National Government/Local Government Incompetence ?

Huge posted:

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.

Agreed. On all three counts.

As an aside, I don't think Moore-Bick's name helps him on this occasion.

Firstly, it's double-barrelled. This suggests he's a toff with no concept of poverty, never mind empathy with disadvantaged people in distress.

Secondly, I keep having to avoid saying "Morbid", which removes any hope of a positive outcome.

I appreciate these two thoughts are utterly irrelevant, but I thought I would share them in the hope that in doing so, they might evaporate !

The following abstract from the BBC website leads me to conclude that the police will be conducting an investigation after all. Why Moore-Bick and the media, haven't made it crystal clear that there will be more than one inquiry, and why they haven't outlined the purpose of each, seem somewhat surprising. Perhaps the media is more interested in sensationalising discontent ?

The LFB said the police investigation into the fire would examine the brigade's response "including all of the issues Newsnight has raised".

Questions have also been raised about why a 42m firefighting platform had to be called in from Surrey to fight the fire at Grenfell - itself 67m high - because the LFB does not have one of its own.

The LFB spokesman said it had never responded to a fire on the scale of Grenfell Tower before.

He said: "The commissioner has made clear her intention to fully review the brigade's resources and seek funding for any additional requirements."

Don Atkinson posted:

The following abstract from the BBC website leads me to conclude that the police will be conducting an investigation after all. Why Moore-Bick and the media, haven't made it crystal clear that there will be more than one inquiry, and why they haven't outlined the purpose of each, seem somewhat surprising. Perhaps the media is more interested in sensationalising discontent ?

The LFB said the police investigation into the fire would examine the brigade's response "including all of the issues Newsnight has raised".

Questions have also been raised about why a 42m firefighting platform had to be called in from Surrey to fight the fire at Grenfell - itself 67m high - because the LFB does not have one of its own.

The LFB spokesman said it had never responded to a fire on the scale of Grenfell Tower before.

He said: "The commissioner has made clear her intention to fully review the brigade's resources and seek funding for any additional requirements."

Gosh. That's not got the prominence it deserves, Don.  Given the number of tower blocks in London, how the hell can that be explained away by LFB and the London mayor (under Boris' term, I suspect)? That shortcoming, if confirmed, is damning. 

Last week I heard a survivor giving his account on how he got out of the building, he didn’t leave immediately, yet he commented that the fire brigade wheren’t putting any water on the outside of the building.

A lot efforts been put into testing and removing the flammable panels, but exactly how flammable are they, how long does it it take for them to become uncontrollably ablaze, 5 minutes, 10 minutes or 30 minutes. It may turn out little bit of water on the panels could have prevented the disaster.

Yes Mike, I tend to agree with you. We as a nation, and lots of others, have an awful lot to learn from this dreadful tragedy, IMHO. I hope we get this one right !!

fatcat posted:

Last week I heard a survivor giving his account on how he got out of the building, he didn’t leave immediately, yet he commented that the fire brigade wheren’t putting any water on the outside of the building.

A lot efforts been put into testing and removing the flammable panels, but exactly how flammable are they, how long does it it take for them to become uncontrollably ablaze, 5 minutes, 10 minutes or 30 minutes. It may turn out little bit of water on the panels could have prevented the disaster.

I recall reading a report today or yesterday, that "some organisation" (I simply can't recall which organisation) was planning to test cladding panels on a four-storey (?) building to determine more realistically how a fire might spread and how quickly it might spread.

I am presuming the test would be carried out on a range of panels and not just the type incorporated into Grenfell Tower

I heared a report a couple of weeks ago, stating the company that manufactured the panels recommended they shouldn’t be used above the height a fire engines hose could reach. This implies they are confident a fire engine would stop a fire becoming uncontrollable, presumably they would have tested this.

Don Atkinson posted:

fatcat posted:

Last week I heard a survivor giving his account on how he got out of the building, he didn’t leave immediately, yet he commented that the fire brigade wheren’t putting any water on the outside of the building.

