I'm sure it didn't to the general UK press at the time. It should have piqued the professional curiosity of the professional fire services though, who should have other sources of such news. Of course if they were wondering if they were going to get a paid, I could see it slipping by unnoticed. Too bad. If it had not slipped by how many would still be here?

In a regime based on a poisonous combination of deregulation and compulsory competitive tendering, it's the cheapest corner-cutters that get (away with) the jobs.

Which is why the opposing side must be placed on commission. So you have the cost cutting builders and in opposition the plan checkers who get a bonus for every thing wrong they find.

---

Which is why the opposing side must be placed on commission. So you have the cost cutting builders and in opposition the plan checkers who get a bonus for every thing wrong they find.

Nice commission

"The TMO added: "We recognise our responsibility to ensure that the investigative process is not hampered or undermined in any way.""

Nice excuse

14x heat limit

As expected...

Tower to come down

...& watch luxury apartments go up in its place.

The problem with that is:

"Labour MP for Tottenham, David Lammy, whose friend Khadija Saye died in the fire, said the punishment for corporate manslaughter was a fine, which would not "represent justice for the Grenfell victims and their families".

"Gross negligence manslaughter carries a punishment of prison time, and I hope that the police and the CPS are considering charges of manslaughter caused by gross negligence," he added."

The other problem is that while charges are pending, news reporting and other investigation may be inhibited.

Grenfell Tower: Sixty blocks 'fail new fire test'

Cladding and insulation used in at least 60 tower blocks has failed a new fire safety test, the BBC understands.

The test was more thorough than previous checks after the Grenfell Tower fire, which just examined cladding from high-rise buildings.

The new test checked the cladding in combination with the foam insulation that was used in Grenfell.

It is thought nine blocks in Salford are the only local government-owned buildings to be affected so far.

Local Government Association chairman Lord Porter said housing associations and private sector landlords will be among those that own the 60 tower blocks which failed the new fire test.

He added that intellectual property rights on the installation of cladding systems means the identification of tower blocks affected by fire safety issues may not be made public.

He added that intellectual property rights on the installation of cladding systems means the identification of tower blocks affected by fire safety issues may not be made public.

Trying to hide such information from the Police, Coroners Court and the like will end him in deep trouble. I would also hope that the Public Inquiry will be able to access such data.

---

Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

"Gross negligence manslaughter carries a punishment of prison time, and I hope that the police and the CPS are considering charges of manslaughter caused by gross negligence," he added."

Such charges would be against the individuals, and as such I would hope that the "scope" of individuals would include those who prepared and performed the design and assessments of the cladding system. It is these people who have been at the root of the tragedy.

---

Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

Just a question from one 'across the ocean'.

Did the generally accepted science and engineering regarding safety at the time of construction. Allow for this type of material?

My attempt at an explanation, but I'm neither a builder nor an architect.

The buildings in question are all quite old, and the materials being complained about probably didn't exist when they were first constructed (40 years ago). So the materials weren't approved, but they weren't used, either. The materials that were used in the original construction probably met the safety and regulatory standards at the time.

The problem has arisen with recent refurbishments, applied for both cosmetic reasons, and to improve insulation standards (and thus reduce heating bills).

The materials are new, and the procedure for approving new materials has changed. So it is possible that the materials passed the current approvals process, but are still unsafe. That's going to keep the lawyers (and the police) busy for years to come.

Just a question from one 'across the ocean'.

Did the generally accepted science and engineering regarding safety at the time of construction. Allow for this type of material?

My attempt at an explanation, but I'm neither a builder nor an architect.

The buildings in question are all quite old, and the materials being complained about probably didn't exist when they were first constructed (40 years ago). So the materials weren't approved, but they weren't used, either. The materials that were used in the original construction probably met the safety and regulatory standards at the time.

The problem has arisen with recent refurbishments, applied for both cosmetic reasons, and to improve insulation standards (and thus reduce heating bills).

The materials are new, and the procedure for approving new materials has changed. So it is possible that the materials passed the current approvals process, but are still unsafe. That's going to keep the lawyers (and the police) busy for years to come.

I thought I had seen in the coverage shortly after the fire that the material had been tested and banned, however it was still used. I would think they might also want to include the sales people who likely were on commission - think Wells Fargo - in the criminal charges for knowingly selling a banned material.

---

"Gross negligence manslaughter carries a punishment of prison time, and I hope that the police and the CPS are considering charges of manslaughter caused by gross negligence," he added."

Such charges would be against the individuals, and as such I would hope that the "scope" of individuals would include those who prepared and performed the design and assessments of the cladding system. It is these people who have been at the root of the tragedy.

Well, that would be interesting. I don't know the law over there in the UK, but here in Texas.... urgh...

Criminally Negligent Homicide in Texas (Texas Penal Code Chapter 19.05(a)) is a State Jail Felony with a sentence of 180 days to 2 years in State Jail.

