Grenfell witnesses evidence won't be used against them
Discussion
Grenfell witnesses will not have their evidence used against them
Cracking start for Suella" Braverman.
What am I missing about this decision?
Cracking start for Suella" Braverman.
What am I missing about this decision?
Much as I think she is only in post for a rubber stamp for Bojo attack on the courts, I thought this issue for let off was lready a done deal and needed, er, rubber stamping?
Stinks though. Not sure how the legal stuff works with inquiries for such as this regarding compeliing people to say what happened.
Stinks though. Not sure how the legal stuff works with inquiries for such as this regarding compeliing people to say what happened.
So a witness just says, I was me what done it guv, and cannot be done for it?
Makes no sense.
Everyone involved in things like this should be fair game. Same with cases such as the people trafficking fridge lorry deaths. Everyone who knew about it, and there will be 10s if not hundreds, should be fair game for prosecution. Otherwise, where is the deterrent for not doing it again??
Makes no sense.
Everyone involved in things like this should be fair game. Same with cases such as the people trafficking fridge lorry deaths. Everyone who knew about it, and there will be 10s if not hundreds, should be fair game for prosecution. Otherwise, where is the deterrent for not doing it again??
I naively assumed you got called under oath.
The second phase of the inquiry has been on hold for several weeks, as many witnesses threatened to stay silent without a guarantee.
Apparently not.
The second phase of the inquiry has been on hold for several weeks, as many witnesses threatened to stay silent without a guarantee.
Apparently not.
It makes perfect sense.
What's the purpose of the inquiry?
The Grenfell Tower Inquiry is an independent public inquiry, set up to examine the circumstances leading up to and surrounding the fire at Grenfell Tower on 14 June 2017.
It's not to gather evidence for criminal proceedings. That's what the criminal investigation is for.
No one will help the inquiry if they risk incriminating themselves.
Would anyone here?
What's the purpose of the inquiry?
The Grenfell Tower Inquiry is an independent public inquiry, set up to examine the circumstances leading up to and surrounding the fire at Grenfell Tower on 14 June 2017.
It's not to gather evidence for criminal proceedings. That's what the criminal investigation is for.
No one will help the inquiry if they risk incriminating themselves.
Would anyone here?
La Liga said:
It makes perfect sense.
What's the purpose of the inquiry?
The Grenfell Tower Inquiry is an independent public inquiry, set up to examine the circumstances leading up to and surrounding the fire at Grenfell Tower on 14 June 2017.
It's not to gather evidence for criminal proceedings. That's what the criminal investigation is for.
No one will help the inquiry if they risk incriminating themselves.
Would anyone here?
OK, understood. What's the purpose of the inquiry?
The Grenfell Tower Inquiry is an independent public inquiry, set up to examine the circumstances leading up to and surrounding the fire at Grenfell Tower on 14 June 2017.
It's not to gather evidence for criminal proceedings. That's what the criminal investigation is for.
No one will help the inquiry if they risk incriminating themselves.
Would anyone here?
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said: I suspect a lot of people won't appreciate that you have a choice in an inquiry and have the opportunity to say "Sod that I'm not incriminating myself".
Certainly news to me.
Well it appears that they are being told they won’t be incriminating themselves. So that’s that problem solved.Certainly news to me.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: I suspect a lot of people won't appreciate that you have a choice in an inquiry and have the opportunity to say "Sod that I'm not incriminating myself".
Certainly news to me.
It's a pretty fundamental right not to incriminate oneself. Certainly news to me.
If a criminal prosecution is relying on oral evidence from the inquiry hearing, then it's not likely to be the strongest prosecution. A criminal prosecution should be strong enough to stand on its own without any oral evidence from the accused.
Its a difficult one.
We want to ensure that fire safety isn't undermined in the future (wont use the phrase 'never happen again' as thats just bks used by politicians), so its vital we find out how it could have come to such an insane mix of stay put design with a flammable cladding.
On the other hand, legal punishment is a deterrent that is dangerous to undermine.
A circle impossible to fully square. I would tend to believe that if there is a realistic chance of prosecution, then that should take priority and only give amnesty if its the only way to get at sufficient facts to make a difference and save future lives.
