Towering inferno in London

[ECCOnoob]

1 hour ago, m williamson said:

 

The tragedy happened over seven years ago and criminal trials aren't expected until a further eighteen months?

 

In Hamlets soliloquy ' To be or not to Be '  he laments the things that make life unhappy.  Two of which are " The insolence of Office " and " The laws delay ". In another of his plays Henry VI part II he has a character say " The first thing we do is, let's kill all the lawyers. " Obviously the Bard was not a fan.

 

Shakespeare died in 1616, four hundred and eight years ago. There is still insolence from those in Office when dealing with the general public and the law still takes its own sweet time arriving at conclusions. Little changes, and you are correct, it's a disgrace.

 

Just what specific criminal charges against which specific individual person(s) provable beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law do you magically think can be brought? 

 

As I said earlier on this thread, inquiries like this always bring out the reaction and emotion of people quite understandably. But the reality is, there might never be a criminal charge resulting in a person going to prison. It is decades of institutional failure. Changing standards, changing procedures, changing laws, changing governments. 

 

Whenever anything that is happen, everyone always expects a head to be rolling but it's never that simple. 

 

Even if there has been negligence through various parties, that negligence is not always deliberate, known a time or even a criminal offence.  

 

If you think it's so easy, let's hear it. Just who exactly do you think is directly criminally culpable for this tragedy and on what grounds.

 

The architect of the building whose plans were approved by the local authority in charge at the time?  The individual contractors who built it following law, procedure, standards and regulations applicable at the time?  The owner of the manufacturer of the washing machine that malfunctioned and started the fire?  The owners of the individual residences who were illegally sub-leasing them out and therefore exceeding the anticipated  capacity of the building? The owner of manufacturer of the cladding material which approved deemed safe for use in specific circumstances and approved by our governmental regulatory body?  The chief of the Fire Service for failing to undertake a sufficient evacuation and rescue operation.....  

 

Can you not see now why any investigation (if successful at all) will take months or years to bring to a court.

Edited September 6 by ECCOnoob

[m williamson]

1 hour ago, ECCOnoob said:

 

 

Even if there has been negligence through various parties, that negligence is not always deliberate, known a time or even a criminal offence.  

 

If you think it's so easy, let's hear it. Just who exactly do you think is directly criminally culpable for this tragedy and on what grounds.

 

 

 

Can you not see now why any investigation (if successful at all) will take months or years to bring to a court.

 

Talk about missing the point.

 

The cladding used in Grenville Tower had failed fire tests for twelve years prior to the Grenville Tower fire.

The cladding did not meet building standards in England.

The disaster was predicted ten years before it happened by a consultant who was ignored. 

There is an email from Claude Wehrle technical manager for Arconic suggesting a coverup.

 

https://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrkOUWJgNtmGAQAVx8M34lQ;_ylu=Y29sbwNpcjIEcG9zAzEEdnRpZAMEc2VjA3Nj/RV=2/RE=1726870922/RO=10/RU=https%3a%2f%2fwww.bbc.com%2fnews%2fuk-56403431%23%3a~%3atext%3dThe%20cladding%20consistently%20failed%20fire%20tests%20for%2012%2cknown%20as%20%22rivet%22%20cladding%20systems%20and%20%22cassette%22%20systems./RK=2/RS=yORKGSMrGXW7RmFmMhV0RJ1ttKc-

 

 

However, it is not down to me or you or any other unconnected or unqualified person to speculate as to who is responsible. We have people in authority who's responsibility it is to investigate and prosecute these matters. 

 

Yes, it isn't something that can be dealt with in a matter of weeks, but over Seven Years have passed and they're talking about another Eighteen Months before trials commence.

 

My post was about The Laws Delay, seven years is a ridiculous amount of time to keep people waiting for answers.

 

 

 

 

 

[ECCOnoob]

33 minutes ago, m williamson said:

 

Talk about missing the point.

 

The cladding used in Grenville Tower had failed fire tests for twelve years prior to the Grenville Tower fire.

The cladding did not meet building standards in England.

The disaster was predicted ten years before it happened by a consultant who was ignored. 

There is an email from Claude Wehrle technical manager for Arconic suggesting a coverup.

