National Government/Local Government Incompetence ?

I am aware (through the BBC news) that ALL the cladding samples sent by LAs for testing have failed.

Does this include samples of BOTH Aluminium cladding (as per Grenfell Tower) AND Zinc coated cladding (as per that rejected in Granfell Tower) ?

Don Atkinson posted:

I am aware (through the BBC news) that ALL the cladding samples sent by LAs for testing have failed.

Does this include samples of BOTH Aluminium cladding (as per Grenfell Tower) AND Zinc coated cladding (as per that rejected in Granfell Tower) ?

I've got no idea here ... but I wonder if the testing is a blunt too.  That is: all the cladding will burn to some extent, but in a "taking no chances" way that means that all cladding will fail.  Some is more fire resistant than others, but not is completely fire proof.  And it's not (afaik) just down to the cladding itself which is causing a risk, but is about how it has been applied, if correct procedures were followed, etc.  

I fear in the typical "knee jerk" response; we may be going to throw the baby out with the bath water.

Eloise,

I have been unable to discover whether a wide variety of cladding materials have been subjected to the tests that we are told the Aluminium Panels from Grenfell Tower and other buildings have undergone. From a limited number of reports, I understand that these are new tests, not carried out before and not part of the current tests to which cladding materials have been subjected prior to approval.

I am presuming that the whole range of such cladding materials has been tested. Otherwise we won't know the wider risk !

However, I rather suspect the "powers-that-be" are still in the "knee-jerk" stage that you describe. Ie they are only testing aluminium cladding. If this is the case, it simply adds to my concern about incompetence.

A quick review of the BBC's news items provides the following summary :-

Sir Martin Moore-Bick's inquiry will "go right back to the construction of the tower" in the 1970s to examine warnings that may have been missed.

He said previously it was unlikely the inquiry would look at wider social issues in Kensington and Chelsea.

It is likely to consider in detail whether the nature of the building regulations contributed to the fire, but it is unlikely the impact of the regulations elsewhere in the country will be part of its scope.

Residents will be consulted, a series of meetings is being planned and a document setting out a list of questions is being prepared.

Residents have said they are concerned the inquiry will not go far enough and have threatened to pull out if their concerns are not met.

Survivors have written a letter to the prime minister with 12 demands for changes in the way the disaster is being handled.

These include:

• ^{Withdraw the appointment of Sir Martin Moore-Bick as chairman of the inquiry}
• ^{Explain what consultation will take place before the inquiry's terms of reference are finalised}
• ^{Guarantee that the inquiry chair will adopt wide terms of reference that goes beyond the narrow one outlined by his recent statement}
• ^{Ensure the government co-ordinated response team is available 24 hours a day}
• ^{Confirm that undocumented survivors will be given full UK citizenship}

BMElawyers4Grenfell, a group of black and minority ethnic lawyers, wrote the letter on behalf of the survivors.

I consider there is a need for TWO inquiries or investigations.

One, by Sir Martin Moor-Blick to look at the "Bricks & Mortar"

One, by the Police and Crown Prosecution Service, to look at possible criminal or gross-negligence aspects of the design, construction, operation (letting etc) maintenance and refurbishment of the property.

I don't consider it appropriate for the survivors to dictate the scope, terms or constitution of any inquiry.

Don Atkinson posted:

Christopher_M posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

 There are two aspects to this tragedy.

          (1) The fire and the choice of cladding.

          (2) The action (or lack thereof) during and after the tragedy.

You missed a third: the ghettoisation of an underclass.

Chris,

I'm sure there are many, many more underlying issues to discontent in our society. And our National Government and our LAs are not up to dealing with them adequately.

To a certain extent, this is the consequence of society's attitudes, reflected in the priorities that LAs apply to their functioning. It might well have been that the LAs in both Camden and Chelsea felt they couldn't be bothered to make adequate provision for those affected by the fire or the Fire Service advice ie those affected were an underclass living in a ghetto. But I didn't detect that attitude in any of the news reports that I saw. I just saw incompetence.

Thanks Don. Yes, TV and radio sound bites don't sit easily with analysis.

My hope for Sir Martin Moore-Bick's report is that it will be as influential as the Scarman Report.

winky posted this in the "Trump" thread, but I think the principles he has espoused are just as appropriate here, with regard to Grenfell Tower and the proposed inquiry. I have posted it in its entirity, other than the reference to Trump. I am sure most of us can read "between the lines" and put it into the context of Grenfell Tower. I have, however, emboldened those elements that I consider most relevant to Grenfell Tower.

