GRENFELL TOWER REPORT PUBLISHED TODAY

I listened this morning Sir Martin Moore-Bick introducing his report on the Grenfell Tower fire on the radio.

I was interested in him saying that person were incompetent, dishonest and greedy.

Probably no different to other industries where profit, salaries and dividends are more important than public safety and lying and deceiving by owners and managers is seen as an business attribute.

I was interested to hear that anyone currently can call themselves a Fire Engineer and the report recommends that this should become a protected term and these people should be competent by law.

It would have been nice for contempt persons schemes that do not register competent persons only "Enterprises" to be abolished and replaced with a real competent person scheme. 

Watch out for hand ringing and weasel words from those organisations who have a financial interest in preserving their incomes and the status quo.  

JP

Parents
  • Hello John:

    I have been waiting years for this report to be issued.

    I plan to download the full report to see it it answers all my questions- for example why there was no water in the risers or why it took so long to turn off the gas supply to the building.

    Now it has been issued, how long before the police start arresting people?

    Peter Brooks

    Palm Bay Florida 

      

  • She was asked in her evidence what the meaning of WTF in cross examination.

    and it is just that sort of ignorance, among the bureaucratic class, of these sort of specialist techniques and terminology, that allows this sort of issue to occur. I'm pretty sure everyone in the lab where I work knows what it means. (!)


    But dark humour aside, that incident specifically - the testing of Celotex in the wrong layer stack (with an Mg O barrier) compared to how it was actually being used (without that non-combustible barrier) may be one of the closest we see to at least corporate responsibility.
    It does look like pretty solidly like tricking the test sample to get a pass which would otherwise be a fail. And would not happen if it was not the company itself preparing the test sample and results and test method being seen as "commercial in confidence" information.
    I still fear though that even if anyone gets fined or jailed, even for that, it will not be those truly responsible for making it happen.
    Mike

  • Hello Mike:

    Something else happened this week that gives me hope that the police will now take action.

    It was reported that the German trial of Martin Winterhorn Ex-Volkswagen boss had started this week.

    He was a key actor in the 2015 Dieselgate scandal.

    Peter Brooks

    Palm Bay FL 

  • Well, he was CEO of Volkswagen at the time the cars with the test detecting software were being made and sold - from 2008 in the UK actually so a link may be easier to prove. Not sure how much software he personally wrote, or encouraged others to write, or which project managers thought it was a reasonable interpretation of the rules and how much that was known in the higher levels of the beaurocracy.. Its German law, so we will all find out in due course. It is worth noting that Rupert Stadler - the Audi man-  pleaded guilty to personal responsibility for not stopping sales once the software was known about and was fined a touch over a million euros and given a 21 month suspended sentence.

    I agree, we'll see.
    Mike.

  • Hello Mike:

    If and when the Police start their legal actions, will the IET determine if any of it's members are involved?

    Peter Brooks

    Palm Bay  

  • Hello Mike:

    I sometimes wish that Albert Pierrepoint was still around to provide final Justice.

    Peter Brooks

    Palm Bay 

  • You do have to be very sure if you have  a death penalty. There have been a great many cases where later we decided that the guilty person wasn't after all.
    Mike.

  • Witch hunts for someone to blame is just a way of the government to avoid doing anything because they can say they are waiting for the police to investigate.

    Their hope is some company will plead guilty and go bankrupt while paying some compensation to those who lost relatives.

    BUT, What to do with buildings over 12 floors that have this flammable cladding still needs to be sorted? 

    Make the company that installed it remove it within 1 year is an option.

    If they go broke jail the chief exec  and call in the army to finish the job.

    We cannot keep on prevaricating for ever over a stupid mistake.

    Another stupid mistake was removing flame proof asbestos cement from high rise buildings and replacing it with flammable plastics.  No wonder the inside catches fire easily as well. 

  • We cannot keep on prevaricating for ever over a stupid mistake.

    What makes you think any of this was a mistake?  Whether it's building materials companies claiming their products were more fire resistant than they really were, or council officials who went for the cheapest option and didn't care about the safety implications.  It was all deliberate.

  • Hello John:

    I see in today's Housing magazine (Monday 9th September 2024) that the Lords call for the Building Research Establishment (BRE) be stripped of it's responsibility for certifying modern methods of Construction.

    Peter Brooks

    Palm Bay 

  • It might be more sense to not make it financially dependant on customers - in the same way that the courts are not paid by the fines they levy...
    Mike.

Reply
  • It might be more sense to not make it financially dependant on customers - in the same way that the courts are not paid by the fines they levy...
    Mike.

Children
  • Hello Mike:

    With any "independent" (if there is any such thing) service provider, funding of the operation is always a problem.

    Even if that service is provided by the government - it is never fully funded to the required level.

    For an example the approval of new drugs in the US by the FDA.

    By the way, on an unrelated item, I saw last week that the UKCA mark has been killed.

    Peter Brooks

    Palm Bay FL 

  • I saw last week that the UKCA mark has been killed

    Not quite (at least as far as I'm aware), the change is that the CE Mark can still be used in the UK - so manufacturers can use either (or both!) 

    https://www.gov.uk/guidance/using-the-ukca-marking#rules-for-using-the-ukca-image

    Not that I can imagine many manufacturers bothering to use the UKCA mark, I certainly wouldn't advise any to now as it adds no value, but the intention is that it could be used for any future UK specific standards