grenfell action group blog look out for the section about the repeated power-surges within the building leading to smoke pouring out of some peoples light fittings and blowing up and 'frying' their applicences.
They were eventually sorted but could it have been a repeat of this in block electrical fault which caused the fridge to explode which some press are saying started the fire?
In the blog there are entries from 2013 (The disempowered of Grenfell tower is the title of one of the posts)
Stating there was a problem caused by Arcing in the mains supply.
this was apparently sorted but a lot can happen in 4 years.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit was june 17, 09:47pm by NewWave.

"Someone is going to jail".
I really, really hope so JL.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit was june 17, 09:38pm by KidKruger.

I found this about the tangle of contractors working on the refurbishment.

[www.theguardian.com]

Too many fingers in the pie. Not managed properly. They'll try and find a way out, but I'm pretty sure that would start a riot.
JoeLeg Wrote:

There's no doubt someone will go to jail. At least 58 people are dead because they wanted to save (if
I have it correct) about £5,000 on the cladding. The PM has gotten herself personally involved in
an effort to appear less of an android, and there's widespread anger in the community. Someone
is going to jail.

For someone to go to jail, you almost certainly need to prove negligence. If all materials used were certified as safe, then I suggest people involved in the cladding decision won't go to jail.

I suspect the alarms will be an issue, though.

Interestingly, the brand new MP for Kensington has said that “poor-quality materials and construction standards have played a part in this hideous and unforgivable event”. She seem to have forgotten she was, according to some newspapers, on the board of Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation when the refurbishment was discussed and scrutinised.
Would have thought whoever authorised the works (without checking the materials to be used or whoever signed off teh cheaper option) and subsequently whoever signed of the works as complete is likely to be looking at a long stretch, hopefully life for mass manslaughter/murder. All those who were complicit for this need to be identified, brought to trial, sentenced and jailed, with no opportunity for parole, ever.

Those who perished in this dreadful fire suffered so much and had no escape from the flames. They should have published a list for the relatives of all those admitted to hospital. It is intensely worrying that three days after the fire, the authorities still can only estimate the number who perished, but I suspect this because the authorities are unable to identify some of those who perished as the heat was so intense (reported 700 - 1000 degrees C) the bodies probably were cremated in the fire (my speculation).

I hope those who perished can rest in peace and the relatives get the justice they rightly deserve. But looking at other cases like Hillsborough and the Bradford fire, I fear it will take years before justice is served unless MP's councillors, The Mayor and Government press for fast track justice. If the relatives do not see action happening and fast, like first thing Monday morning when council offices reopen, I fear a riot will eventually result.

The new MP for K&C made comment that no Emergency Planning personnel exist at K&C. I find this hard to belief as all boroughs have EPO's, or at least used to have. If K&C do not have a team of EPO's this could explain the inability of K&C to act fast enough following the fire, but in no way is this acceptable. The Executive team and their staff should have got their sleeves rolled up and stuck into leading, managing, assisting and organising with the organisation of services immediately after the fire.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit was june 17, 11:46pm by dbboy.

Someone will go to jail, the fault might be found with one contractor, or management agency. But the fault, in my mind, is with a far wider group, and in very abstract terms, with the system that dehumanises the poor.
Culpability:-

Supplier - knew or should have known of the risks of using material & had an obligation to inform and/or refuse supply.
Builder - knew or should have known risks of using material & ought to have opted for safer material - a better & more effective fire barriers to the flammable material; also had an obligation to install the materials properly.
Employers agent - had an obligation to ensure all materials were fit for purpose, didn't pose any risk & were installed properly.
Architects/engineers - had an obligation to ensure against risks as last and to write detailed specifications that demanded suitable effective fire proofing standards.
K&C as Client - as an experienced client would have the same obligation as all the above.
K&C as regulatory authority - has an obligation to ensure compliance with Building Regulations/Fire Regulations but that has been largely derogated to the consultants who self certify and they are nowadays employed by the Design & Build type builder; these consultants are beholden to their paymaster & act accordingly. K&C still have a responsibility at the application stage of Building Control.
London Fire Authority - has an obligation to assess the completed building & issue a fire certificate which should have been withheld if the materials were not up to standard. The LFA will be playing a policing role in the investigation & might well be trying to exonerate itself.
Home Office/Government/Minister/Civil Service - all had an obligation to enact regulation/legislation in the context of the report after the Lakenal disaster & other well reported fires associated with this material. Will also be involved in policing itself as well as all the other actors.

All of the above actors are equally culpable as they must all be considered experienced professional entities with knowledge of previous failings in the use of this material and the consequences of using or allowing the use of this defective material. The enquiry/investigation is going to be a mess of highly paid lawyers passing the buck from Billy to Jack & back again. Years of shyte talking & the residents shunted around to suit the needs of K&C & the Government.

K&C have a surplus of £260 million squirreled away - it would cost about £90 million to buy flats in the K&C borough to house these unfortunate people - why can this not be done; there are approximately 400 one & two bed flats for sale in & around K&C at an average of £750K so why does the government do it or instruct the K&C to do it..?