I didn't say terrorism didn't exist. I just said it has never affected me (or anyone I know) directly and personally, and that compared to other sources of suffering it is actually low risk and it should not be blown out of proportion. I'm not saying reports of terrorism are "fake news". I believe what I'm told by the media about terrorist attacks.

I'm sure it is unbearably bad to be directly affected. It's just that very few people are directly affected (I'm speaking now of terrorism in otherwise peaceful countries. There are obviously a lot of people currently affected by brutal wars that are driven by the same  ideologies and issues that drive many terrorists). I also choose to not be fearful. There is no reason to be fearful. That's not the same thing as being insensitive. Am am very sensitive to the suffering of others.

To the bee sting analogy. I'm not saying a bee sting is as bad (as) a suicide bomber. Of course not. But they are MUCH more common and kill far more people. Risk = likelihood x consequence. When focusing on only the consequence while ignoring the likelihood, we make poor decisions in terms of risk management. Such as making mothers drink breast milk at airport security checkpoints.

The "even one life saved"and "how many is too many?" arguments are always weak. If we, as a society consider every life saved to be worth whatever it costs, why don't we wear crash helmets in cars and speed limit them to 30 km/hr? Every year we'd save close to 40,000 lives and prevent millions of injuries in the US alone. Guaranteed. The awful truth is that we don't do it because those lost lives aren't important enough to us.

As to whether my view would change if I was to be directly affected; I'd bet it would, but then I'd hardly be in a position to make any sort of rational judgement regarding the best overall outcomes moving forward. I'd likely be bitter, full of hate and would seek only revenge. Hardly the best basis for a rational policy. I'd be the worst person to ask about how the issue is best addressed from a societal perspective. I'd be hopelessly conflicted.

In my opinion, an independent inquiry should be led by Moore-Blick or someone of equal standing, selected by the judiciary or the Government. not by those affected. Central government should fund the inquiry, despite its independence.

Likewise, a separate investigation should be carried out to determine whether any criminal act or gross-negligence contributed to the dreadful event and outcome. Again, this should be funded by Central Government.

If anybody considered Central Government's involvement in selection or funding was inappropriate, then perhaps some EU body could appoint the Leaders and fund the inquiry and investigation.

winky, I really hope you don't object to my using your post in this way. It simply captures by outlook more succinctly than I could have managed. Sincere apologies if you object, and I will delete it if you so wish. Regards, Don.

Don Atkinson posted:

 

In my opinion, an independent inquiry should be led by Moore-Blick or someone of equal standing, selected by the judiciary or the Government. not by those affected. Central government should fund the inquiry, despite its independence.

A lot of the discussion about Moore-Blik is about perception I think rather than anything concrete.  The lack of official recognition that some of his past record suggests he is uncaring about the class of people living in Grenfell Tower is something which will have to be addressed (IMO) and repeated assertions about his independence and technical qualifications will do little to comfort the survivors and victims of the tower disaster.

This is especially true as May gave repeated assurances that the victims's families and survivors would be consulted.  Yes technically she is correct to appoint the judge the way she did, but there appears to be a lack of empathy or thought as to how his appointment would be seen.

Eloise posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

 

In my opinion, an independent inquiry should be led by Moore-Blick or someone of equal standing, selected by the judiciary or the Government. not by those affected. Central government should fund the inquiry, despite its independence.

A lot of the discussion about Moore-Blik is about perception I think rather than anything concrete.  The lack of official recognition that some of his past record suggests he is uncaring about the class of people living in Grenfell Tower is something which will have to be addressed (IMO) and repeated assertions about his independence and technical qualifications will do little to comfort the survivors and victims of the tower disaster.

This is especially true as May gave repeated assurances that the victims's families and survivors would be consulted.  Yes technically she is correct to appoint the judge the way she did, but there appears to be a lack of empathy or thought as to how his appointment would be seen.

A lot of uncritical and unbalanced airtime is being given by the BBC to activists who claim to speak for the residents.   In calling for Moore-Bick to step down because of residents ' concerns,  the shadow fire minister just admitted on the World at One that he had not heard any such demands from actual Grenfell residents.  The truth is that the left has weaponised the whole matter and that any inquiry head selected by this government will automatically face calls for them to step down.  

Eloise posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

 

In my opinion, an independent inquiry should be led by Moore-Blickor someone of equal standing, selected by the judiciary or the Government. not by those affected. Central government should fund the inquiry, despite its independence.

