|
Best Porn Sites | Live Sex | Register | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Mark Forums Read |
Politics, Current Affairs, Religion Threads Post here for all Politics, Current Affairs, Religion Threads |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
July 10th, 2017, 09:54 AM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 384
Thanks: 664
Thanked 6,051 Times in 362 Posts
|
Grenfell Tower fire
Grenfell Tower: fire-proof cladding specified by architects used only on ground floor
Non-combustible panels were fitted to base of building but cheaper panels were used for upper floors, documents show https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...loor?CMP=fb_gu |
The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to martynz For This Useful Post: |
|
July 28th, 2017, 07:37 AM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 384
Thanks: 664
Thanked 6,051 Times in 362 Posts
|
Grenfell Tower: Corporate manslaughter considered by police
Police investigating the Grenfell Tower fire say they have "reasonable grounds" to suspect that corporate manslaughter offences may have been committed.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-40747241 |
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to martynz For This Useful Post: |
August 1st, 2017, 01:47 AM | #3 |
Hideous By Nature
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: sarf eeeest lunden
Posts: 8,225
Thanks: 42,174
Thanked 60,523 Times in 7,439 Posts
|
Give it thirty years and three official enquiries and there might possibly be a decision.
|
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to vo1v0d For This Useful Post: |
August 1st, 2017, 02:30 AM | #4 |
緑の男
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Jockistan, UK.
Posts: 8,316
Thanks: 39,016
Thanked 122,404 Times in 8,316 Posts
|
For what would who be prosecuted? And what would it achieve?
It's not like anyone set it on fire deliberately . |
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to otokonomidori For This Useful Post: |
August 1st, 2017, 03:22 AM | #5 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: NZ
Posts: 4,035
Thanks: 70,712
Thanked 40,937 Times in 4,026 Posts
|
|
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Dr Pepper For This Useful Post: |
August 1st, 2017, 08:43 PM | #6 |
緑の男
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Jockistan, UK.
Posts: 8,316
Thanks: 39,016
Thanked 122,404 Times in 8,316 Posts
|
|
August 2nd, 2017, 02:22 AM | #7 |
Hideous By Nature
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: sarf eeeest lunden
Posts: 8,225
Thanks: 42,174
Thanked 60,523 Times in 7,439 Posts
|
An extra thirtynine pence per sheet was the cost of total fireproofing. The cladding in use and used there is fireproof from most angles but fires in real life tend not to follow perfect angles as tested in laboratories.
|
August 2nd, 2017, 06:40 AM | #8 |
Super Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: England
Posts: 26,237
Thanks: 162,389
Thanked 278,435 Times in 26,182 Posts
|
The charge of corporate manslaughter is specifically targeted at non-natural persons such as companies or local authorities. No one goes to prison; but the company or local authority can be penalised. The penalty is an unlimited fine. Current Home Office guidelines suggest 5% of annual revenue for a first offence. Naturally, the stigma and disgrace of the conviction would attach to the corporation involved and to its CEO and its senior management. It would also send a signal to other corporations that they and their senior management could be publically shamed as well if they do likewise.
The corporate manslaughter conviction would not protect an individual such as the CEO or senior management from being prosecuted as well on the same crime.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. |
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to scoundrel For This Useful Post: |
August 2nd, 2017, 09:50 AM | #9 | |
緑の男
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Jockistan, UK.
Posts: 8,316
Thanks: 39,016
Thanked 122,404 Times in 8,316 Posts
|
Quote:
Certainly it would be criminally stupid to use it now but that's being smart after the fact. |
|
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to otokonomidori For This Useful Post: |
August 2nd, 2017, 10:47 AM | #10 |
Vintage Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Gordium
Posts: 1,225
Thanks: 6,524
Thanked 13,823 Times in 1,209 Posts
|
It seems that the building regulations stipulated that this cladding shouldn't be used above a certain height, but the wording was such that it could be read as a guideline only. It's clearly been ignored by both the building industry and the inspectors who with a nod and a wink have basically indicated that builders can use the inferior cladding.
Given all that, given that the reason the fire spread the way it did still hasn't been established beyond speculation and that the spread confounded the fire experts, I can't see how a prosecution could succeed. The council was surely entitled to rely on what the experts were telling them and on the fidelity of the buildings inspection system.
__________________
- "The whole of anything is never told." - Henry James "Political language... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable." - George Orwell |
The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to gordian_knot For This Useful Post: |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|