Grenfell Tower: Corporate manslaughter considered by police

[vo1v0d]

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.

The whole point of the cladding is to make the buildings everywhere look better without making any improvements and at low cost. I stand by my original assertion.It looks better so it must be better is the usual perception and misconception.

[Grouchy]

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 I would bet that any court in the land would look at the point made about fire extinguishers being out of date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.

[NoChance]

The chap who will get problems is the one whose fridge caught fire. Apparently he packed up all his belongings away before reporting it. Because of the hype he will probably get away "scot" free. (not sure of his nationality but no offence against Scots.) If the council get a huge fine it will have to be paid back to them in extra grants anyway!

The solution is to have an investigation by experts along the lines of the MIAB or AAIB rather than wasting money by getting lawyers involved. Ex-residents should be made to give factual evidence directly to any enquiry rather than run the risk of a lawyer trying to twist it against some person or legal entity.

The history of the fire needs to be looked at from start to finish with a view to prevent a re-occurrence.

The Hillsborough business demonstrates the problem with these situations. The investigation seems to be looking at whether the police made the right decision in dealing with a surge of late arriving fans rather than going for the root of the problem. Why were so many late? Why did the FA not have a plan to deal with it? I know technology is better now but there must have been some indication that the ground was not filling up as quickly as expected.

My conclusion is that UK needs an Investigation Branch to look into such matters as a matter of course without all the delays that an inquiry including non-experts involves; not to mention the costs!

[Grouchy]

Originally Posted by NoChance

The chap who will get problems is the one whose fridge caught fire.

Haven't had it confirmed but I heard he's done a "runner"...
Word went round that he was either an illegal immigrant or not the registered tenant of the flat. No final confirmation can (or will ever be) given on the final death toll due to some of the flats been sub-let by the registered tenants.

What you write, regarding the need for a specific agency to look at these sort of incidents, is sound thinking. Providing the agency could be wholly independent, it would certainly help remove the interference that too many lawyers bring to such inquiries.

[Mal Hombre]

A lot of people may never be found,Their remains may no longer exist,The heat and flames would have come up that one stairwell like a blowtorch.

[Grouchy]

Originally Posted by Mal Hombre

A lot of people may never be found,Their remains may no longer exist,The heat and flames would have come up that one stairwell like a blowtorch.

Also, identification of any remains that are found is going to be problematic. The rate at which any surviving DNA degrades gets faster as time moves on.

The folks tasked with the job of sifting through the debris on the upper floors, open to the elements, looking for fragments of anything that could help identify victims deserve our respect.

As for the heat in the place, I recall attending an incident, must be twenty five years ago now... Three story terraced house, well alight from ground floor. Persons reported. Three kids reported in upper floor back bedroom. Two BA crews (four firefighters) went in through front door in full breathing apparatus. Heat was so intense in the ground floor hallway that despite having a water spray cover over their heads and crawling on their bellies, the plastic "debris covers" that were over their BA cylinders melted onto the back of their fire gear coats. They took some punishment that evening but still couldn't get further in than the bottom of the staircase before pulling out. Heat was so intense that wooden stair rails and door frames were spontaneously combusting as soon as fresh air entered the building. No survivors from those trapped.

[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.

[Grouchy]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

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.

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.

I agree totally with your point regarding the safety of the structure before the cladding was added. There is no doubt whatsoever that the cladding, whilst not being the cause of the fire, was the reason it spread so far so quickly.

As regards he wiring, I think the difficulty is going to be proving that the fridge caught fire because of faulty building wiring. I do know that in the immediate aftermath of the fire, Hotpoint recalled selected models of their fridge-freezers citing a fire risk problem. (I had to check the model number of my own appliance to make sure it was not one of those affected. In fairness though, I don't know whether the fridge involved in the fire at Grenfell was one of those models subsequently recalled). Even if the root cause is proven to be electrical, it is going to be very difficult to ascertain whether it was the fridge or the internal wiring.

[scoundrel]

I rode my motorcycle west along the A4 Westway recenty from the A5 Edgeware Road to the Shepherds Bush / White City exit. There is a long stretch lasting at least two minutes where the ruins of the Grenfell Tower are 12 o clock in front of you as you go along.

I crossed myself.

It makes me angry even now whenever I think of it. But of course the Kensington and Chelsea Housing Management Organisation are on the ball.
http://www.kctmo.org.uk/news/343/fir...t-28-july-2017

KCTMO has been notified that it is now subject to the investigations regarding the possibility of corporate manslaughter. As a resident-led organisation we want to find out what happened at Grenfell Tower and make sure we have the answers that we and our residents want as soon as possible. To that end we will co-operate fully with all investigation processes as we have done up to now. We are determined to continue to be as much help as we can be.

July 28, 2017

http://www.kctmo.org.uk/news/347/joi...rly-transition

Joint statement - KCTMO and Council working together to secure orderly transition
Kensington & Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation's (KCTMO) board and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea have agreed to work collaboratively to secure an orderly transition to new management arrangements for the Council's housing stock. The over-riding priorities of both organisations are to put in place new arrangements which deliver the aspirations of residents and to provide the highest possible quality of service through the transition period.

The decision to terminate the agreement between the Council and KCTMO is for the resident members of KCTMO to consider at its Annual General Meeting on 17 October. The Chair of the KCTMO board has written to KCTMO resident members urging them to take the decision to terminate the agreement. The current arrangements will then remain in place for a number of months whilst the Council consults residents on the future options for the management of the stock and implements the preferred option.

Once the agreement between the Council and KCTMO ultimately comes to an end, there will no longer be resident members of KCTMO. As they are the only members of KCTMO at the moment, it is proposed that at this point the Council becomes the sole member of KCTMO to ensure that the company continues to exist so it can answer questions of the Public Inquiry and any police investigation in respect of the Grenfell fire tragedy. KCTMO's Annual General Meeting will also consider this proposal.

Following the Annual General Meeting the Council wishes to run an extensive engagement and consultation process to consider the future arrangements for the delivery of housing management services. The process will cover the criteria which the Council intends to use to select a preferred option, and then the options appraisal itself. The Council will work closely with KCTMO in running the engagement and consultation process. We currently expect the preferred option for the future management of stock to be determined early in the new calendar year.

October 10, 2017]

[rotobott]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RicaXxiU1WM

4.12 onwards

Too soon, or prophetic