A lot of the discussion about Moore-Blik is about perception I think rather than anything concrete.  The lack of official recognition that some of his past record suggests he is uncaring about the class of people living in Grenfell Tower is something which will have to be addressed (IMO) and repeated assertions about his independence and technical qualifications will do little to comfort the survivors and victims of the tower disaster.

This is especially true as May gave repeated assurances that the victims's families and survivors would be consulted.  Yes technically she is correct to appoint the judge the way she did, but there appears to be a lack of empathy or thought as to how his appointment would be seen.

I agree Eloise. That is why I added "or someone of equal standing"

Norton posted:

Eloise posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

 

In my opinion, an independent inquiry should be led by Moore-Blick or someone of equal standing, selected by the judiciary or the Government. not by those affected. Central government should fund the inquiry, despite its independence.

A lot of the discussion about Moore-Blik is about perception I think rather than anything concrete.  The lack of official recognition that some of his past record suggests he is uncaring about the class of people living in Grenfell Tower is something which will have to be addressed (IMO) and repeated assertions about his independence and technical qualifications will do little to comfort the survivors and victims of the tower disaster.

This is especially true as May gave repeated assurances that the victims's families and survivors would be consulted.  Yes technically she is correct to appoint the judge the way she did, but there appears to be a lack of empathy or thought as to how his appointment would be seen.

A lot of uncritical and unbalanced airtime is being given by the BBC to activists who claim to speak for the residents.   In calling for Moore-Bick to step down because of residents ' concerns,  the shadow fire minister just admitted on the World at One that he had not heard any such demands from actual Grenfell residents.  The truth is that the left has weaponised the whole matter and that any inquiry head selected by this government will automatically face calls for them to step down.  

 

Again, I agree. This disaster has opened up a rather sinister can of worms.

It will take careful management to bring it under control and for any inquiry to be meaningful and useful, as opposed to being driven by a political lynch mob.

Don Atkinson posted:

Again, I agree. This disaster has opened up a rather sinister can of worms.

It will take careful management to bring it under control and for any inquiry to be meaningful and useful, as opposed to being driven by a political lynch mob.

Once you've opened a can of worms, the only way to re-can the worms is to use a bigger can.

Norton posted:

A lot of uncritical and unbalanced airtime is being given by the BBC to activists who claim to speak for the residents.   In calling for Moore-Bick to step down because of residents ' concerns,  the shadow fire minister just admitted on the World at One that he had not heard any such demands from actual Grenfell residents.  The truth is that the left has weaponised the whole matter and that any inquiry head selected by this government will automatically face calls for them to step down.  

 

I think you need to produce evidence for why these people speaking are 'activists who claim to speak for residents' rather than people who have been affected by the fire. Most of the people I have seen interviewed on BBC TV news have given some information about their connection with the fire. There seems little doubt that the disaster has aroused very strong feelings locally and it is right that the BBC represents these views. As for the shadow fire minister, I also heard that interview and I think he was commenting on the basis of what he had been briefed - he was only appointed to the post yesterday so he has hardly had time to have direct contact with anyone. In order to get some perspective on the scepticism of those who doubt the suitability of Judge Moore-Bick, maybe you should remind yourself of the history of investigations into the Hillsborough disaster, which I am sure will be in many minds. The appointment of Moore-Bick was a cock-up not primarily because of who he, is but because May and the government failed again to have any discussions or consultation with the residents or community before making the appointment. 

Clive

Cdb posted:

Norton posted:

A lot of uncritical and unbalanced airtime is being given by the BBC to activists who claim to speak for the residents.   In calling for Moore-Bick to step down because of residents ' concerns,  the shadow fire minister just admitted on the World at One that he had not heard any such demands from actual Grenfell residents.  The truth is that the left has weaponised the whole matter and that any inquiry head selected by this government will automatically face calls for them to step down.  

 

I think you need to produce evidence for why these people speaking are 'activists who claim to speak for residents' rather than people who have been affected by the fire. Most of the people I have seen interviewed on BBC TV news have given some information about their connection with the fire. There seems little doubt that the disaster has aroused very strong feelings locally and it is right that the BBC represents these views. As for the shadow fire minister, I also heard that interview and I think he was commenting on the basis of what he had been briefed - he was only appointed to the post yesterday so he has hardly had time to have direct contact with anyone. In order to get some perspective on the scepticism of those who doubt the suitability of Judge Moore-Bick, maybe you should remind yourself of the history of investigations into the Hillsborough disaster, which I am sure will be in many minds. The appointment of Moore-Bick was a cock-up not primarily because of who he, is but because May and the government failed again to have any discussions or consultation with the residents or community before making the appointment. 

