Grenfell Tower: Corporate manslaughter considered by police

martynz · July 10th, 2017, 09:54 AM

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

martynz · July 28th, 2017, 07:37 AM

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

**vo1v0d** · August 1st, 2017, 01:47 AM

Give it thirty years and three official enquiries and there might possibly be a decision.

**otokonomidori** · August 1st, 2017, 02:30 AM

For what would who be prosecuted? And what would it achieve?

It's not like anyone set it on fire deliberately .

**Dr Pepper** · August 1st, 2017, 03:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by otokonomidori

For what would who be prosecuted? And what would it achieve?

It's not like anyone set it on fire deliberately .

So you don't believe in the concept of criminal negligence then?

**otokonomidori** · August 1st, 2017, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr Pepper

So you don't believe in the concept of criminal negligence then?

What is it then - enlighten me!

**vo1v0d** · August 2nd, 2017, 02:22 AM

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.

**scoundrel** · August 2nd, 2017, 06:40 AM

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.

**otokonomidori** · August 2nd, 2017, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scoundrel

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.

Given that this cladding was being used all over the country before this unfortunate fire and that there was no law against using the stuff, why is it now suddenly a crime for it to have been done in this case?

Certainly it would be criminally stupid to use it now but that's being smart after the fact.

**gordian_knot** · August 2nd, 2017, 10:47 AM

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.

July 10th, 2017, 09:54 AM	#1
martynz 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

July 28th, 2017, 07:37 AM	#2
martynz 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

August 2nd, 2017, 06:40 AM	#8
scoundrel Super Moderator Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: England Posts: 26,234 Thanks: 162,375 Thanked 278,375 Times in 26,178 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.

August 2nd, 2017, 10:47 AM	#10
gordian_knot 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

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

August 1st, 2017, 01:47 AM	#3
vo1v0d Hideous By Nature Join Date: Aug 2012 Location: sarf eeeest lunden Posts: 8,187 Thanks: 42,037 Thanked 60,225 Times in 7,401 Posts	Give it thirty years and three official enquiries and there might possibly be a decision.

August 1st, 2017, 02:30 AM	#4
otokonomidori 緑の男 Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Jockistan, UK. Posts: 8,315 Thanks: 39,015 Thanked 122,397 Times in 8,315 Posts	For what would who be prosecuted? And what would it achieve? It's not like anyone set it on fire deliberately .

August 2nd, 2017, 02:22 AM	#7
vo1v0d Hideous By Nature Join Date: Aug 2012 Location: sarf eeeest lunden Posts: 8,187 Thanks: 42,037 Thanked 60,225 Times in 7,401 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.