Should We Be Taking Nuclear Threats More...
News0 min ago
https:/
ok the cladding is the primary cause everyone agrees with that. Everyone in the chain is to blame but to me the biggest contributors are the fire service. They must have approved the cladding they must have known that the way it was fixed and the material used were both wrong and flammable yet they MUST have approved, why? Were they bunged in some way? Yes we expect the usual suspects would be involved to make/save money but what no one seems to mention is that none of it would get stuck to a building without the approval of the fire sevice.
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. 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.https:/
This is part of it but there's a better one I'll try to find to show the tricks they pulled to get clearance despite knowing the risks
17 minutes long but this gives an idea of the lengths people went to (allegedly)
https:/
They tested their insulation with concrete cladding and it passed the large scale test, so they got a certificate. They then tweaked the insulation and when used with metal cladding a nd it failed the fire test. It buried those findings and used their old certificate even though it should no longer have applied as their product use had changed
This is grim ...
Summary
The Grenfell Tower fire that killed 72 people was the result of "dishonest" companies, successive governments, and a lack of strategy by the fire service, a scathing report concludes
All deaths were avoidable, inquiry chair Martin Moore-Bick says, as he delivers his final statement seven years after the fire - press watch live above
The report says a cladding product manufacturer “deliberately concealed” fire risks, while coalition and Conservative governments “ignored, delayed or disregarded” concerns
Warning: This page contains distressing details
One very significant reason why Grenfell Tower came to be clad in combustible materials was systematic dishonesty on the part of those who made and sold the rainscreen cladding panels and insulation products.
oo-er builders !
why two years for criminal charges - usually the criminal investigation precedes the civil inquiries - but not here - I suspect because this was a fact finding exercise.
These companies did it knowingly.
yeah but no but - you have to show the directors knew - this is very difficult, otherwise corporate manslaughter goes down the tube