Clive

Well if he "hardly had time to have direct contact with anyone" maybe he shouldn't be appearing on a prime BBC news programme calling for the judge he's not met to step down on the basis of residents' complaints he's not heard.

As for producing the evidence, listen to the interviews with Sue Caro on world at one on 28th June and with Pilgrim Tucker on 5L afternoon edition on 29th, then look these individuals up on google and see who they are, what roles/ organisations they've worked in, what publications they have written for and where they are coming from on a range of  issues.

I have no problem in their views being heard (although I'd prefer to hear from the residents themselves) , however the BBC should have made clear in these interviews why they were being interviewed, on what basis they spoke for the residents and how that was agreed, where they were coming from in terms of their history of activism and political perspective, and then gone on to interrogate their views and provide other voices in balance.  In short these individuals are being given free rein by the BBC in ways that elected  politicians or those in executive office are not.

Norton posted:

Cdb posted:

Norton posted:

A lot of uncritical and unbalanced airtime is being given by the BBC to activists who claim to speak for the residents.   In calling for Moore-Bick to step down because of residents ' concerns,  the shadow fire minister just admitted on the World at One that he had not heard any such demands from actual Grenfell residents.  The truth is that the left has weaponised the whole matter and that any inquiry head selected by this government will automatically face calls for them to step down.  

 

I think you need to produce evidence for why these people speaking are 'activists who claim to speak for residents' rather than people who have been affected by the fire. Most of the people I have seen interviewed on BBC TV news have given some information about their connection with the fire. There seems little doubt that the disaster has aroused very strong feelings locally and it is right that the BBC represents these views. As for the shadow fire minister, I also heard that interview and I think he was commenting on the basis of what he had been briefed - he was only appointed to the post yesterday so he has hardly had time to have direct contact with anyone. In order to get some perspective on the scepticism of those who doubt the suitability of Judge Moore-Bick, maybe you should remind yourself of the history of investigations into the Hillsborough disaster, which I am sure will be in many minds. The appointment of Moore-Bick was a cock-up not primarily because of who he, is but because May and the government failed again to have any discussions or consultation with the residents or community before making the appointment. 

Clive

Well if he "hardly had time to have direct contact with anyone" maybe he shouldn't be appearing on a prime BBC news programme calling for the judge he's not met to step down on the basis of residents' complaints he's not heard.

As for producing the evidence, listen to the interviews with Sue Caro on world at one on 28th June and with Pilgrim Tucker on 5L afternoon edition on 29th, then look these individuals up on google and see who they are, what roles/ organisations they've worked in, what publications they have written for and where they are coming from on a range of  issues.

I have no problem in their views being heard (although I'd prefer to hear from the residents themselves) , however the BBC should have made clear in these interviews why they were being interviewed, on what basis they spoke for the residents and how that was agreed, where they were coming from in terms of their history of activism and political perspective, and then gone on to interrogate their views and provide other voices in balance.  In short these individuals are being given free rein by the BBC in ways that elected  politicians or those in executive office are not.

 

As far as the shadow fire minister is concerned, I have no idea of the basis on which he was put up to speak or selected himself - I get the impression that the BBC often ask for speakers at quite short notice, so it's probably a case of needs must. I would guess he was briefed by Emma Dent Coad, the new local MP, who is expressing strong views about the judge's lack of suitability. Interestingly Sadiq Khan and Jeremy Corbyn are being somewhat more circumspect.

I am unclear about what your evidence proves - possibly different conclusions from different perspectives. I looked up these weaponising activists and found that Sue Caro has worked for the BBC and has some expertise about issues relating to diversity. She is speaking on behalf of Justice4Grenfell which appears to be a legitimate advocacy group, but maybe it's an SWP front organisation? Pilgrim Tucker is clearly a leftist but she seems to have been involved with a Grenfell Tower Action Group which had tried to raise concerns about fire risks before the fire and because of the cuts to legal aid couldn't get access to legal help - I assume this might be why she was interviewed. Of course I didn't hear them being interviewed so perhaps they were simply exploiting the fire for their own political ends. However, I don't think the BBC can provide a bio for every speaker, especially one that you appear to think should include a health warning on the lines of - 'this person has left wing views so you may need to discount their opinions'. In addition to these two, whom you cite, I have heard a number of current and ex-government ministers (including Dominic Grieve, former attorney general, speaking after the Labour politician today on R4 one o'clock news, and defending Moore-Bick's appointment), a local councillor defending their actions, occasionally the ex-leader of the council, but the last shots of him showed him incommunicado behind his car window, many local residents including heartbreaking interviews with those who had lost friends or relatives, people from local community groups such as churches. So this seems quite a diverse set of speakers and I think it is lopsided to imply that the BBC is simply allowing a unrepresentative group of speakers uncritical access to peddle views that have no connection with the victims of the fire.

Of course if you don't think there are any issues relating to social justice involved in the fire, then I can perhaps appreciate why you see the coverage as all got up by the left in order to advance nefarious political aims.

Clive

Cdb posted:

Norton posted:

Cdb posted:

Norton posted:

A lot of uncritical and unbalanced airtime is being given by the BBC to activists who claim to speak for the residents.   In calling for Moore-Bick to step down because of residents ' concerns,  the shadow fire minister just admitted on the World at One that he had not heard any such demands from actual Grenfell residents.  The truth is that the left has weaponised the whole matter and that any inquiry head selected by this government will automatically face calls for them to step down.  

 

I think you need to produce evidence for why these people speaking are 'activists who claim to speak for residents' rather than people who have been affected by the fire. Most of the people I have seen interviewed on BBC TV news have given some information about their connection with the fire. There seems little doubt that the disaster has aroused very strong feelings locally and it is right that the BBC represents these views. As for the shadow fire minister, I also heard that interview and I think he was commenting on the basis of what he had been briefed - he was only appointed to the post yesterday so he has hardly had time to have direct contact with anyone. In order to get some perspective on the scepticism of those who doubt the suitability of Judge Moore-Bick, maybe you should remind yourself of the history of investigations into the Hillsborough disaster, which I am sure will be in many minds. The appointment of Moore-Bick was a cock-up not primarily because of who he, is but because May and the government failed again to have any discussions or consultation with the residents or community before making the appointment. 

Clive

Well if he "hardly had time to have direct contact with anyone" maybe he shouldn't be appearing on a prime BBC news programme calling for the judge he's not met to step down on the basis of residents' complaints he's not heard.

As for producing the evidence, listen to the interviews with Sue Caro on world at one on 28th June and with Pilgrim Tucker on 5L afternoon edition on 29th, then look these individuals up on google and see who they are, what roles/ organisations they've worked in, what publications they have written for and where they are coming from on a range of  issues.

I have no problem in their views being heard (although I'd prefer to hear from the residents themselves) , however the BBC should have made clear in these interviews why they were being interviewed, on what basis they spoke for the residents and how that was agreed, where they were coming from in terms of their history of activism and political perspective, and then gone on to interrogate their views and provide other voices in balance.  In short these individuals are being given free rein by the BBC in ways that elected  politicians or those in executive office are not.

 

As far as the shadow fire minister is concerned, I have no idea of the basis on which he was put up to speak or selected himself - I get the impression that the BBC often ask for speakers at quite short notice, so it's probably a case of needs must. I would guess he was briefed by Emma Dent Coad, the new local MP, who is expressing strong views about the judge's lack of suitability. Interestingly Sadiq Khan and Jeremy Corbyn are being somewhat more circumspect.

I am unclear about what your evidence proves - possibly different conclusions from different perspectives. I looked up these weaponising activists and found that Sue Caro has worked for the BBC and has some expertise about issues relating to diversity. She is speaking on behalf of Justice4Grenfell which appears to be a legitimate advocacy group, but maybe it's an SWP front organisation? Pilgrim Tucker is clearly a leftist but she seems to have been involved with a Grenfell Tower Action Group which had tried to raise concerns about fire risks before the fire and because of the cuts to legal aid couldn't get access to legal help - I assume this might be why she was interviewed. Of course I didn't hear them being interviewed so perhaps they were simply exploiting the fire for their own political ends. However, I don't think the BBC can provide a bio for every speaker, especially one that you appear to think should include a health warning on the lines of - 'this person has left wing views so you may need to discount their opinions'. In addition to these two, whom you cite, I have heard a number of current and ex-government ministers (including Dominic Grieve, former attorney general, speaking after the Labour politician today on R4 one o'clock news, and defending Moore-Bick's appointment), a local councillor defending their actions, occasionally the ex-leader of the council, but the last shots of him showed him incommunicado behind his car window, many local residents including heartbreaking interviews with those who had lost friends or relatives, people from local community groups such as churches. So this seems quite a diverse set of speakers and I think it is lopsided to imply that the BBC is simply allowing a unrepresentative group of speakers uncritical access to peddle views that have no connection with the victims of the fire.

Of course if you don't think there are any issues relating to social justice involved in the fire, then I can perhaps appreciate why you see the coverage as all got up by the left in order to advance nefarious political aims.

Clive

Well you asked for some evidence and I provided it. I would urge you to listen to the interviews, which came across to me as overtly  political pieces, but without the checks and balances that accompany conventional  political interviews.  However I doubt that we are going to agree.

Your closing sentence though is a bit of a cheap shot if I may say and attempts to set  up a straw man by attributing opinions to me which I did not express.  Whatever the social justice issues prove to be, I am sure that the current toxic politicisation of this matter (coming as it did in the wake of an already highly charged post-election environment)  is not  the environment in which justice will be best served, evidence by a shadow minister calling for the removal of the inquiry head on the basis of nothing more than hearsay as to the resident's opinions.

I can’t see why the person heading the enquiry needs to show empathy towards the residents, we need somebody who won’t show empathy or favouritism to one side or the other, somebody who’ll produce an analytical factual unbiased report.

We don’t want a repeat of the latest Hillsborough enquiry. That enquiry was never going to apportion any blame on the victims EI. Liverpool supporters. Not that I’m suggesting the tenants where in any way to blame for the Grenfell disaster.

Who ever heads the enquiry, my guess is every government department involved will each take a little of the blame. However, if they can pin something on a private contractor/company, they’ll be for the high jump.

fatcat posted:

I can’t see why the person heading the enquiry needs to show empathy towards the residents, we need somebody who won’t show empathy or favouritism to one side or the other, somebody who’ll produce an analytical factual unbiased report.

100% agree & a +1 on top.  However best of luck trying to persuade that logic to the residents & others some of who seem to be hell bent on stirring the already troubled waters.    It needs someone 'of authority' who has some credibility with the residents to make a big public statement that this is the way it will be,  & maybe Mayor Khan is better than anyone.    I would hope the Judge Moore-Bick inquiry would be very specifically defined to cover only the fire & how it started & how it spread but must include how the cladding was specified & approved,  but most important is for Moore-Bick to produce that verdict quickly.  Then another parallel inquiry into the various events not directly related to the fire itself,  building safety, safety compliance,  fire dept inspection(s), residents concerns, council responses & involvement with building maintenance & upgrades.  This will be so much more detailed & will take a lot longer & as such a delay might not be fully accepted or understood by the residents then some staged interim report(s) need to planned for.    

Mike-B posted:

fatcat posted:

I can’t see why the person heading the enquiry needs to show empathy towards the residents, we need somebody who won’t show empathy or favouritism to one side or the other, somebody who’ll produce an analytical factual unbiased report.

100% agree & a +1 on top.  However best of luck trying to persuade that logic to the residents & others some of who seem to be hell bent on stirring the already troubled waters.    It needs someone 'of authority' who has some credibility with the residents to make a big public statement that this is the way it will be,  & maybe Mayor Khan is better than anyone.    I would hope the Judge Moore-Bick inquiry would be very specifically defined to cover only the fire & how it started & how it spread but must include how the cladding was specified & approved,  but most important is for Moore-Bick to produce that verdict quickly.  Then another parallel inquiry into the various events not directly related to the fire itself,  building safety, safety compliance,  fire dept inspection(s), residents concerns, council responses & involvement with building maintenance & upgrades.  This will be so much more detailed & will take a lot longer & as such a delay might not be fully accepted or understood by the residents then some staged interim report(s) need to planned for.    

This forum seems to have a sensible outlook on this matter and a high degree of agreement. 

Why is it that the Media and our politicians seem to be such dickheads ? And, as winky says, those affected are not well placed to make rational judgement. 

Don Atkinson posted:

Mike-B posted:

fatcat posted:

I can’t see why the person heading the enquiry needs to show empathy towards the residents, we need somebody who won’t show empathy or favouritism to one side or the other, somebody who’ll produce an analytical factual unbiased report.

100% agree & a +1 on top.  However best of luck trying to persuade that logic to the residents & others some of who seem to be hell bent on stirring the already troubled waters.    It needs someone 'of authority' who has some credibility with the residents to make a big public statement that this is the way it will be,  & maybe Mayor Khan is better than anyone.    I would hope the Judge Moore-Bick inquiry would be very specifically defined to cover only the fire & how it started & how it spread but must include how the cladding was specified & approved,  but most important is for Moore-Bick to produce that verdict quickly.  Then another parallel inquiry into the various events not directly related to the fire itself,  building safety, safety compliance,  fire dept inspection(s), residents concerns, council responses & involvement with building maintenance & upgrades.  This will be so much more detailed & will take a lot longer & as such a delay might not be fully accepted or understood by the residents then some staged interim report(s) need to planned for.    