Because at the end of it all, what we really need is to prevent as many deaths from fire as possible.
We want to ensure that fire safety isn't undermined in the future (wont use the phrase 'never happen again' as thats just b
ks used by politicians), so its vital we find out how it could have come to such an insane mix of stay put design with a flammable cladding.On the other hand, legal punishment is a deterrent that is dangerous to undermine.
A circle impossible to fully square. I would tend to believe that if there is a realistic chance of prosecution, then that should take priority and only give amnesty if its the only way to get at sufficient facts to make a difference and save future lives.
Because at the end of it all, what we really need is to prevent as many deaths from fire as possible.
Gary C said:
Its a difficult one.
We want to ensure that fire safety isn't undermined in the future (wont use the phrase 'never happen again' as thats just bks used by politicians), so its vital we find out how it could have come to such an insane mix of stay put design with a flammable cladding.
On the other hand, legal punishment is a deterrent that is dangerous to undermine.
A circle impossible to fully square. I would tend to believe that if there is a realistic chance of prosecution, then that should take priority and only give amnesty if its the only way to get at sufficient facts to make a difference and save future lives.
Because at the end of it all, what we really need is to prevent as many deaths from fire as possible.
How do you establish what they have to say is sufficient to make a difference without them speaking first? We want to ensure that fire safety isn't undermined in the future (wont use the phrase 'never happen again' as thats just b
ks used by politicians), so its vital we find out how it could have come to such an insane mix of stay put design with a flammable cladding.On the other hand, legal punishment is a deterrent that is dangerous to undermine.
A circle impossible to fully square. I would tend to believe that if there is a realistic chance of prosecution, then that should take priority and only give amnesty if its the only way to get at sufficient facts to make a difference and save future lives.
Because at the end of it all, what we really need is to prevent as many deaths from fire as possible.
You have to give the guarantee first.
La Liga said:
It makes perfect sense.
What's the purpose of the inquiry?
The Grenfell Tower Inquiry is an independent public inquiry, set up to examine the circumstances leading up to and surrounding the fire at Grenfell Tower on 14 June 2017.
It's not to gather evidence for criminal proceedings. That's what the criminal investigation is for.
No one will help the inquiry if they risk incriminating themselves.
Would anyone here?
Exactly, unfortunately the Grenfell United legal team will be challenging as they are bound to do. Quelle suprise!What's the purpose of the inquiry?
The Grenfell Tower Inquiry is an independent public inquiry, set up to examine the circumstances leading up to and surrounding the fire at Grenfell Tower on 14 June 2017.
It's not to gather evidence for criminal proceedings. That's what the criminal investigation is for.
No one will help the inquiry if they risk incriminating themselves.
Would anyone here?
The facts of the terrible accident need to be presented and the guilty, or none, will be prosecuted in due course.
Has there been an incident of self combusting tower blocks? No!
User error or criminal practice whilst living in a multi storey block of flats would be my guess for the reason this fire started, however poor fire escape protocol and a lack of experience or care of the risks that this may happen lies with the local Council, but any 'blame' will hang on who can provide the best legal team.
Sadly, the innocent will be shouted down, forgotten, or ignored.
Maybe im one of those "woke" (still dont know what it means) people but i really dont understand this. If someone says something that might incriminate them or their company then what are people meant to do? Have their memory wiped? Why any need for this anyway? Investigate the fire properly and find those who gave the orders/knew about the fire risk/gave the order. Someone must have known this stuff was dangerous and decided to fit it, surely? What am i missing? Maybe i just dont understand the world.
borcy said:
Gary C said:
Its a difficult one.
We want to ensure that fire safety isn't undermined in the future (wont use the phrase 'never happen again' as thats just bks used by politicians), so its vital we find out how it could have come to such an insane mix of stay put design with a flammable cladding.
On the other hand, legal punishment is a deterrent that is dangerous to undermine.
A circle impossible to fully square. I would tend to believe that if there is a realistic chance of prosecution, then that should take priority and only give amnesty if its the only way to get at sufficient facts to make a difference and save future lives.
Because at the end of it all, what we really need is to prevent as many deaths from fire as possible.
