Join for free
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 >
Donkeyman
Chatterbox
Donkeyman is offline
Melton,United Kingdom
Joined: Jan 2019
Posts: 9,088
Donkeyman is male  Donkeyman has posted at least 25 times and has been a member for 3 months or more 
 
25-11-2020, 01:46 PM
1

New lows for Grenfell!!

I thought we had seen the lowest of the lowesst standards of
ethics in the Grenfell saga unfolding at the inquiry !
But NO, A new low was reached this week with the attempt to pin
blame on a single employee of one of the motley crew of contractors
and suppliers responsible for the conflagration who happened to
have a drug problem??
However, fortunately the solicitors representing the Grenfell
residents seem to be of an unusually high standard and l have
some hopes of the truth and blame being placed where it belongs??

Donkeyman! 😟😟😟
The Artful Todger's Avatar
The Artful Todger
Chatterbox
The Artful Todger is offline
Suffolk UK
Joined: Mar 2019
Posts: 12,816
The Artful Todger is male  The Artful Todger has posted at least 25 times and has been a member for 3 months or more 
 
25-11-2020, 01:57 PM
2

Re: New lows for Grenfell!!

Originally Posted by Donkeyman ->
I thought we had seen the lowest of the lowesst standards of
ethics in the Grenfell saga unfolding at the inquiry !
But NO, A new low was reached this week with the attempt to pin
blame on a single employee of one of the motley crew of contractors
and suppliers responsible for the conflagration who happened to
have a drug problem??
However, fortunately the solicitors representing the Grenfell
residents seem to be of an unusually high standard and l have
some hopes of the truth and blame being placed where it belongs??

Donkeyman! 😟😟😟
It's increasingly becoming clear that it's a systemic failure and which is therefore unlikely to be blamed on any individual.
Donkeyman
Chatterbox
Donkeyman is offline
Melton,United Kingdom
Joined: Jan 2019
Posts: 9,088
Donkeyman is male  Donkeyman has posted at least 25 times and has been a member for 3 months or more 
 
25-11-2020, 08:50 PM
3

Re: New lows for Grenfell!!

Originally Posted by The Artful Todger ->
It's increasingly becoming clear that it's a systemic failure and which is therefore unlikely to be blamed on any individual.
I agree that one individual cannot be found guilty for what is
becoming clear is corporate responsibility for pushing a banned
product onto the UK market ??
Doing this was nothing more than less than criminal intent and
should be prosecuted as such !!

Donkeyman! 👎👎👎
The Artful Todger's Avatar
The Artful Todger
Chatterbox
The Artful Todger is offline
Suffolk UK
Joined: Mar 2019
Posts: 12,816
The Artful Todger is male  The Artful Todger has posted at least 25 times and has been a member for 3 months or more 
 
25-11-2020, 09:03 PM
4

Re: New lows for Grenfell!!

Originally Posted by Donkeyman ->
I agree that one individual cannot be found guilty for what is
becoming clear is corporate responsibility for pushing a banned
product onto the UK market ??
Doing this was nothing more than less than criminal intent and
should be prosecuted as such !!

Donkeyman! 👎👎👎
It wasn't banned at the time, and time and state of the art must be taken into account. Likewise there is no evidence it was "pushed" by the manufacturer.
Dodge's Avatar
Dodge
Senior Member
Dodge is offline
Kent, UK
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 1,117
Dodge is male  Dodge has posted at least 25 times and has been a member for 3 months or more 
 
25-11-2020, 09:08 PM
5

Re: New lows for Grenfell!!

If what the ex employee of the cladding company has said is true then once investigation is over, the company should be charged with corporate manslaughter because they knowingly built a product that they knew was a fire safety hazard, used false safety certificates and allowed contractors to install the cladding on high rise buildings of which is was not designed for.

What is worse though is that there were and probably still are people in the company who knew exactly what was going on but said nothing for fear of losing their job. People died and all they cared about was their jobs. Disgraceful.
The Artful Todger's Avatar
The Artful Todger
Chatterbox
The Artful Todger is offline
Suffolk UK
Joined: Mar 2019
Posts: 12,816
The Artful Todger is male  The Artful Todger has posted at least 25 times and has been a member for 3 months or more 
 
25-11-2020, 09:19 PM
6

Re: New lows for Grenfell!!

Originally Posted by Dodge ->
If what the ex employee of the cladding company has said is true then once investigation is over, the company should be charged with corporate manslaughter because they knowingly built a product that they knew was a fire safety hazard, used false safety certificates and allowed contractors to install the cladding on high rise buildings of which is was not designed for.

What is worse though is that there were and probably still are people in the company who knew exactly what was going on but said nothing for fear of losing their job. People died and all they cared about was their jobs. Disgraceful.
That remains pure conjecture though.