This forum seems to have a sensible outlook on this matter and a high degree of agreement. 

Why is it that the Media and our politicians seem to be such dickheads ? And, as winky says, those affected are not well placed to make rational judgement. 

Never rated them that highly.

fatcat posted:

I can’t see why the person heading the enquiry needs to show empathy towards the residents, we need somebody who won’t show empathy or favouritism to one side or the other, somebody who’ll produce an analytical factual unbiased report.

Showing empathy does not mean showing favouritism.  Showing empathy is about "yes I can understand where you are coming from" but can be followed by "however you are wrong because..."

Showing empathy means that when someone says their family couldn't get out a flat because of x: you don't turn around and say thats logically not possible; you don't turn around and say that the delay of them getting out because they were worried about their dog was what killed them; you don't say that had they spent £2 on a battery for the smoke detector they would have had more warning (all intended at examples not real comments). Showing empathy means you try to understand the plight of the vulnerable and what motivates them to make certain decisions.  

Showing empathy though, also means you try to understand the pressures that housing officers and other officials at the council were under and why they might have made the decisions they did.  Showing empathy is not a one sided criteria.

When someone (quite factually) points out that Moore-Bick once said it was okay for Westminster council to rehouse tenants 50 miles away - a decision that the supreme court later said was wrong.  Showing empathy means you say "we understand that concern, however Moore-Bick has a long successful history of these good and correct decisions" and go on to explain why he is considered the best person.  Not showing empathy is saying "its TM's decision and she has appointed Moore-Bick and thats the end of it".

Above all ... it needs empathy because the inquiry isn't *just* about facts, but about how people approached the housing problems in the city: were the right decisions made for the right reasons.

We don’t want a repeat of the latest Hillsborough enquiry. That enquiry was never going to apportion any blame on the victims EI. Liverpool supporters. Not that I’m suggesting the tenants where in any way to blame for the Grenfell disaster.

You're right ... we don't want a repeat of the latest Hillsborough enquiry.  That means that the inquiry needs to be done properly from the start, not being discussed and rehashed for 28 years.  That means getting the correct person for the job.  I'm not suggesting that Moore-Bick isn't the right person - I really have no opinion either way; but unless you get someone who has the support and trust of both sides there will be the continual accusations of brushing under the carpet.

People want to get to the truth, not just about what cladding was used and why, but about how we manage housing and the vulnerable.  Now perhaps the latter part should be outside the scope of this inquiry ... but it can only be outside of the scope if a separate investigation is held.

Who ever heads the enquiry, my guess is every government department involved will each take a little of the blame. However, if they can pin something on a private contractor/company, they’ll be for the high jump.

I suspect you may be right ... or either everyone will have a little blame and a few tweaks will be made to each department resulting in not much changing; or it will all be lumped on one person/department who will be a scapegoat.  Private contractors / companies will perhaps bare the brunt... but they will reorganise, refinance and survive.  Just a few shareholders likely loosing out - unless there are criminal charges of course.

Now it may be that actually that this tragedy is just that ... a tragedy which was caused by a combination of decisions and circumstances which are very unlikely to happen again.  It may turn out that ripping the cladding and insulation off over 100 building will not make people safer.  That sprinklers wouldn't have made a difference.  If that is the findings then sad as it is for those involved, for the wider country those finding need to be accepted - but you need the right leader of the inquiry and for the inquiry to be open and exhaustive to have confidence in those finding.

Now the aftermath of the tragedy was perhaps more concern - but comments from Moore-Bick have pretty much ruled out that as part of the inquiry...

“I’ve been asked to undertake this inquiry on the basis that it would be pretty well limited to the problems surrounding the start of the fire and its rapid development, in order to make recommendations as to how this sort of thing can be prevented in the future,” Moore-Bick said

This is perhaps where the biggest comments about Moore-Bick and his lack of empathy comes from.  Especially as Theresa May told the house...

"As I said to the House yesterday, [the public inquiry] will be chaired by a judge to get to the truth about what happened and who was responsible, and to provide justice for the victims and their families who suffered so terribly. All those with an interest—including survivors and victims’ families—will be consulted about the terms of reference, and we will pay for legal representation for those affected. Listening to survivors last night, it also became clear that they want support to come together as a group to have their voices heard, and the Government will play our part in helping them to do so."

