Grenfell - Who pays
Discussion
The Telegraph used to be a reputable paper, but has been a rag of Daily Mail levels of terribleness for a while now. The BBC, and other media outlets, are all carrying the Report now, because the Telegraph cynically broke the embargo that was intended to allow the families of victims until 30 October to read the Report before the media frenzy began.
The Report is being sound-bited as per usual. If you want to know what it says, better to read it than rely on the gobbets that the media will likely misrepresent.
The Report is being sound-bited as per usual. If you want to know what it says, better to read it than rely on the gobbets that the media will likely misrepresent.
Zirconia said:
Caught a clip on the radio with someone about the leaked report, but it is a report aimed at the fire brigade and not he cladding, suppliers and why it was fitted etc?
Obviously I am missing something.
The reporting on cladding, building etc.is due much later on. Likely after the election, how awfully convenient. Obviously I am missing something.
Breadvan72 said:
Predictably leading with critique of public sector and downplaying the private greed that also contributed to the disaster. Because Barclay brothers.
Yes, but once you get past that.Have you had much experience with Building Control, Local Planning & Fire Officer involvement?
Not leading question(s).
These departments & the people working within are there to ensure that things are done properly. With an incident on this scale, it's always going to be difficult to unpick, but do you not think it's possible that some culpability is to be accepted by them?
I see it all the time - I write reports which highlight issues that should be addressed in buildings (nothing on this scale & not with the potential for such a loss of life), but often hospitals & often where the law on unintended consequences, etc. One life...
Just how a product that could propagate fire due to its construction & installation environment was deemed fit for purpose seems incredible, but then the Building Regs & British/EU Manufacturing Standards against which it's selection & erection were assessed should also come in for criticism if found to be wanting.
Easily identifiable criminals acts aside, I think ignorance & complacency played a large part in this tragedy & if the report has been thorough to the appropriate level, it should show this in a "non-finger-pointing" manner.
Assuming you assign some credibility to my comments, would you say that prosecutions for this would be difficult/worthwhile?
There will be some for whom nothing short of lynching will be good enough & they are usually not related to the victims.
What would be your best outcome from this?
Massive clusterf
k, it appears, but the Inquiry Reports will carry waaaaaay more weight than anything I might conjecture.
PS: A leading question is a question that contains or suggests a desired answer. "Have you experience of X?" is obviously not a leading question, and so need not be accompanied by any disclaimer. It may be perhaps that you meant to say "rhetorical question".
k, it appears, but the Inquiry Reports will carry waaaaaay more weight than anything I might conjecture. PS: A leading question is a question that contains or suggests a desired answer. "Have you experience of X?" is obviously not a leading question, and so need not be accompanied by any disclaimer. It may be perhaps that you meant to say "rhetorical question".
Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 29th October 10:17
Maybe, but the situation that the firefighters faced at Grenfell was a really difficult one. If not for mismanagement of the building and the use of dodgy cladding, the firefighters may not have faced quite so severe a challenge. That does not obviate the need for a review of the doctrines, tactics, and risk policies of the fire service.
Breadvan72 said:
Maybe, but the situation that the firefighters faced at Grenfell was a really difficult one. If not for mismanagement of the building and the use of dodgy cladding, the firefighters may not have faced quite so severe a challenge. That does not obviate the need for a review of the doctrines, tactics, and risk policies of the fire service.
It does seem their ways of working are follow written procedures to the letter and there will be no deviation. That is a cultural thing that has afflicted various parts of the public services for some time. It stems from ill thought out risk analyses, misunderstanding of legal principles, and the abdication of policy decision making to 23 year old consultants working for McKinsey (producing long and impenetrable reports written in business bullst bingo language, at a million a pop) .
PS: I did two years on the Stafford Hospital Inquiry. Damn.
t bingo language, at a million a pop) .PS: I did two years on the Stafford Hospital Inquiry. Damn.
Breadvan72 said:
That is a cultural thing that has afflicted various parts of the public services for some time. It stems from ill thought out risk analyses, misunderstanding of legal principles, and the abdication of policy decision making to 23 year old consultants working for McKinsey (producing long and impenetrable reports written in business bullst bingo language, at a million a pop) .
PS: I did two years on the Stafford Hospital Inquiry. Damn.
It all looks good on paper though. t bingo language, at a million a pop) .PS: I did two years on the Stafford Hospital Inquiry. Damn.
I recall seeing the "Nursing Benchmarking Tool". A 1000 page ring binder of sheer nonsense. It was not the actual Benchmarking, by the way. It was the Benchmarking Tool. Busy and exhausted Staff Nurses were supposed to use it at work, although for what was not at all clear.
I saw a DoE "contract" - two crammed lever arch files of meaningless, aspirational guff (no lawyers involved in its production). It contained not a single enforceable promise by either party. Large sums of money had been handed over to the contractor.
I could go on, but it would make me too sad!
I saw a DoE "contract" - two crammed lever arch files of meaningless, aspirational guff (no lawyers involved in its production). It contained not a single enforceable promise by either party. Large sums of money had been handed over to the contractor.
I could go on, but it would make me too sad!
Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 29th October 16:12
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff