Grenfell

[wymberley]

The recent riots and the punishments dished out to those who have been found guilty of whatever offences have reflected that, perhaps, the government, the judiciary and the police have finally woken up to the fact that the severity of any crime should be reflected in its punishment. For my money this should also include the wider affect on its victims where appropriate. Let's hope that this can be continued should any wrong doing be found as a result of the Subject inquiry and naturally this should also include those guilty of neglect in addition to the more obvious activities based on financial implications.

[oldypigeonpopper]

Hello, Your right but I do not think any one or Company will be brought to the Courts at least not for many years yet unless the CPSA get their act together, It is Multiple agencies, But I think the Owners of the Building would be the first inline, Saying this I still say it could have been saved if the resident or residents of where the fire started had for thought to have a good fire Extinguisher handy but i read Building Owners had not provided, ??  It should be Mandatory in all high rise buildings, 

[Minky]

I'm watching prime ministers question time now and it is being discussed.  It’s all words, good intentions,  BUT its like everything.   When these ideas have to be put into operation they find that there is NO MONEY AVAILABLE. 

[oldypigeonpopper]

1 minute ago, Minky said:

I'm watching prime ministers question time now and it is being discussed.  It’s all words, good intentions,  BUT its like everything.   When these ideas have to be put into operation they find that there is NO MONEY AVAILABLE. 

Hello, spot on👍 but have you read how much money was given to the Grenfell Residents appeal but was that the same money given by the Government ? and Lawyers have taken millions of £s , As my first post I think no one or company will go to Court,  

[12gauge82]

As with the banking scandal of 2007, money talks. 

[old man]

24 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

As with the banking scandal of 2007, money talks. 

And lawyers always win.

[Vince Green]

The key and most relevant point about the Grenfell tower fire was that there was no fire specification for external cladding. So it's going to be hard to point the finger at anyone and say they were negligent.

Plus local authority contracts usually have to be awarded by law to the best (ie lowest) quote to demonstrate accountability.  So that would answer most of the questions in about ten minutes.  No need for a lengthy multi million pound enquiry.

Edited September 4 by Vince Green

[JohnfromUK]

2 hours ago, oldypigeonpopper said:

Saying this I still say it could have been saved if the resident or residents of where the fire started had for thought to have a good fire Extinguisher handy but i read Building Owners had not provided, ??  It should be Mandatory in all high rise buildings, 

It is fine and sensible for individuals in their own flats to have extinguishers.  They are fine in areas with controlled access.

Public areas are MUCH more difficult.  Its a problem of 'tampering'.  The extinguishers are;

• Stolen
• Used in pranks
• Vandalised
• Used in violence

and it becomes a constant and considerable cost keeping them all in good serviced condition.

[Zoli 12 guage]

i assume that all the building works complied with the relevant regulations at the time of the works taking place and as such no one can or will be held accountable as there is no blame to aportion.

[oowee]

The report suggests known defects with the performance of panels. Failure to meet regulations. Lying to cover up lack of performance. Internal e mails to keep risks secret. 

Jail time?

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Just now, oowee said:

The report suggests known defects with the performance of panels. Failure to meet regulations. Lying to cover up lack of performance. Internal e mails to keep risks secret. 

Jail time?

Hopefully.

[oowee]

Just now, TIGHTCHOKE said:

Hopefully.

Starmer is steaight on the case with some immediate action. Blocking those named from bidding for contracts. Not sure its possible but good to see a strong stance. 

[Rewulf]

9 minutes ago, oowee said:

good to see a strong stance

That would be a first for captain flip flop.

[Zoli 12 guage]

42 minutes ago, oowee said:

The report suggests known defects with the performance of panels. Failure to meet regulations. Lying to cover up lack of performance. Internal e mails to keep risks secret. 

Jail time?

they've already had 7 years to bang anyone up if they were guilty.

i dare bet my house that ALL relevant specifications for the work carried out at the time were complied with!

whether the specifications were superceded/tightened at a later date is neither here or there.

we don't use asbestos in construction anymore BUT there are thousands and thousands of buildings in the UK still with this in them.

[oowee]

45 minutes ago, Zoli 12 guage said:

they've already had 7 years to bang anyone up if they were guilty.

i dare bet my house that ALL relevant specifications for the work carried out at the time were complied with!

whether the specifications were superceded/tightened at a later date is neither here or there.

we don't use asbestos in construction anymore BUT there are thousands and thousands of buildings in the UK still with this in them.

I would not be so sure. It's the e mails confirming deceit, submission of false test tickets that stand out. Lets see what the police make of it. 

Arconic, the US aluminium giant that supplied the plastic-filled cladding panels that were the main cause of the fire’s spread, “deliberately concealed from the market the true extent of the danger of Reynobond 55 PE in cassette form [the panels used on Grenfell], particularly on high-rise buildings”, the inquiry found.

Celotex, which made most of the combustible foam insulation “embarked on a dishonest scheme to mislead its customers and the wider market”. And Kingspan, which made a small amount of the insulation, “knowingly created a false market in insulation for use on buildings over 18 metres in height” by claiming that a test showed it could be used in any building over 18 metres when this “‘was a false claim, as it well knew”.

“The dishonest strategies of Arconic and Kingspan succeeded in a large measure due to the incompetence of the BBA,” he said.

The LABC “was willing to accommodate the customer at the expense of those who relied on certificates. As a result the LABC was also the victim of dishonest behaviour on the part of unscrupulous manufacturers.”

 

Unfortunately I doubt they will get Pickles. 

Eric Pickles, Cameron’s housing secretary until 2015, had “enthusiastically supported” the prime minister’s drive to slash regulations and it dominated his department’s thinking to the extent that matters affecting fire safety and risk to life “were ignored, delayed or disregarded”, the inquiry concluded. In cross-examination under oath, Pickles vehemently insisted the anti-red tape drive had not covered building regulations. But the inquiry said this evidence was “flatly contradicted by that of his officials and by the contemporaneous documents”.

 

 

1 hour ago, Rewulf said:

That would be a first for captain flip flop.

? Its the second time on a month the party of Law and Order has stood against perps. 

[armsid]

Lets see if he jails anyone over the Post Office scandal now hea up to speed

[oowee]

15 minutes ago, armsid said:

Lets see if he jails anyone over the Post Office scandal now hea up to speed

It's not his job to do the jailing but I am sure he would support it. 

[Vince Green]

3 hours ago, oowee said:

Starmer is steaight on the case with some immediate action. Blocking those named from bidding for contracts

Since the enquiry has not yet reported its findings I'm not at all sure that would be legal. Typical knee jerk reaction from Labour though, badly thought out.

[Gordon R]

Quote

The report suggests known defects with the performance of panels. Failure to meet regulations. Lying to cover up lack of performance. Internal e mails to keep risks secret. 

As armsid has alluded - this mirrors the Horizon scandal.

[oowee]

8 hours ago, Vince Green said:

Since the enquiry has not yet reported its findings I'm not at all sure that would be legal. Typical knee jerk reaction from Labour though, badly thought out.

The final report was published yesterday. Maybe your response was more knee jerk?

Mr Speaker, this morning Sir Martin Moore-Bick published the final report of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry.

And I am sure the whole House will join me in thanking him, the members of the Inquiry and his whole team for their dedicated work.

Edited September 5 by oowee

[Zoli 12 guage]

13 hours ago, oowee said:

I would not be so sure. It's the e mails confirming deceit, submission of false test tickets that stand out. Lets see what the police make of it. 

Arconic, the US aluminium giant that supplied the plastic-filled cladding panels that were the main cause of the fire’s spread, “deliberately concealed from the market the true extent of the danger of Reynobond 55 PE in cassette form [the panels used on Grenfell], particularly on high-rise buildings”, the inquiry found.

Celotex, which made most of the combustible foam insulation “embarked on a dishonest scheme to mislead its customers and the wider market”. And Kingspan, which made a small amount of the insulation, “knowingly created a false market in insulation for use on buildings over 18 metres in height” by claiming that a test showed it could be used in any building over 18 metres when this “‘was a false claim, as it well knew”.

“The dishonest strategies of Arconic and Kingspan succeeded in a large measure due to the incompetence of the BBA,” he said.

The LABC “was willing to accommodate the customer at the expense of those who relied on certificates. As a result the LABC was also the victim of dishonest behaviour on the part of unscrupulous manufacturers.”

 

Unfortunately I doubt they will get Pickles. 

Eric Pickles, Cameron’s housing secretary until 2015, had “enthusiastically supported” the prime minister’s drive to slash regulations and it dominated his department’s thinking to the extent that matters affecting fire safety and risk to life “were ignored, delayed or disregarded”, the inquiry concluded. In cross-examination under oath, Pickles vehemently insisted the anti-red tape drive had not covered building regulations. But the inquiry said this evidence was “flatly contradicted by that of his officials and by the contemporaneous documents”.

 

 

? Its the second time on a month the party of Law and Order has stood against perps. 

don't know about you, but,i never heard (in that summary yesterday) any particular laws, specifically named or numbered,that were broken and therefore charges could be brought.

best practice,retrospective action,etc,etc does not equal    specific laws "broken" 

i still double up in saying no-one will be prosecuted let alone go to jail.

[oowee]

Corporate manslaughter may avoid individuals getting caught as responsible but it looks pretty damming. At the very least there will be some huge payouts. 

In September 2007, two Arconic executives attended a presentation in Oslo, Norway, by a consultant called Fred-Roderich Pohl, who compared the combustibility of 5,000 sq metres of aluminium composite polyethylene (PE) core cladding to a truck containing 19,000 litres of oil. Pohl also warned of the even greater danger of lethal toxic smoke that could kill in two or three minutes and hypothesised that 60-70 people could die in a building fire.

Despite this, “there is no evidence that anyone at Arconic took steps to examine the safety of Reynobond 55 PE [the product sold for use on Grenfell] or to ascertain the financial consequences of selling only panels with a fire-resistant core”, the inquiry found.

It did not withdraw the product but kept selling it “while withholding from the market relevant information about the product’s fire performance”.

In 2009 a senior executive, Claude Wehrle, showed colleagues pictures of an aluminium composite material (ACM) fire in Romania to demonstrate how dangerous the polyethylene-filled sheets could be when it came to architecture. In 2010 Wehrle told a colleague that the product performed worse in fire when folded into a cassette form and did not meet an advertised European standard but that should be kept “VERY CONFIDENTIAL!!!!”

These emails showed Arconic “deliberately and dishonestly” concealed from the market the true position, the inquiry found.

In 2014, before its panels were fitted to Grenfell Tower, Wehrle told Arconic’s sales staff that the fire rating of the PE panels had been downgraded. It was not as safe as previously thought. But the British Board of Agrément (BBA), which had granted a certificate of performance, was not informed to amend the certificate. Deborah French, the salesperson in the UK, did not highlight the change to her client for the Grenfell cladding either. In fact, she sent them a copy of the existing BBA certificate.

There was “a sustained and deliberate strategy by Arconic to continue selling Reynobond 55 PE in the UK based on a statement about its fire performance that it knew to be false”, the inquiry found. It concluded: “Arconic … promoted and sold a product knowing that it presented a significant danger to those who might use any buildings in which it was used.”

Wehrle was one of three Arconic executives who refused to be cross-examined, citing an arcane French law. Sir Martin Moore-Bick, the chair of the inquiry, said: “It is regrettable that in the face of a disaster in which so many people died they were willing to put the debatable requirements of French law above the interests of the survivors in discovering the true cause of their terrible experience.”

Kingspan and Celotex

The Irish company Kingspan, which turns over €8bn a year, made only about 5% of the combustible foam insulation on Grenfell Tower, but the inquiry found that by its “dishonest marketing” of its K15 product it “created the conditions” for Celotex, another insulation company, to try to break into the market by “dishonest means”.

According to the inquiry, “from 2005 until after this inquiry had begun [in 2017], Kingspan knowingly created a false market in insulation for use on buildings over 18 metres in height”. It did this by claiming a fire test of a wall system showed it could be used in any building taller than 18 metres when this “was a false claim, as it well knew”.

Tests of the material in 2007 and 2008 “on systems incorporating the then current form of K15 were disastrous” but it kept selling, and “made a calculated decision to mask, or distract from, the absence of supporting test evidence”.

When it was challenged it responded aggressively. When a company called Wintech raised questions about fire safety, Philip Heath, a senior manager at Kingspan, wrote in an email: “Wintech can go **** themselves, and if they are not careful we’ll sue the a#se off them.”

The inquiry found that such emails “expose a casual disregard for public safety at a senior level in Kingspan, a determination to defend K15’s position in the market at all costs and a keen awareness on Kingspan’s part that it needed to find a way out of a situation that it had created through its own mendacity”.

The inquiry found Kingspan had “long-running internal discussions about what it could get away with” that “betrayed no concern for accuracy”.

The effect of its “dishonest marketing of K15 was to create a spurious market” for foam insulation on high-rise blocks that drew in Celotex as a competitor. Celotex found it impossible to create a similar product using its polyisocyanurate foam and could not understand how Kingspan had been able to make its product and meet the building regulations.

“It therefore embarked on its own campaign to break into the market by dishonest means,” the inquiry found. “Kingspan cannot be blamed for Celotex’s dishonesty, which was the choice of Celotex itself, but it did create the conditions that encouraged it and in which it was able to flourish.”

Celotex’s product, RS5000, was tested and marketed in a “dishonest and cynical way”, which “reflected a culture within Celotex stretching back to at least 2009”. The company had been acquired by Saint-Gobain in 2015, which aimed to boost profits from new products, of which RS5000 was one.

“Celotex embarked on a dishonest scheme to mislead its customers and the wider market,” the inquiry found. The Building Research Establishment, the privatised former government test facility, was complicit when it allowed the inclusion of a fire-retardant board in a test in May 2014 to improve performance.

“Celotex presented RS5000 to Harley [Facades construction company] as suitable and safe for use on Grenfell Tower, although it knew that was not the case.”

35 minutes ago, Zoli 12 guage said:

don't know about you, but,i never heard (in that summary yesterday) any particular laws, specifically named or numbered,that were broken and therefore charges could be brought.

best practice,retrospective action,etc,etc does not equal    specific laws "broken" 

i still double up in saying no-one will be prosecuted let alone go to jail.

 

[Zoli 12 guage]

9 minutes ago, oowee said:

Corporate manslaughter may avoid individuals getting caught as responsible but it looks pretty damming. At the very least there will be some huge payouts. 

In September 2007, two Arconic executives attended a presentation in Oslo, Norway, by a consultant called Fred-Roderich Pohl, who compared the combustibility of 5,000 sq metres of aluminium composite polyethylene (PE) core cladding to a truck containing 19,000 litres of oil. Pohl also warned of the even greater danger of lethal toxic smoke that could kill in two or three minutes and hypothesised that 60-70 people could die in a building fire.

Despite this, “there is no evidence that anyone at Arconic took steps to examine the safety of Reynobond 55 PE [the product sold for use on Grenfell] or to ascertain the financial consequences of selling only panels with a fire-resistant core”, the inquiry found.

It did not withdraw the product but kept selling it “while withholding from the market relevant information about the product’s fire performance”.

In 2009 a senior executive, Claude Wehrle, showed colleagues pictures of an aluminium composite material (ACM) fire in Romania to demonstrate how dangerous the polyethylene-filled sheets could be when it came to architecture. In 2010 Wehrle told a colleague that the product performed worse in fire when folded into a cassette form and did not meet an advertised European standard but that should be kept “VERY CONFIDENTIAL!!!!”

These emails showed Arconic “deliberately and dishonestly” concealed from the market the true position, the inquiry found.

In 2014, before its panels were fitted to Grenfell Tower, Wehrle told Arconic’s sales staff that the fire rating of the PE panels had been downgraded. It was not as safe as previously thought. But the British Board of Agrément (BBA), which had granted a certificate of performance, was not informed to amend the certificate. Deborah French, the salesperson in the UK, did not highlight the change to her client for the Grenfell cladding either. In fact, she sent them a copy of the existing BBA certificate.

