Corporate manslaughter

[PistoldPete2]

For Kensington council and their property company. Hope so, but why not prosecute the individuals involved too? They should get criminal records IMO. 

[Sith Happens]

I don't understand it enough, but guess if someone was working within the boundaries set by the organisation they work for its hard.

Suppose you would have to say someone has been negligent on an individual basis and not following the organisations negligent processes.

[PistoldPete2]

12 hours ago, Paul71 said:

I don't understand it enough, but guess if someone was working within the boundaries set by the organisation they work for its hard.

Suppose you would have to say someone has been negligent on an individual basis and not following the organisations negligent processes.

Maybe but it seems in contrast to the hillsborough tragedy. I would have thought the copper in charge of crowd control could use as his defence he was given a job he wasn't qualified to do... Why not charge the whole of South Yorkshire police?

[Sith Happens]

20 minutes ago, PistoldPete2 said:

Maybe but it seems in contrast to the hillsborough tragedy. I would have thought the copper in charge of crowd control could use as his defence he was given a job he wasn't qualified to do... Why not charge the whole of South Yorkshire police?

Maybe, like I say I dont really understand it enough but if people made decisions based on policy that had been approved then it does seem the collective is responsible, if one or more individuals made decisions or took actions which were against policy then thats different.

The problem is people will see this as a get out, they are angry and rightly so and want someone to pay. If someone is charged who made a decision that led to or partially led to the event but they were acting within guidlines then that seems more difficult.

Its easier on the outside to say that though, i know if i was affected i would also want people to pay.

[Stive Pesley]

13 hours ago, PistoldPete2 said:

For Kensington council and their property company. Hope so, but why not prosecute the individuals involved too? They should get criminal records IMO. 

I guess they would have to be able to prove that an individual acted in a criminally irresponsible manner independent of the organisation. That must be quite hard to do, if an individual personally chose the cheaper cladding to save money - it was never their money to save, so it can't have been a personal decision. It's the organisation's money that they are being "encouraged" to save.

If an individual ignored the safety concerns of the residents then that's different, although it would be hard to prove that they ignored them for personal reasons, rather than the concerns were just crushed by the bureaucratic process.

I'd prefer the option of the people at the very top carrying the can for this. They get paid a huge amount of money to ensure that the organisations are properly run and that stuff like this should just not happen

[Sith Happens]

11 minutes ago, StivePesley said:

I guess they would have to be able to prove that an individual acted in a criminally irresponsible manner independent of the organisation. That must be quite hard to do, if an individual personally chose the cheaper cladding to save money - it was never their money to save, so it can't have been a personal decision. It's the organisation's money that they are being "encouraged" to save.

If an individual ignored the safety concerns of the residents then that's different, although it would be hard to prove that they ignored them for personal reasons, rather than the concerns were just crushed by the bureaucratic process.

I'd prefer the option of the people at the very top carrying the can for this. They get paid a huge amount of money to ensure that the organisations are properly run and that stuff like this should just not happen

You said it much better than me, but you are right.

I guess its not different to the industry I work in which is regulated by the FCA. In theory those responsible for governance can face charges which could lead to a custodial sentence, but in reality it just ends up as big fines, but its not really peoples lives that are at risk.

I do think even those at the top, if charged it has to be proven they knowingly acted in a manner which put life at risk. They may argue they didnt know that cheaper cladding was purchased and this was down to people lower down managing budgets etc, but those at the top should ensure appropriate controls are in place, via audit or whatever manner is fit to ensure these things dont happen, and if they do deal with them.

This will go on for a long time i think.

[Gritstone Ram]

34 minutes ago, StivePesley said:

I guess they would have to be able to prove that an individual acted in a criminally irresponsible manner independent of the organisation. That must be quite hard to do, if an individual personally chose the cheaper cladding to save money - it was never their money to save, so it can't have been a personal decision. It's the organisation's money that they are being "encouraged" to save.

If an individual ignored the safety concerns of the residents then that's different, although it would be hard to prove that they ignored them for personal reasons, rather than the concerns were just crushed by the bureaucratic process.

I'd prefer the option of the people at the very top carrying the can for this. They get paid a huge amount of money to ensure that the organisations are properly run and that stuff like this should just not happen

In regards to the cladding. Haven't they found another 60 buildings with the same cladding. Had this cladding passed building regs prior to the fire? 

[eddie]

26 minutes ago, Gritters said:

In regards to the cladding. Haven't they found another 60 buildings with the same cladding. Had this cladding passed building regs prior to the fire? 

I reckon the only regulations it passed was the 'cheaper than the safe stuff, but good enough for peasants' regulations.

[Stive Pesley]

37 minutes ago, Gritters said:

In regards to the cladding. Haven't they found another 60 buildings with the same cladding. Had this cladding passed building regs prior to the fire? 

I think that's the crux of the matter - it appears that in 2014 LABC issued a certificate for the Celotex insulation installed at Grenfell that stated it could be used on tall buildings – but only with fibre cement panels that do not burn. However, Grenfell was fitted with cheaper combustible polyethylene-filled aluminium panels but it appears that no one spotted the mistake.

This is a general issue with planning control that I've noticed at even a local level. When planning permission is granted for anything they often include stipulations of this nature. eg this is OK as along as you do a, b & c. Local Councils don't seem to have the resource to retrospectively police that all criteria have been fully adhered to.

 

[PistoldPete2]

8 hours ago, StivePesley said:

I think that's the crux of the matter - it appears that in 2014 LABC issued a certificate for the Celotex insulation installed at Grenfell that stated it could be used on tall buildings – but only with fibre cement panels that do not burn. However, Grenfell was fitted with cheaper combustible polyethylene-filled aluminium panels but it appears that no one spotted the mistake.

This is a general issue with planning control that I've noticed at even a local level. When planning permission is granted for anything they often include stipulations of this nature. eg this is OK as along as you do a, b & c. Local Councils don't seem to have the resource to retrospectively police that all criteria have been fully adhered to.

 

Well maybe but in this case the local council are both the policemen and the accused.  They are the landlords so the peop,le ultimately responsible for making sure the building is safe. Seems pretty clear they failed to do that. 

[RamNut]

10 hours ago, StivePesley said:

I think that's the crux of the matter - it appears that in 2014 LABC issued a certificate for the Celotex insulation installed at Grenfell that stated it could be used on tall buildings – but only with fibre cement panels that do not burn. However, Grenfell was fitted with cheaper combustible polyethylene-filled aluminium panels but it appears that no one spotted the mistake.

This is a general issue with planning control that I've noticed at even a local level. When planning permission is granted for anything they often include stipulations of this nature. eg this is OK as along as you do a, b & c. Local Councils don't seem to have the resource to retrospectively police that all criteria have been fully adhered to.

 

Nothing to with the celotex is it?

its the cladding.

[Coneheadjohn]

On 28/07/2017 at 10:07, eddie said:

I reckon the only regulations it passed was the 'cheaper than the safe stuff, but good enough for peasants' regulations.

This exactly plus if something does go wrong who will care.

b*******,someone got rich on this but we'll never know.

[Stive Pesley]

On 7/28/2017 at 21:04, RamNut said:

Nothing to with the celotex is it?

its the cladding.

Ultimately yes, but the point is that they knew celotex insulation was flammable, hence it only being authorised to use with concrete cladding that doesn't burn. So they chose the (cheaper) flammable cladding and that was the problem.