Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
Grenfell Tower Manslaughter Charges?
Police are now considering Manslaughter charges ( as I predicted)
https:/
In theory at least could the MP's who voted against the implementation of safety updates be charged ?
If so what happens to them , will they be forced to resign?
https:/
71 Tory landlord MP's voted down rule changes that would have made council owned homes safer from fire!
http://
https:/
In theory at least could the MP's who voted against the implementation of safety updates be charged ?
If so what happens to them , will they be forced to resign?
https:/
71 Tory landlord MP's voted down rule changes that would have made council owned homes safer from fire!
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by EDDIE51. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
People talk about cost-cutting, it would only have cost £5000 more to clad the building in a better material, etc. but this misses the point.
There is no way on earth that "flammable" cladding is acceptable. Price does not come into it. It is not acceptable at any price.
It's nothing to do with cutting costs. It's to do with gross incompetence. How is it possible that a tower block was wrapped in flammable material?
It reminds me of flammable clothing as in the case of Claudia Winkleman's little daughter, whose Halloween outfit went up in flames. How much did the clothing cost? WHO CARES?!! Flammability is wrong for clothing and wrong for cladding, at any cost. It should not be legal.
There is no way on earth that "flammable" cladding is acceptable. Price does not come into it. It is not acceptable at any price.
It's nothing to do with cutting costs. It's to do with gross incompetence. How is it possible that a tower block was wrapped in flammable material?
It reminds me of flammable clothing as in the case of Claudia Winkleman's little daughter, whose Halloween outfit went up in flames. How much did the clothing cost? WHO CARES?!! Flammability is wrong for clothing and wrong for cladding, at any cost. It should not be legal.
AOG, the point is NOT what started the fire!
It is that unsafe, flammable cladding caused the fire to spread very rapidly. What should have been a minor fire confined to just one flat spread in a few minutes to the entire block!
Also many warnings from residents groups and even from the fire brigade were ignored !
It is that unsafe, flammable cladding caused the fire to spread very rapidly. What should have been a minor fire confined to just one flat spread in a few minutes to the entire block!
Also many warnings from residents groups and even from the fire brigade were ignored !
"...the word 'back-hander' springs to mind"
Yes "backhander" and "local authority" often go hand in hand. There was a headline in one of today's papers which read (something like) "Did they cut corners and pocket the difference?" Of course they did not specify who had pocketed the difference or whether and with whom they shared it.
Yes "backhander" and "local authority" often go hand in hand. There was a headline in one of today's papers which read (something like) "Did they cut corners and pocket the difference?" Of course they did not specify who had pocketed the difference or whether and with whom they shared it.
CH4 News this showed the tests done on the cladding used on Grenfell Tower. It was horrific....it caught alight almost immediately. And yet the firm that makes it said that it had passed all their tests.
How could that possibility be the case ?
CH4 also demonstrated the same test, on a sample of cladding with the mineral wool insulation and it didn't catch fire....at all.
Something has gone very wrong here.
How could that possibility be the case ?
CH4 also demonstrated the same test, on a sample of cladding with the mineral wool insulation and it didn't catch fire....at all.
Something has gone very wrong here.
-- answer removed --
