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. 

Hello All,
While I appreciate the strength of feeling of this issue, can I remind you all to please behave professionally and consider the impact of your words. 

Thank you.

CliveS said:

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 Elizabeth:

Just because we carry the title " Engineer" doesn't mean we can't be very passionate about this issue. It really doesn't matter (legally) what we say now that the formal inquiry has been issued. I personally want justice for the people who died.

Peter Brooks

Palm Bay 

Hello Peter,

No one is saying you can't be passionate and yes, you're entitled to have an opinion, however we have community rules and guidelines for a reason - we want the community to be a place where people can share their professional opinions. It's not up to use to decide what justice looks like. 

It might be more productive to adjust the balance of rules and authority to stop it happening again. That needs the testing of building products and the inspection of buildings, for fire, yes, but also probably for many other areas of building, to be separated from the makers of the same.

If product makers/ builders are allowed to mark their own homework, and those in charge of purchasing services from them are rewarded for getting the cheapest bid, rather than the best, should we be surprised the "just bodge it" merchants bubble to the top ?

The thing that protects standards in the private sector is the fussiest and most demanding  customers - as it is their own money. That applies just as much to cleaning, wiring, paving and painting as it does to  installing cladding. ('its only a council house job' is a very corrosive attitude.)

I am not sure how we get to that level of quality assurance in departments  of hard pressed local councils.
Mike

Hello Elizabeth:

My definition of Justice means (after being found guilty) then the person is fined and given a long (20 year) prison sentence, in maybe the "Scrubs".

Peter Brooks

Palm Bay 

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.

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