Re: Cladding in parliament today!!

Not quite Dodge, the buildings have always been SAFE !! Just a bit
chilly to live in ? They became aUNSAFE only when they were clad
with this insulation to make them warmer and to improve their
appearance!!
Unfortunately this cladding turned out to be highly inflammable !!
This fact was hidden and falsified by the manufacturers of this
product in order to get the cladding contract using their product !
All this has now come out in court although the judge still has to
make his ruling !
To me the issue is cut and dried but when lawyers are involved it
seems justice has a habit of flying out of the window ??
Some of the companies involved are allready filing for bankruptcy!
And the majority shareholders in the larger firms have had over
3yrs to dispose of their shares and so avoid having to pay any
claims for compensation that might result from what amounts to
criminal negligence imo??

Donkeyman! 👎🤔🤔👎

Re: Cladding in parliament today!!

The ones that died were only renting Todger !!
Tough tittie eh?

Donkeyman!

Re: Cladding in parliament today!!

Then it was the duty of the landlord to ensure the accommodation was safe and the responsibility of the landlord to pay for any work that was required, NOT the taxpayer.

Re: Cladding in parliament today!!

But the landlord was tricked by the manufacturer Todge !!
We have had this "discussion" many times, please stop repeating
yourself??

Donkeyman! 🤔🤔

Re: Cladding in parliament today!!

The determination of where mistakes or bad judgement was made has STILL not been established.

Re: Cladding in parliament today!!

If you read the court transcripts, it HAS been established, just not
published yet
They have had difficulty getting the top guys responsible to come
over from Europe to testify ??
What more do we need to know?

Donkeyman! 🤔🤔

Re: Cladding in parliament today!!

We need to know who the decision makers were regarding the choice of the material and then what checks and balances were in place, by whom, and then when. Then who changed the changes in specs for the material, and a whole lot more that at this stage is not known.

It's why I've been hanging on about the cause of the Grenfell Barbeque being systemic rather than a single error be it accidental or deliberate. Only when the collection of reports have been assembled together will why Grenfell took to toasting start to emerge.

Re: Cladding in parliament today!!

If you look at all the major disasters in recent history Concorde, Piper Alpha, Herald of Free Enterprise and many more, the ONE thing that stands out is that it is NEVER just ONE mistake.

Piper Alpha (I have read the full judicial review) was a classic example. There were several fires, the first was minor and could easily have been put out with no loss of life or even production. But a number of errors added up to the entire rig being destroyed and many lives lost as well.

Re: Cladding in parliament today!!

You need to look into this a lot more closely as I have. The cladding started it all off BUT people tasked with doing the safety inspections are finding faults with other things as well, like poor lighting if area is covered with smoke. Fire escapes not built properly, other fire prevention measures not installed and on and on it goes.

The buildings are failing more than just the cladding and because this is written down against the property, the freeholder is telling the flat owners that it is their responsibility to fix ALL the faults so the building passes it's safety inspection. Cladding is only a small part of the problem now because these inspectors are being a pain in the butt and finding fault with a huge majority of things.

Re: Cladding in parliament today!!

This is very true. The public inquiry is still on going but it is being hampered by expert witnesses who are refusing to testify at the inquiry either because they fear repercussions if the public inquiry recommends it goes to court or they are being told not to co-operate by their bosses. Also all the companies involved, their lawyers are telling them not to co-operate, only give the basic bare minimum because if goes to court, any thing in the inquiry can be used in a court case.