UK - Huge fire rips through Grenfell Tower, Latimer Road, White City, London, June 2017

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Grenfell Tower survivors have confronted the senior investigating officer of the police probe into the disaster during a heated public meeting.

A meeting in West London intended to give locals an opportunity to question key figures descended into chaos as residents became angry and upset.

Investigating officer Matt Bonner was quizzed at St Clement's Church a short distance from where the blaze happened exactly four weeks ago.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...rs-heckle-senior-detective.html#ixzz4meBmul7I
 
"The company which supplied the cladding at Grenfell Tower is facing legal action from shareholders who have suffered huge losses.

Shareholder Michael Brave has filed a lawsuit in New York accusing Arconic Inc of defrauding investors by a failure to properly disclose its use of ‘highly flammable’ panels.

Around 80 people died last month after a raging fire spread through the tower block in North Kensington, West London."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-legal-action-shareholders.html#ixzz4mqONLdLD
 
gregjrichards said:
"Firefighters' high ladder did not appear at Grenfell Tower for 30 minutes and hoses were 'hampered by low pressure'.

An investigation has identified a series of failings that hampered the efforts of firefighters to tackle the horrific blaze and rescue the building's residents.

Firefighters say they experienced low water pressure, radio problems and critical equipment was either lacking or didn't arrive on scene before the fire got out of control.

BBC's Newsnight has learned that a so-called 'aerial' or high ladder did not arrive until more than half an hour after the first fire engines were dispatched at 00.55."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-Grenfell-Tower-30-minutes.html#ixzz4mC7cESG8
Click to expand...

A high ladder, or "aerial", used to fight tower block fires was dispatched immediately to the site in North Kensington as recently as 2001.
...
London Fire Brigade's standard procedure at the time was to send four fire engines - and no aerial platforms - to tower block fires as part of their "pre-determined attendance" procedure.

But the BBC understands previously it immediately sent an aerial to fires at Grenfell Tower as standard procedure. It is unclear when this policy changed.

The London Fire Brigade's safety plan in 2004-5 reduced the number of aerial appliances from 16 to 11.
An Audit Commission report in 2004 said the move was expected to save £1.75m.
...
Last week London Fire Brigade announced that an aerial platform will automatically be sent to tower fires in the future.
Click to expand...

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-40602144
 
"A funeral has been held for five-year old Isaac Paulos, one of the youngest victims of the Grenfell Tower disaster.

Family and friends were joined by Mayor of London Sadiq Khan in paying their respects to the "special little boy" at St Phillip's Church, in Battersea.

Isaac was one of at least 80 people who were killed in the North Kensington fire last month."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40599993

It's heartbreaking how many children like Issac were killed in this tragedy. Rest In Peace Issac.
 
Ellmau said:
Remeber the stories about power surges in the building before the refurb? Apparently they never did get sorted out. This could be the reason the fridge exploded in the first place.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40632705
Click to expand...

It's just more evidence that people need to be prosecuted for their monumental failure to ensure the safety of residents which should have been the only priority.
 
"Police investigating the Grenfell Tower disaster have 'reasonable grounds' to suspect that the council and management company of corporate manslaughter.
Members of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea and its Tenant Management Organisation will now be subjected to interviews from officers as part of a criminal investigation."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...l-interviewed-MANSLAUGHTER.html#ixzz4o3Pv32sj

I'm pleased to see this charge them, jail them and fine them.
 
Ellmau said:
I think we have to convict them as well.
Click to expand...

I'm going to wait and see if there's enough evidence to charge them and then to convict them in a court of law rather than the court of public opinion.

Innocent until proven guilty, no?

Let's not forget that many members of the management company are themselves social housing tenants in the borough. Just ordinary people who thought they were doing the right thing by joining the management company board.

If anything it raises the question as to whether having too many tenant representatives on these boards is entirely appropriate - some may well not have the wherewithal to understand and discharge their legal responsibilities to the standards required of a director.
 
Also, if the TMO is found guilty and fined a hefty sum, I rather doubt it has much if anything in the way of assets. It is, I believe, a limited company owned by the those council tenants who chose to buy a £1 share each. I can only see it bankrupted by a fine, and presumably some other body will then have to take over management of the council's social housing. The council, OTOH, is one of the few local authorities in the country with a decent level of reserves.

It is possible that, following police interviews, that individual charges might be brought against specific individuals (which is the only way anyone's going to prison, corporate charges are against the organisation), but that's still speculative at this stage.
 
Ellmau said:
Also, if the TMO is found guilty and fined a hefty sum, I rather doubt it has much if anything in the way of assets. It is, I believe, a limited company owned by the those council tenants who chose to buy a £1 share each. I can only see it bankrupted by a fine, and presumably some other body will then have to take over management of the council's social housing. The council, OTOH, is one of the few local authorities in the country with a decent level of reserves.
Click to expand...