....Oh, I forgot; all of this must be done on the cheap for ordinary oiks. Couldn't pollute the posh neighbourhoods with social residents, could we. Then Nicholas Paget-Brown & Rock Feilding-Mellen would for sure lose their seats in a tory backlash..!



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit was june 18, 10:46am by Lordship 516.

After a fire in Shepherd’s Bush, west London last year, London Fire Brigade issued a warning to landlords about the fire hazard posed by external panels, or cladding, on tower blocks.

Why, then, did they not withdraw fire certificates on all of these buildings & issue compliance orders for remediation..?

Grenfell Tower had not been checked for fire safety for 18 months - why not..? Surely this is a failing of the Landlord, the TMO & LFB..?

Failings all round and all equally responsible. Currently scattering around to line up the best barristers & 'experts' to save their own skins.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit was june 18, 10:39am by Lordship 516.

Apparently K&C council have been running huge underspends for years, which they've transferred to capital reserves which were project to reach £167m this year but have actually risen to £209m. So they could have spent a wee bit more on the renovations... [www.theguardian.com]
I heard sprinkler systems were offered and the tenants turned them down due to the disruption it would cause....
uncleglen Wrote:

I heard sprinkler systems were offered and the
tenants turned them down due to the disruption it
would cause....

You heard..? From whom..? Nick Paget-Brown who is busy squirming his way out of the noose that he fashioned for himself - HA..! This rat is a fool & will be brought down by all of this. For sure...the government need scape goats & he qualifies quite nicely along with Rock Feilding-Mellen who was actually in charge of the project.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit was june 18, 01:09pm by Lordship 516.

Lordship 516 Wrote:

Culpability:-

Supplier - knew or should have known of the risks
of using material & had an obligation to inform
and/or refuse supply.
Builder - knew or should have known risks of using
material & ought to have opted for safer material
- a better & more effective fire barriers to the
flammable material; also had an obligation to
install the materials properly.
Employers agent - had an obligation to ensure all
materials were fit for purpose, didn't pose any
risk & were installed properly.
Architects/engineers - had an obligation to ensure
against risks as last and to write detailed
specifications that demanded suitable effective
fire proofing standards.

As I said above, if the cladding and insulation were certified for use for the situation, all of these groups will be absolved.

If the materials weren't certified, some or all of these will be in massive amounts of trouble.
uncleglen Wrote:

I heard sprinkler systems were offered and the
tenants turned them down due to the disruption it
would cause....


Nice bit of victim-blaming there. Got a source for that?
well I have now found out that some of the tenants did want them but others didn't
[metro.co.uk]
Ah, it's from the Metro.

Which is owned by the Daily Mail.

It reads like an opportunity for the council leader to try and blame the victims for their own demise. Of course they wanted hot water etc. Why on earth were sprinklers considered optional?! Fire safety isn't something to be designed by committee, even if it seems insignificant next to the decision to use that cladding. That whole article sounds like the most appalling attempt by the council to try and deflect blame away from their own penny-pinching.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit was june 18, 03:42pm by JoeLeg.

It all depends how the sprinkler system was sold to the residents, if they were told the building was going to be covered in highly flammable cladding, then their response might have been different. Regardless, it's a side issue, doesn't detract from what has happened and the need to get to the bottom of it and make anyone guilty of negligence, accountable...
Loz Wrote:

> Lordship 516 Wrote:
--------------------------------------------------
-----
> Culpability:-
>
> Supplier - knew or should have known of the
risks
> of using material & had an obligation to inform
> and/or refuse supply.
> Builder - knew or should have known risks of
using
> material & ought to have opted for safer
material
> - a better & more effective fire barriers to
the
> flammable material; also had an obligation to
> install the materials properly.
> Employers agent - had an obligation to ensure
all
> materials were fit for purpose, didn't pose any
> risk & were installed properly.
> Architects/engineers - had an obligation to
ensure
> against risks as last and to write detailed
> specifications that demanded suitable effective
> fire proofing standards.

As I said above, if the cladding and insulation
were certified for use for the situation, all of
these groups will be absolved.

If the materials weren't certified, some or all of
these will be in massive amounts of trouble.

Not so - there is a common law obligation also. Hiding behind specifications & clearances is not the whole story. A Developer/Architect/Builder has a duty of care & can be held responsible regardless of what was specified - if it wasn't so there is a possibility of condoning mistakes & even a conspiracy to defraud. The issue of self-certification of installations is particularly important as the person doing the certification is employed by the builder - not a healthy scenario & prone to pressure & abuse.

I am working on a case where this very principle is at issue. Prime cost v Costs-in-Use v Whole-of-Life-Costs where the Developer, Builder, consultants & others are being held to account [financially] for poor work & specification that have lead to residents being required to stump up millions for remediation after they have bought their flats. The residents have been winning the case [so far] and the developers/architects/builders have requested an adjournment for settlement as the court has indicated they will reward compensation even greater that has been claimed.