IF it can be shown that the architect knew of the deployment of the cladding was out of spec for the cladding then it's his cock on the block or if the manufacturer gave the OK for the cladding to be used out of spec then that's a different matter but (hopefully) time will tell but right now the cladding met the requirements that were in place and the problem is therefore NOT with the cladding. Yet.
Donkeyman
Chatterbox
Donkeyman is offline
Melton,United Kingdom
Joined: Jan 2019
Posts: 9,088
Donkeyman is male  Donkeyman has posted at least 25 times and has been a member for 3 months or more 
 
25-11-2020, 09:27 PM
7

Re: New lows for Grenfell!!

Originally Posted by The Artful Todger ->
It wasn't banned at the time, and time and state of the art must be taken into account. Likewise there is no evidence it was "pushed" by the manufacturer.
It was banned at the time in USA Todge but of course the company
and the name changed as well !
I suppose the Uk Firm bought all the banned US stock for use in
the then virtually unregulated UK market ??
And on the pushing issue what were all the price inducements
that the contractors were offering??
Things where lives are at stake cannot possibly be left to market
forces or we would be paying for a forth bridge and be crossing
the Firth of Forth on a scaffold board standing on a pile of bricks ??

Donkeyman! 👎👎😟😟👎👎
Donkeyman
Chatterbox
Donkeyman is offline
Melton,United Kingdom
Joined: Jan 2019
Posts: 9,088
Donkeyman is male  Donkeyman has posted at least 25 times and has been a member for 3 months or more 
 
25-11-2020, 09:45 PM
8

Re: New lows for Grenfell!!

Originally Posted by Dodge ->
If what the ex employee of the cladding company has said is true then once investigation is over, the company should be charged with corporate manslaughter because they knowingly built a product that they knew was a fire safety hazard, used false safety certificates and allowed contractors to install the cladding on high rise buildings of which is was not designed for.

What is worse though is that there were and probably still are people in the company who knew exactly what was going on but said nothing for fear of losing their job. People died and all they cared about was their jobs. Disgraceful.
You are quite right Dodge, they knew the crap was highly flammable
Yet they still used it! Every thing is there in the evidence and the
t estimonies, they actually incriminate themselves !!
I would like to know what the motivation was to do this part of the
inquiry last? It should have been done in the beginning then the
poor sods affected by it would be settled by now ???

Donkeyman! 👎😟👎
Dodge's Avatar
Dodge
Senior Member
Dodge is offline
Kent, UK
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 1,117
Dodge is male  Dodge has posted at least 25 times and has been a member for 3 months or more 
 
25-11-2020, 11:27 PM
9

Re: New lows for Grenfell!!

Originally Posted by The Artful Todger ->
That remains pure conjecture though.

IF it can be shown that the architect knew of the deployment of the cladding was out of spec for the cladding then it's his cock on the block or if the manufacturer gave the OK for the cladding to be used out of spec then that's a different matter but (hopefully) time will tell but right now the cladding met the requirements that were in place and the problem is therefore NOT with the cladding. Yet.
It's not conjecture though, it's fact. here is the news article about it https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55052380

Basically Ex-technical director Ivor Meredith reported to the inquiry that the company had a cladding product that passed safety tests in 2005 and was issued safety certificates for that product but they changed the insulations formulation the following year. Safety tests were run on the new insulation but it failed badly, this is a quote from the article

Mr Meredith described a fire test using the new version of Kingspan's K15 in 2007 as a "raging inferno", with the insulation "burning on its own steam".

He told the inquiry he was shocked by what he saw.

Despite this, Kingspan continued to use the results from the original 2005 test to sell its material as appropriate for use on high-rise buildings.

Kingspan K15 insulation was used in the flammable cladding system mounted on to Grenfell Tower, alongside Celotex RS5000.
So you can see, the company knew the change in the insulations formulae did not work but yet they used the 2005 passed safety results on this faulty cladding, knowing it was unsafe to use.

The article makes very interesting reading.
Donkeyman
Chatterbox
Donkeyman is offline
Melton,United Kingdom
Joined: Jan 2019
Posts: 9,088
Donkeyman is male  Donkeyman has posted at least 25 times and has been a member for 3 months or more 
 
26-11-2020, 12:01 PM
10

Re: New lows for Grenfell!!

Originally Posted by Dodge ->
It's not conjecture though, it's fact. here is the news article about it https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55052380

Basically Ex-technical director Ivor Meredith reported to the inquiry that the company had a cladding product that passed safety tests in 2005 and was issued safety certificates for that product but they changed the insulations formulation the following year. Safety tests were run on the new insulation but it failed badly, this is a quote from the article



So you can see, the company knew the change in the insulations formulae did not work but yet they used the 2005 passed safety results on this faulty cladding, knowing it was unsafe to use.

The article makes very interesting reading.
Yes, and sickening !!

Donkeyman! 👎👎👎
 
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 >

Thread Tools


© Copyright 2009, Over50sForum   Contact Us | Over 50s Forum! | Archive | Privacy Statement | Terms of Use | Top

Powered by vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.