 

https://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrkOUWJgNtmGAQAVx8M34lQ;_ylu=Y29sbwNpcjIEcG9zAzEEdnRpZAMEc2VjA3Nj/RV=2/RE=1726870922/RO=10/RU=https%3a%2f%2fwww.bbc.com%2fnews%2fuk-56403431%23%3a~%3atext%3dThe%20cladding%20consistently%20failed%20fire%20tests%20for%2012%2cknown%20as%20%22rivet%22%20cladding%20systems%20and%20%22cassette%22%20systems./RK=2/RS=yORKGSMrGXW7RmFmMhV0RJ1ttKc-

 

 

However, it is not down to me or you or any other unconnected or unqualified person to speculate as to who is responsible. We have people in authority who's responsibility it is to investigate and prosecute these matters. 

 

Yes, it isn't something that can be dealt with in a matter of weeks, but over Seven Years have passed and they're talking about another Eighteen Months before trials commence.

 

My post was about The Laws Delay, seven years is a ridiculous amount of time to keep people waiting for answers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Answers to what? That is the point. 

 

'Suggesting' something is 1000 miles away from proving something.   It is not as simple as saying it's "failed fire tests" . The cladding only failed certain fire tests in certain specific circumstances. It was still perfectly fine and approved for use in other circumstances. A piece of paper itself is not inherently dangerous and approved for safe for sale and use. However, if such piece of paper is being specifically used to dangle above naked flames or be continually sprayed with gasoline, it might then suddenly be deemed to fail safety standards. 

 

It all depends about what use, what circumstances and what questions were asked at the time the material was selected and specific tested for the specific circumstances of how it was going to be used. That is where the nuance and the complexities arise.

 

You keep banging about delays to the law, but as I am trying to tell you, there may not be a law which brings prosecution. Something can't be delayed if it doesn't exist. 

 

Yes we do have people in power to investigate but as I've tried to explain to you these investigations are vastly vastly complex with entirely shifting rule books in the decades since the block was built, the cladding applied and the present day. That is why it takes so long. It's the same with prosecution. You can argue 'delays' in prosecution all you want, but those people in power can only prosecute if there's actually been a criminal offence committed which, much as people want it to be, may not actually be the case.  

[Prettytom]

8 hours ago, m williamson said:

 

Talk about missing the point.

 

The cladding used in Grenville Tower had failed fire tests for twelve years prior to the Grenville Tower fire.

The cladding did not meet building standards in England.

The disaster was predicted ten years before it happened by a consultant who was ignored. 

There is an email from Claude Wehrle technical manager for Arconic suggesting a coverup.

 

https://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrkOUWJgNtmGAQAVx8M34lQ;_ylu=Y29sbwNpcjIEcG9zAzEEdnRpZAMEc2VjA3Nj/RV=2/RE=1726870922/RO=10/RU=https%3a%2f%2fwww.bbc.com%2fnews%2fuk-56403431%23%3a~%3atext%3dThe%20cladding%20consistently%20failed%20fire%20tests%20for%2012%2cknown%20as%20%22rivet%22%20cladding%20systems%20and%20%22cassette%22%20systems./RK=2/RS=yORKGSMrGXW7RmFmMhV0RJ1ttKc-

 

 

However, it is not down to me or you or any other unconnected or unqualified person to speculate as to who is responsible. We have people in authority who's responsibility it is to investigate and prosecute these matters. 

 

Yes, it isn't something that can be dealt with in a matter of weeks, but over Seven Years have passed and they're talking about another Eighteen Months before trials commence.

 

My post was about The Laws Delay, seven years is a ridiculous amount of time to keep people waiting for answers.

 

 

 

 

 

Hes’s consistently missed the point since the day of the fire. 
 

This is an act of manslaughter. Thee are clear and obvious failures in the design of the cladding and in the selection of such an inappropriate material to wrap a tower block for largely cosmetic reasons.
 

This should have prompted an immediate criminal investigation, rather that the usual can kicking public inquiry. People should already be behind bars for this and I dare say that they would be if this was a different sort of building  in Kensington and Chelsea.

 

As it is, we’ve had  seven years of lawyers enriching  themselves  and preventing any proper criminal investigation.  Now we have another couple of years of criminal investigation and then possibly two  further years before trials even start.

 

I think we can all se what is happening here, and it isn’t pretty.

[m williamson]

10 hours ago, ECCOnoob said:

 

Answers to what? That is the point. 

 

'Suggesting' something is 1000 miles away from proving something.   It is not as simple as saying it's "failed fire tests" . The cladding only failed certain fire tests in certain specific circumstances. It was still perfectly fine and approved for use in other circumstances. A piece of paper itself is not inherently dangerous and approved for safe for sale and use. However, if such piece of paper is being specifically used to dangle above naked flames or be continually sprayed with gasoline, it might then suddenly be deemed to fail safety standards. 

