Grenfell Tower: Corporate manslaughter considered by police

[haroldeye]

The Corporate Manslaughter Law was and is one of those 'We've done something laws' that politicians bring in when there is some sort of disaster (in this case the 'Pride of Zeebrugge' incident) and the papers say that something must be done. It is both useless and counter productive in that management can safely hide behind it without the fear of a personal fine or jail sentence, whilst the organisation takes the wrap.

Taking 5% of K & C income will not help the borough one bit if those individuals who made the decisions are allowed to stay in post (or quietly resign with their pension rights intact). The cash needed for improvements will only go into Government coffers to be used for God knows what. There are people who are responsible and they should be found and punished.

[Dr Pepper]

Originally Posted by otokonomidori

What is it then - enlighten me!

In three simple words: 'failing to act'

In one simple word: 'indifference'

[otokonomidori]

Originally Posted by Dr Pepper

In three simple words: 'failing to act'

In one simple word: 'indifference'

Assertions. Could they be proved "beyond reasonable doubt" ?

I doubt it but I only did Scots Law for a year so what do I know ?

[Dr Pepper]

Originally Posted by otokonomidori

Assertions. Could they be proved "beyond reasonable doubt" ?

I doubt it but I only did Scots Law for a year so what do I know ?

Then you'll be familiar with that rather handy verdict 'not proven'.....which is NOT the same as 'not guilty'.....and a canon quite a few other jurisdictions should adopt-including my own.

[Dr Pepper]

Originally Posted by otokonomidori

Assertions. Could they be proved "beyond reasonable doubt" ?

I doubt it but I only did Scots Law for a year so what do I know ?

'Failure to act' certainly could-given proof of prior knowledge, duty of care etc and the various other elements and tenets of law.

[scoundrel]

I would be quite optimistic if I were the prosecuting barrister. It is much more than merely the wrong choice of cladding. There is an easily proven pattern of consistent and callous disregard for the residents of Grenfell Tower going back many years. Dozens of domestic appliances have gone up in a blaze of glory due to severe power surges emanating from faulty wiring: apparently at least 12 in one go a few years ago, and against their will the landlord were forced to pay for replacing the ruined appliances. But the landlord did exactly and precisely nothing whatsoever about replacing wiring which was known to be erratic and dangerous; but there was money available to tart up the exterior of the building.

Yes, if I were the Counsel for the Prosecution I would be liking my chances.

[vo1v0d]

The point made by scoundrel about tarting up the building is the crux of the matter. The only reason for the installation of the cladding is that the building would be less of a fucking eyesore for the arseholes who lived in multimillion pound houses when they looked out of their windows.

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by vo1v0d

The point made by scoundrel about tarting up the building is the crux of the matter. The only reason for the installation of the cladding is that the building would be less of a fucking eyesore for the arseholes who lived in multimillion pound houses when they looked out of their windows.

Absolutely.

One of the very few silver linings in this story is that the tower is now a landmark of bitter shame. Anyone who is not hopelessly sociopathic will look at that horrible spectacle and their conscience will be troubled. It certainly troubles mine. I think that at least some of the multi-millionaires who are obliged to see that tower when they look out of their fancy apartment windows will reflect much the same as Vo1v0d has just reflected and will think strongly that they would never have wanted such an awful horror as that to happen to anyone, and that maybe we should reconsider our values and our attitudes to other people.

[gordian_knot]

Originally Posted by vo1v0d

The point made by scoundrel about tarting up the building is the crux of the matter. The only reason for the installation of the cladding is that the building would be less of a fucking eyesore for the arseholes who lived in multimillion pound houses when they looked out of their windows.

That's clearly not true, given the hundreds and thousands of buildings that have this cladding, all over the country. Tarting up the outside may have been considered worth doing for its own sake, but the fitting of cladding when renovating buildings as a matter of course has obviously been encouraged by central and local government in order to help reduce carbon emissions and meet emission reduction targets.

If it was for the reason you state, then it wouldn't be so common, nor would it be used in poor areas, when in fact it appears to have been used practically everywhere and on all types of buildings.

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by gordian_knot

That's clearly not true, given the hundreds and thousands of buildings that have this cladding, all over the country. Tarting up the outside may have been considered worth doing for its own sake, but the fitting of cladding when renovating buildings as a matter of course has obviously been encouraged by central and local government in order to help reduce carbon emissions and meet emission reduction targets.

If it was for the reason you state, then it wouldn't be so common, nor would it be used in poor areas, when in fact it appears to have been used practically everywhere and on all types of buildings.

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.