A lot of the actors in this case will be held culpable & rest assured they are this very day & every day for the future working with high priced lawyers to try to save them from jail & huge compensation [hopefully] for the victims & their families.
Lordship 516 Wrote:

Not so - there is a common law obligation also. Hiding behind specifications & clearances is not
the whole story. A Developer/Architect/Builder has a duty of care & can be held responsible
regardless of what was specified - if it wasn't so there is a possibility of condoning mistakes &
even a conspiracy to defraud. The issue of self-certification of installations is
particularly important as the person doing the certification is employed by the builder - not a
healthy scenario & prone to pressure & abuse.

I am working on a case where this very principle is at issue. Prime cost v Costs-in-Use v
Whole-of-Life-Costs where the Developer, Builder, consultants & others are being held to account
for poor work & specification that have lead to residents being required to stump up millions for
remediation after they have bought their flats. The residents have been winning the case and the
developers/architects/builders have requested an adjournment for settlement as the court has
indicated they will reward compensation even greater that has been claimed.

A lot of the actors in this case will be held culpable & rest assured they are this very day &
every day for the future working with high priced lawyers to try to save them from jail & huge
compensation for the victims & their families.


You are talking apples and oranges. There is a huge difference between deciding who is at fault for remedial work (civil case) vs corporate or individual manslaughter (criminal case). One is on the basis of a balance of probabilities and the other is on the basis of 'beyond all reasonable doubt'.

If all the materials were certified for purpose, the more likely scenario is that the Borough of K&C will be found at civil fault and the treasury will fork out compensation. But no individuals will be found criminally responsible.

If the materials were not certified (as Philip Hammond has said) then we may see some people in jail.
Usually you investigate and gather evidence before charging anyone. That way you don't end up looking like an idiot when you come in front of a judge, who will not be swayed by how terrible the event was if you don't actually have a case in law.
uncleglen Wrote:

well I have now found out that some of the tenants
did want them but others didn't
[metro.co.uk]-
residents-didnt-want-disruption-of-sprinklers-bein
g-fitted-6712562/

You have not 'found out'. You have read a newspaper's account of what they say Nick Paget-Brown, Tory leader of Kensington and Chelsea Council said. Didn't see any quotes or reporting of anyone else at all in that link.

HP
uncleglen Wrote:

well I have now found out that some of the tenants
did want them but others didn't
[metro.co.uk]-
residents-didnt-want-disruption-of-sprinklers-bein
g-fitted-6712562/

Oh I see now, it's the residents' fault for not accepting something which should have been installed at the landlord's expense, not theirs, and nothing to do with using flammable cladding which is so dangerous it's banned in other countries. Thank goodness you've made that clear, can you tell me how I can get my contribution to the emergency fund back, as it was clearly their fault all along.

Seriously pal, have a word with yourself.
Does anyone know what the make-up of Grenfell is with regard to ownership i.e is K&C the landlord, and/or the freeholder, are the flats all rented out to tenants, or are there some owner/occupiers, or private owners who rent out, or a combination of all these? Just trying to get my head around why the tenants would be consulted about the sprinklers in the first place. Tenants come and go, why bother consulting with them, isn't the onus on the landlord/freeholder/block management etc to make that decision and press ahead regardless?...
Loz Wrote:

> Lordship 516 Wrote:
--------------------------------------------------
-----

> Not so - there is a common law obligation also.
Hiding behind specifications & clearances is not
> the whole story. A Developer/Architect/Builder
has a duty of care & can be held responsible
> regardless of what was specified - if it wasn't
so there is a possibility of condoning mistakes &
> even a conspiracy to defraud. The issue of
self-certification of installations is
> particularly important as the person doing the
certification is employed by the builder - not a
> healthy scenario & prone to pressure & abuse.
>
> I am working on a case where this very principle
is at issue. Prime cost v Costs-in-Use v
> Whole-of-Life-Costs where the Developer,
Builder, consultants & others are being held to
account
> for poor work & specification that have lead to
residents being required to stump up millions for
> remediation after they have bought their flats.
The residents have been winning the case and the
> developers/architects/builders have requested an
adjournment for settlement as the court has
> indicated they will reward compensation even
greater that has been claimed.
>
> A lot of the actors in this case will be held
culpable & rest assured they are this very day &
> every day for the future working with high
priced lawyers to try to save them from jail &
huge
> compensation for the victims & their families.


You are talking apples and oranges. There is a
huge difference between deciding who is at fault
for remedial work (civil case) vs corporate or
individual manslaughter (criminal case). One is on
the basis of a balance of probabilities and the
other is on the basis of 'beyond all reasonable
doubt'.

If all the materials were certified for purpose,
the more likely scenario is that the Borough of
K&C will be found at civil fault and the treasury
will fork out compensation. But no individuals
will be found criminally responsible.

If the materials were not certified (as Philip
Hammond has said) then we may see some people in
jail.

In the case I’m involved with a civil solution is being found. however the judge in chambers referred to possible consideration of criminal negligence.

In this awful Grenfell the consideration would all likely be criminal considerations of neglect, unjust enrichment, reckless behaviour, endangering human life etc...etc.

The civil cases will flow from all that.

Let's see how it all pans out - it won’t be pretty & some heads will roll for sure.

Original thread | JSON