Quote:
Originally Posted by scoundrel
IMHO the thrust of the argument, that the Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation wanted to make the building look better but didn't care whether it was safe or not, is self-evidently true. Their track record screams of wilful negligence. If it was only the cladding, you might have a case for their defence. But when you only have one stairwell and you route the gas main up the one stairwell; when you only have one stairwell and you don't fit a fire escape; when you only have one stairwell and you persistently don't fit sprinklers; when you only have one stairwell and you haven't had the fire extinguishers tested for years, and some of them were last tested in 2009 and were marked "Condemned" in 2009, and they have never been replaced: I see no case for the defence at all.
|
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 I would bet that any court in the land would look at the point made about fire extinguishers being out of date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?
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..
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?
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...
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.