(from Hansards; with my bolding)

It appears that despite those comments, the term of reference for the inquiry are already being limited.

Now at the end of the day, I am not a resident, not directly affected by the Grenfell Tower fire; but I am trying to show some empathy as to why people are angry / upset at how the process.  Perhaps that is left wing (though my natural instincts are much more centralist) politicising of the tragedy; perhaps its just being a decent human being.  So yes there was no need for TM to consult on the chair of the inquiry; but surely given that she so strongly spoke about including the survivors and victims' families in consultations over the terms of reference, its not unreasonable to expect (as perhaps some people did) that she would include them at least in a minor way in deciding the chair of the inquiry.  I suspect some are feeling like politicians are (as usual) talking comforting words, but then not delivering on their promises once the details become clear.

Your highlighted words, Eloise, are clear. Consultation will be about the terms of reference of the inquiry, not the choice of Chairman.

And they are TM's words, not Moore-Bick's words. Moore-Bick needs to ensure this consultation is meaningful. Too often "consultation" is just that. We consulted, we heard you. We decided to ignore you. But we did "consult".

The Judge goes to a meeting covened by the Residents.

He states that he will investigate impatially and report the facts as he sees them, based on the evidence available.

The residents are frustrated and angry. One of them, Melvyn Atkins, demands that arrests be made as a consequence of the inquiry, and implies they should be made very soon, otherwise justice will have not been done.

To me, this indicates a lynch-mob attitude. My sympathy for the plight of the Grefell Tower survivors is begining to wane. I appreciate this might well be a premature reaction on my part. I will keep my feelings under review.

Don Atkinson posted:

To me, this indicates a lynch-mob attitude. My sympathy for the plight of the Grefell Tower survivors is begining to wane. I appreciate this might well be a premature reaction on my part. I will keep my feelings under review.

No doubt there was some over the top calls Don, but the reports I've read of the meeting suggest that it was a lot more measured than that.  Yes it was (to quote) "lively"; but everyone was able to have their say and was listened to including Moore-Blick.  People were skeptical about him - the time he made the headlines would definitely count against him - but it sounds in the most part they are willing to accept and give benefit of the doubt.  There was questions about the time scale for setting terms of reference which need to be before the parliamentary recess.

I think to tar all the survivors as a "lynch-mob" is disrespectful ... some have that attitude, but from what I've read thats very much the minority.

As an aside and back to the previous comments ... Moore-Bick said "I've been a judge for 20 years, and I give you my word that I will look into this matter to the very best of my ability and find the facts as I see them from the evidence."  The part I bolded is showing why the leader needs some empathy (and I'm not debating if Moore-Bick has empathy).  The "facts" are not just technical details, they are also about why people did things and why they felt they should do things in certain ways.

Anyway thats how I see it!

Perhaps it was only one individual who was demanding arrests be made otherwise the inquiry would be meaningless, but I got the impression that he was expressing the view of a significant number of survivors. However, as I said Eloise, I shall keep my feelings under review.

Regarding "find the facts as I see" them from the evidence, I would agree that the inquiry should also aim to identify why people did things.

It is my view, that Moore-Bick's investigation should focus on the technical side of things, including the choice of cladding, and the formulation of the relevant Building Regulations and Fire Regulations. The aim would be to identify existing threats and errors and make recommendations as to whether these threats and/or errors could be better managed or avoided in future.

A separate inquiry should examine whether any criminal acts or acts of gross-negligence took place and by whom.

It should also be clearly set out whether these two such enquiries would exchange information and evidence, or whether evidence gathered by Moore-Bick's inquiry would remain anonymous. This is the basis of investigations carried out by the AAIB and the RAIB. Their investigations usually succede in identfying the root cause of accidents and making recommendations to avoid future such accidents. The Police and CPS carry out their own criminal investigations.

If Moore-Bick's investigation is to combine the "AAIB and CPS" functions and therefore also  consider criminal aspects of this tragedy, that needs to be made crystal clear in the terms of reference.  Such an inquiry could outlast Chilcot !

I would extend the terms of reference of the Moore-Bick enquiry to include the technical reasons that caused people to behave the way they did, as clearly the residents were let down by inadequate systems to ensure that they got out of danger sufficiently quickly.  In fact some of the instructions and systems caused people to respond in particular ways that exposed them to greater danger.  The fault here lies is in the instructions and systems, and NOT in the behaviour of the people.