 

It all depends about what use, what circumstances and what questions were asked at the time the material was selected and specific tested for the specific circumstances of how it was going to be used. That is where the nuance and the complexities arise.

 

You keep banging about delays to the law, but as I am trying to tell you, there may not be a law which brings prosecution. Something can't be delayed if it doesn't exist. 

 

Yes we do have people in power to investigate but as I've tried to explain to you these investigations are vastly vastly complex with entirely shifting rule books in the decades since the block was built, the cladding applied and the present day. That is why it takes so long. It's the same with prosecution. You can argue 'delays' in prosecution all you want, but those people in power can only prosecute if there's actually been a criminal offence committed which, much as people want it to be, may not actually be the case.  

 

I had things to do this morning and have only just read this post. I was about to reply then read Prettytom's post where it has been excellently dealt with. Seventy Two people lost their lives over seven years ago and -  apart from lawyers enriching themselves - there has been little action.

 

There is no excuse in this case - and in many others - for the laws delay.

[peak4]

9 minutes ago, m williamson said:

 

I had things to do this morning and have only just read this post. I was about to reply then read Prettytom's post where it has been excellently dealt with. Seventy Two people lost their lives over seven years ago and -  apart from lawyers enriching themselves - there has been little action.

There is no excuse in this case - and in many others - for the laws delay.

Similar here; there was always the possibility of a police enquiry running along side the public one, if necessary delaying the publication of final or interim results until certain aspects had been concluded.
One major advantage of this, would have been the preservation of evidence;

i.e. potentially preventing the deletion of files & emails, or stopping the shredding of vital documents before a formal police investigation.

[ECCOnoob]

There has been investigations. According to reports, since the incident fire detectives have already got 19 companies and 58 individual suspects where they are currently investigating and preparing files for the CPS to consider whether they can potentially  bring any charges.

 

There's previously been 12,000 witness statements taken and a further 1600 as part of the public inquiry. There's been 300 hours worth of interviews. There's 27,000 individual physical exhibits (including the cladding itself and the insulation and other parts of the building) being stored. There's also a 152 million documents retrieved and under review.

 

The CPS and Metropolitan Police have already given public statements and directly corresponded with the victims to explain progress.  They have already gone through the first phase of the inquiry report which alone was over 800 pages. There's now another 580 plus page report to go through with over a thousand exhibit documents. 

 

No, it is not simply a "manslaughter" investigation, there are other potential criminal charges which could apply or in the alternative none at all. 

 

No, the defects in the cladding were not "obvious" because they weren't defects being looked for or even asked about as part of our government regulatory standards at the time that it was manufactured and installed.

 

How many more times do I have to say this.  It is not as simple as people are deludedly making out. People need to look beyond the emotive anger and look at the practical reality of the scale, size and complexity of what is having to be investigated.

 

It is widely reported what the authorities are doing and the amount of evidence they are having to go through. 

 

I am certainly not the one whose "not getting the point".   I've understood the point perfectly well right from day one. I made it  clear on this thread that those seeking justice are in for a very, very long ride and even after all that they are never going to be fully satisfied....exactly as I predicted. 

 

We are dealing with masses of changes in regulations, standards, governments, known facts, over decades worth of time.  Often there is no simple clear-cut point of blame and no simple clear-cut person to blame.

[m williamson]

In todays Times the Detective Superintendent in charge of the case has stated that the police will be seeking manslaughter charges after the Public Inquiry found that all 72 deaths were caused by " incompetence ", " systematic dishonesty" and " greed ".

[Magilla]

On 07/09/2024 at 08:21, Prettytom said:

I think we can all se what is happening here, and it isn’t pretty.

 

 

Yep:

 

 

Grenfell survivors furious over David Cameron’s claim that inquiry backed him over red-tape drive:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/sep/08/grenfell-survivors-david-cameron-claim-inquiry-red-tape-ex-pm

[Mister M]

7 hours ago, Magilla said:

 

 

Yep:

 

 

Grenfell survivors furious over David Cameron’s claim that inquiry backed him over red-tape drive:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/sep/08/grenfell-survivors-david-cameron-claim-inquiry-red-tape-ex-pm

David Cameron is shameless here, and I'm glad that he's been called out.