That would be difficult unless the council has previously agreed to be a guarantor and backstop for the TMO. Legally they are two entirely separate entities and neither is responsible for the debts of the other unless there is an agreement in place to effect that.

It is possible that, following police interviews, that individual charges might be brought against specific individuals (which is the only way anyone's going to prison, corporate charges are against the organisation), but that's still speculative at this stage.
Click to expand...

Also difficult. While they are made up of individuals, boards and their decisions are collective. Really the only way to charge an individual would be if it there was good reason to believe that a specific member had individually failed in some area in which he had specific knowledge. For example, if a board member happened to work for a neighbouring council in their planning, building regulations or fire inspection departments and failed to ask relevant technical questions in respect of the refurbishment plans for GT.

This is the problem with boards which include so many lay persons, ie you can end up with a board that doesn't know what it's doing.
 
MelmothTheLost said:
That would be difficult unless the council has previously agreed to be a guarantor and backstop for the TMO. Legally they are two entirely separate entities and neither is responsible for the debts of the other unless there is an agreement in place to effect that.



Also difficult. While they are made up of individuals, boards and their decisions are collective. Really the only way to charge an individual would be if it there was good reason to believe that a specific member had individually failed in some area in which he had specific knowledge. For example, if a board member happened to work for a neighbouring council in their planning, building regulations or fire inspection departments and failed to ask relevant technical questions in respect of the refurbishment plans for GT.

This is the problem with boards which include so many lay persons, ie you can end up with a board that doesn't know what it's doing.
Click to expand...

If decisions were made collectively by the board can't all of them be charged?
 
Not as part of the collective liability for corporate manslaughter.

Individual charges can be brought, and possibly these may follow after the police have carried out the current set of interviews.

The new law has no impact on individual liability, neither for directors nor anyone else in an organisation. The Act goes so far as to specify that no individual can be convicted of aiding, abetting or otherwise encouraging the corporate offence. But this does not mean that directors and other senior executives can breathe a sigh of relief: in practice, prosecutors will target them in the same way they would have done before if they are suspected of having committed the offence of common-law manslaughter personally - that is, for gross negligence in the conduct of their management roles.

So it will remain common for directors and other individuals to appear as co-defendants in cases with their organisations; and, as individuals, they face the extra risk of imprisonment and disqualification from holding directorships.
Click to expand...

https://www.healthandsafetyatwork.com/content/look-new-corporate-manslaughter-act
 
Elainera said:
If decisions were made collectively by the board can't all of them be charged?
Click to expand...

They can - IF there is good evidence that the board as a whole acted in a way that meets the criteria for corporate manslaughter.

We need to remember that as far as anyone knows at this stage the materials used in the refurbishment met all mandated safety requirements and that what happened may have happened not because of any single factor but because of a perfect storm of factors which individually wouldn't have been a problem.

Boards rely on professional and technical advisers for areas outside of their reasonable knowledge and expertise. If, for example, the board had been assured by, say, an architect or chartered surveyor that the planned refurbishment was well designed and specced and met all required standards, and they relied on that advice, then it's going to be difficult to establish that they acted with gross negligence.

In saying this, I realise there is the issue that the cladding panels appear to have been used higher up the building than they should have been, but this is a technical issue that very few directors, even high powered professional directors in listed companies, would have been able to recognise and query.
 
"The survivors of the Grenfell Tower disaster may have to wait a year to find new homes, with around 200 believed to still be holed up in hotels.

Theresa May promised to find new accommodation within three weeks of the tragedy in June, but it has now been almost nine and the Government is drastically delaying its deadline.

The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Sajid Javid, has written to residents pledging they will find them permanent homes 'as quickly as possible, and within 12 months'.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-survivors-wait-YEAR-homes.html#ixzz4pdvU6k25
 
Enquiry terms of reference published: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40935955

The actions of Kensington and Chelsea Council are to be considered in the Grenfell Tower fire inquiry, the government has announced.

The inquiry will also look at the adequacy of regulations, the tower's recent refurbishment, and the response of authorities in the aftermath.

Broader questions on social housing will not be included
Click to expand...

The full terms of reference for the public inquiry, which have been accepted in full by the prime minister, are:

The cause and spread of the fire
The design, construction and refurbishment of Grenfell Tower
The scope and adequacy of the relevant regulations relating to high-rise buildings
Whether the relevant legislation and guidance were complied with in the case of Grenfell Tower
The actions of the local authority and other bodies before the tragedy
The response of the London Fire Brigade to the fire and the response of central and local government in the aftermath
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 106 more.
Total: 320 (members: 107, guests: 213)

Online statistics

Members online
107
Guests online
213
Total visitors
320
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
608,995
Messages
18,248,304
Members
234,523
Latest member
MN-Girl
Back
Top