There was “a sustained and deliberate strategy by Arconic to continue selling Reynobond 55 PE in the UK based on a statement about its fire performance that it knew to be false”, the inquiry found. It concluded: “Arconic … promoted and sold a product knowing that it presented a significant danger to those who might use any buildings in which it was used.”

Wehrle was one of three Arconic executives who refused to be cross-examined, citing an arcane French law. Sir Martin Moore-Bick, the chair of the inquiry, said: “It is regrettable that in the face of a disaster in which so many people died they were willing to put the debatable requirements of French law above the interests of the survivors in discovering the true cause of their terrible experience.”

Kingspan and Celotex

The Irish company Kingspan, which turns over €8bn a year, made only about 5% of the combustible foam insulation on Grenfell Tower, but the inquiry found that by its “dishonest marketing” of its K15 product it “created the conditions” for Celotex, another insulation company, to try to break into the market by “dishonest means”.

According to the inquiry, “from 2005 until after this inquiry had begun [in 2017], Kingspan knowingly created a false market in insulation for use on buildings over 18 metres in height”. It did this by claiming a fire test of a wall system showed it could be used in any building taller than 18 metres when this “was a false claim, as it well knew”.

Tests of the material in 2007 and 2008 “on systems incorporating the then current form of K15 were disastrous” but it kept selling, and “made a calculated decision to mask, or distract from, the absence of supporting test evidence”.

When it was challenged it responded aggressively. When a company called Wintech raised questions about fire safety, Philip Heath, a senior manager at Kingspan, wrote in an email: “Wintech can go **** themselves, and if they are not careful we’ll sue the a#se off them.”

The inquiry found that such emails “expose a casual disregard for public safety at a senior level in Kingspan, a determination to defend K15’s position in the market at all costs and a keen awareness on Kingspan’s part that it needed to find a way out of a situation that it had created through its own mendacity”.

The inquiry found Kingspan had “long-running internal discussions about what it could get away with” that “betrayed no concern for accuracy”.

The effect of its “dishonest marketing of K15 was to create a spurious market” for foam insulation on high-rise blocks that drew in Celotex as a competitor. Celotex found it impossible to create a similar product using its polyisocyanurate foam and could not understand how Kingspan had been able to make its product and meet the building regulations.

“It therefore embarked on its own campaign to break into the market by dishonest means,” the inquiry found. “Kingspan cannot be blamed for Celotex’s dishonesty, which was the choice of Celotex itself, but it did create the conditions that encouraged it and in which it was able to flourish.”

Celotex’s product, RS5000, was tested and marketed in a “dishonest and cynical way”, which “reflected a culture within Celotex stretching back to at least 2009”. The company had been acquired by Saint-Gobain in 2015, which aimed to boost profits from new products, of which RS5000 was one.

“Celotex embarked on a dishonest scheme to mislead its customers and the wider market,” the inquiry found. The Building Research Establishment, the privatised former government test facility, was complicit when it allowed the inclusion of a fire-retardant board in a test in May 2014 to improve performance.

“Celotex presented RS5000 to Harley [Facades construction company] as suitable and safe for use on Grenfell Tower, although it knew that was not the case.”

 

that's all well and good and i agree.

unfortunately,in law,dishonesty does no equate to culpability.

[old man]

15 hours ago, oowee said:

The report suggests known defects with the performance of panels. Failure to meet regulations. Lying to cover up lack of performance. Internal e mails to keep risks secret. 

Jail time?

Nope, drag it out and finally kick it into the weeds. 

[oowee]

4 minutes ago, Zoli 12 guage said:

that's all well and good and i agree.

unfortunately,in law,dishonesty does no equate to culpability.

In law. Corporate manslaughter.

It enables a corporation to be punished and censured for culpable conduct that leads to a person's death. This extends beyond any compensation that might be awarded in civil litigation or any criminal prosecution of an individual (including an employee or contractor).

Corporate manslaughter - Wikipedia