In Texas (not sure of other States in the USA), there are City/County Jails, State Jails, State Prisons, and Federal Prisons. The biggest hell-holes are State Jails (no 'good-time' (reduction of sentence for being 'good' while there), no parole, no air-conditioning even at the height of summer heat, and heavy restrictions on visitors and communication with the outside). You serve every single day of your sentence.

What makes it interesting is that the building in question over there was owned by a 'Council'. Are not the Councils over there pretty much a 'local government organization', or am I misunderstanding?

Since the Council owned the building, and the Council approved the renovations (including the use of the 'cladding'), surely they should be included in those responsible. Remember, 'the buck stops here'.

IMO, it is about time the various Government officials start being held responsible for some of their 'dumba$$-atudes'.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

What makes it interesting is that the building in question over there was owned by a 'Council'. Are not the Councils over there pretty much a 'local government organization', or am I misunderstanding?

Since the Council owned the building, and the Council approved the renovations (including the use of the 'cladding'), surely they should be included in those responsible. Remember, 'the buck stops here'.

Exactly so.

A 'Council' is a legal body, an element of local government. The decision makers are local councillors, who are elected by the local population. Unlike the US, we don't usually directly elect departmental officials like the Sheriff, the Police Chief, the Fire Chief, the Prosecutor...

The elected councillors do appoint the Chief Officer, the departmental heads, and other senior staff. Then the officers appoint junior staff. They are ordinary jobs, same as in private companies: they serve until they retire / resign / get promoted / move somewhere else / get fired. They don't automatically have to seek reappointment if the political layer of the council changes.

The council is one of the bodies being considered for prosecution for the offence of "corporate manslaughter". To do that, the police have to find individuals of sufficient management seniority that they could have made decisions, had a duty to make decisions, and either made bad decisions or failed to act when they should. It isn't clear yet whether the police are looking at paid officers, or elected politicians. I imagine both will be formally questioned under caution ("Anything you say will be taken down and may be used in evidence..." - lying would be another offence). I don't think a council has ever been prosecuted for corporate manslaughter before, so they'll be making it up as they go along.

The other organisation being considered for prosecution is the Tenant Management Organisation - which is effectively the outsourced housing department, run by the council at arms' length. I don't think any politicians are directly involved in the day-to-day running of the TMO.

One of the reports I read suggested that the executives of the council were to be questioned under oath. In UK council terms the executive are not the councilors, but the "civil service" of the council.


For any building there are two important dates, the date of construction, and the date of last significant update. Fire regulations applicable are those that were in place at the second date. In the case of Grenfell tower the important date is that at which the design of the cladding was signed off. At that date the cladding system was deemed, by its manufacturer not to be suitable for use in buildings above 18m (say 5 or 6 floors). This advice being based on the fire performance of small scale tests of the cladding system scaled to "real size" buildings. The recent tests have been on a larger scale (taller) than the earlier tests and have come to much the same conclusion. So who decided that the scaling of the earlier tests was "too conservative", and could be applied to buildings an order of magnitude higher than the manufacturer's recommendations? It is that person and organisation that should be prosecuted for murder and corporate manslaughter respectively.

---

Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

More worrying is the test fire someone I have worked with witnessed very recently on a 9m tall "simulated internal corner" using a similar construction to many retro-clad tower blocks (concrete inner wall, PIR insulation, air-gap, aluminium/polyethylene foam/aluminium outer skin) the test was due to run for 30 minutes from the removal of the source of ignition (the minimum duration permitted for a tall building cladding) - it was abandoned inside ten minutes from applying the source of ignition as all the insulation and cladding was burning, and lumps of the outer cladding were spalling off. Two things were happening at the same time, the polyethylene foam was melting then burning, and the air gap was acting as a chimney. But when the source of ignition was removed there were, initially, no flames visible at the lower edge of the cladding system.

---

Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

That description matches (including the early abandonment after less than 9 minutes) the "Grenfell Tower re-enactment" test carried out by the Building Research Establishment as an official Government test, and reported on BBC TV - although unfortunately the BBC were not permitted to film it, or to broadcast any official test footage, only stills.

So I think you can be more relaxed about reporting the 'witness' test - including that important point about the chimney effect, and the lack of visible fire at the lower edge of the cladding system.

The BBC are also asserting that the cladding system used at Grenfell has never been subjected to a full-scale test, until the one we're reporting today.

Edit - watch tonight's Newsnight for further details. Most particularly, they assert that the Grenfell cladding system could never have passed a full-scale fire test against the regulations that were supposed to be in force at the time it was installed.

...same test - there's quite an embargo on the actual details along with a substantial amount of egg heading towards faces, and probably excreta mixing with Expelairs.

---

Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

Will any documentation "disappear" from RBK&C?

What councils really think of the residents in their boroughs

Will any documentation "disappear" from RBK&C?

What councils really think of the residents in their boroughs

Probably already has weeks ago in the 1st few hours/days after the fire happend , just so some ar#ewipes coverd themselfs , think documentation is a given ain't it ??

---

Life is what you make of it :-)

When i'm good i'm very good , but when i'm bad i'm shi#eloads better ;-) In't I " buttercups " p.m.s.l at authoritie !!;-)