A lot efforts been put into testing and removing the flammable panels, but exactly how flammable are they, how long does it it take for them to become uncontrollably ablaze, 5 minutes, 10 minutes or 30 minutes. It may turn out little bit of water on the panels could have prevented the disaster.

I recall reading a report today or yesterday, that "some organisation" (I simply can't recall which organisation) was planning to test cladding panels on a four-storey (?) building to determine more realistically how a fire might spread and how quickly it might spread.

I am presuming the test would be carried out on a range of panels and not just the type incorporated into Grenfell Tower

I think it’s whatever organisation has (so far) found that 190 out of the 191 samples of cladding were flammable.

Eloise posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

fatcat posted:

Last week I heard a survivor giving his account on how he got out of the building, he didn’t leave immediately, yet he commented that the fire brigade wheren’t putting any water on the outside of the building.

A lot efforts been put into testing and removing the flammable panels, but exactly how flammable are they, how long does it it take for them to become uncontrollably ablaze, 5 minutes, 10 minutes or 30 minutes. It may turn out little bit of water on the panels could have prevented the disaster.

I recall reading a report today or yesterday, that "some organisation" (I simply can't recall which organisation) was planning to test cladding panels on a four-storey (?) building to determine more realistically how a fire might spread and how quickly it might spread.

I am presuming the test would be carried out on a range of panels and not just the type incorporated into Grenfell Tower

I think it’s whatever organisation has (so far) found that 190 out of the 191 samples of cladding were flammable.

Probably. I think that is the BRE.

I am unsure whether the 191 samples are all of the same product ie the product used at Grenfell Tower, or whether they are 191 samples of a wide variety of cladding materials in common use in the UK and (presumably) elsewhere.

BBC and other media, are not IMHO, providing full and clear coverage of events.

I have consistently promoted the concept of two investigations regarging Grenfell Tower.

The law regarding self-incimination ensures that a person cannot be forced to make a statement or provide documentation that might incriminate him. ie, such person has the right to remain silent. This can and IMHO WILL make any criminal investigation difficult. It always does. See for example the Shoreham Hunter crash.

We need to decide whether the principal aim of an investigation is to seek justice for those affected, or to identify root causes so that future actions are more safe.

Assuming the latter is the purpose of Moore-Bick's inquiry, he needs to provide absolute assurity to witnesses that either  their evidence will be confidential to his inquiry, or that such evidence cannot be used in any criminal prosecution. If he is unable to provide such assurance, then any witness, will be entitled to remain silent, so as to avoid self-incrimination.

At the moment, the survivors and their representatives seem to consider that a single inquiry (by Moore-Bick or AN Other) will identify both the root cause(s) and the guilty party(s). I have my doubts about such an inquiry being successful.

However, he can examine the paper trail for any deficiencies and can demand access to additional documentation; if this is refused, then it's sufficient grounds for a police enquiry.  At this point, any attempt at covering up such deficiencies is Conspiracy to Pervert the Course of Justice (even if the destruction of documents occurs before the police enquiry begins).

That's a really good point, Don.  It looks like many of residents and others are expecting 'culprits' to be identified and punished. That's perfectly understandable. But if prioritising the criminal investigation threatened to hamper the pursuit of what went wrong and why so that lessons can be learned then, difficult though it may be, it is the latter that should be prioritised. Put bluntly, where there is a choice between punishing the guilty who contributed to the deaths of 80+ people and preventing the potential deaths of thousands more I know which argument should prevail.   

Huge posted:

However, he can examine the paper trail for any deficiencies and can demand access to additional documentation; if this is refused, then it's sufficient grounds for a police enquiry.  At this point, any attempt at covering up such deficiencies is Conspiracy to Pervert the Course of Justice (even if the destruction of documents occurs before the police enquiry begins).

Quite, but then that is a separate inquiry.

People are entitled to know the basis on which they are co-operating or providing evidence. Being "tricked" into self-incrimination is not acceptable.