[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by Grouchy

I've been a bit reluctant to chime in on this thread as I have said my piece on another similar thread in this forum. However, to address the points made (above) I feel I must contribute..

Most of what you state is probably true. I would bet that any court in the land would look at the point made about fire extinguishers being out of date
and, without proof, dismiss that as hearsay... It may well be true - I don't know - but it could just as easily be rumour that has circulated in the aftermath of the fire. If it is true, and the residents were aware of the "fact" why didn't they raise the point before the incident? Why has this just surfaced now?

The Grenfell residents association repeatedly complained to the landlord and was completely disregarded.

Originally Posted by Grouchy

As regards your other points (one stairwell, gas main up the stairwell, no sprinklers and no fire escape) there is surely no legal case to answer..

The fault lies with building regulations that allowed this building to be constructed and/or subsequently modified with those "faults" incorporated in the construction. Perhaps, in the intervening years, the regulations have changed (and if not they certainly will have to) but put to it simply, you can't be prosecuted for constructing a building under building legislation that is subsequently found to be flawed..

The suggestion is wilful neglect of duty. The landlord did not address the wiring fault which was causing appliances to burst into flames for years before the one which started the fatal fire. No money for essential safety work; but money was available for cladding made out of zip fire lighters.

Originally Posted by Grouchy

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Perhaps the London Fire Brigade will now spend money on hydraulic platforms to reach higher. They had to borrow a 45m Bronto Skylift machine from Surrey F&RS on the night of the incident - hence the delay in the arrival of that machine.. Nothing in the LFB fleet will reach that height, despite the preponderance of tall buildings in the capital.
It could be argued that had such a machine been more readily available and arrived on scene quicker, more people may have been rescued or the fire knocked back earlier. By the time the Bronto arrived the fire had run up the face of the building out of reach of jets. In fairness, no platform is made to reach to the height actually required but you see my point?

Certainly I do. This disaster was worse than it needed to be because no one was ready and no one had planned ahead.

Originally Posted by Grouchy

Had the building had a sprinkler system and no cladding this would have been a one-flat fire and probably wouldn't have made the news outside of the local area. Sprinklers to knock it back and a couple of jets working from the internal dry riser and the job would have been done in ten minutes..
As I say - hindsight...

As originally designed, Grenfell Tower was probably a fairly safe structure. People tweaked it without thinking about the bigger picture. Nobody had safety in mind. Nobody was really focused on that.

Originally Posted by Grouchy

I see the forthcoming enquiry as nothing more than a box-ticking exercise that will conclude that "lessons must be learned etc., etc.".
No-one will be prosecuted as no one person is ultimately to "blame". The disaster is a product of many failures coming together in one place.
The government have appointed a legal person to oversee the inquiry and he is now collecting evidence but I believe his conclusions could now be written without waiting years for them to be made public.

If it can be shown that the landlord did not act on multiple warnings about the wiring then I think there is a smoking gun.