How do you establish what they have to say is sufficient to make a difference without them speaking first? We want to ensure that fire safety isn't undermined in the future (wont use the phrase 'never happen again' as thats just b
ks used by politicians), so its vital we find out how it could have come to such an insane mix of stay put design with a flammable cladding.On the other hand, legal punishment is a deterrent that is dangerous to undermine.
A circle impossible to fully square. I would tend to believe that if there is a realistic chance of prosecution, then that should take priority and only give amnesty if its the only way to get at sufficient facts to make a difference and save future lives.
Because at the end of it all, what we really need is to prevent as many deaths from fire as possible.
You have to give the guarantee first.
Its difficult balance. If there was a strong case for the prosecution I would expect they would put that above the inquiry.
The only thing I know is that we at work have very stringent fire protection rules and when we exercise an incident, you tend to stick to procedure until its obvious its not working. I imagine the Silver & Gold command on the night given a standard stay put procedure found it very difficult to break out as suddenly its all on your shoulders.
Edited by Gary C on Wednesday 26th February 22:07
tux said:
Maybe im one of those "woke" (still dont know what it means) people but i really dont understand this. If someone says something that might incriminate them or their company then what are people meant to do? Have their memory wiped? Why any need for this anyway? Investigate the fire properly and find those who gave the orders/knew about the fire risk/gave the order. Someone must have known this stuff was dangerous and decided to fit it, surely? What am i missing? Maybe i just dont understand the world.
It's needed because the current system of building doesn't quite work:As it currently stands, if my tender price is accepted, I could employ the right Private Inspector, submit vague details, and commence. I know certain contractors are lax on H&S, so that'd save me the cost of scaffold.
Halfway through the build I speak to my merchant. He offers me alternative insulation and roof covering. Apparently it's the same but cheaper. I like that salesman. f
k knows what actually gets delivered to site.I know the inspector won't check much, neither will my contractor. I can order the wrong size trusses through error/incompetence/dishonesty, the calcs may even say "FAIL", I'll pass them to the inspector and it'll go straight in the file as he's so busy. One inspector checks the plans, one does the visits (if at all). I could probably make quite a few alterations for the client that wouldn't be noticed by BCO. He's not there all the time, and neither is the Client. Drains, insulation, and anything else readily hidden could very very easily be fudged.
As an employed professional, clearly I don't do this and am exagerating in the above scenario. However I am taking examples I've seen before.
20-30 years ago we had Clerks of Works. But they cost money, and the general public didn't want to pay for it...
There is a fix but it comes at a cost. I just hope the inquiry realises the reality of the industry.
Gary C said:
Its a difficult one.
We want to ensure that fire safety isn't undermined in the future (wont use the phrase 'never happen again' as thats just bks used by politicians), so its vital we find out how it could have come to such an insane mix of stay put design with a flammable cladding.
I'm still trying to square the circle of a stay put policy and silent fire alarms.We want to ensure that fire safety isn't undermined in the future (wont use the phrase 'never happen again' as thats just b
ks used by politicians), so its vital we find out how it could have come to such an insane mix of stay put design with a flammable cladding. 80% of the building I'm aware of has the traditional alarm.
The newer 20% developed since Grenfell has the newer silent alarm so as not to alarm people.
Foooking bonkers even more given that the Sounders are in but disconnected due to architect winning over the FB about dumbass stay put policies
Oh and given all the hype about 'living walls' being talked about nowadays they seem to totally contradict the argument about flammable cladding on buildings.
I'm pretty sure dry vegetation sets on fire pretty easily or am I missing something?
It gets more like a witch hunt every new turn
Ordered one item, a different one delivered both builder, supplier and manufacturer will likely be prosecuted
Mr A sublets flat to 9 individuals, no prosecution and fatality figure not adjusted
Tin foil hat on
The outcome has already been decided they are just figuring out who to hang.
Ordered one item, a different one delivered both builder, supplier and manufacturer will likely be prosecuted
Mr A sublets flat to 9 individuals, no prosecution and fatality figure not adjusted
Tin foil hat on
The outcome has already been decided they are just figuring out who to hang.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff