Massive fire at high rise flats in London

[pandarilla]

 
 
This would be an articulate variation of what people were saying yesterday. (This is not at the protest)

This guy should be put in charge of the council.

Incredibly knowledgeable, passionate, and articulate.

Take a bow son.

[Tamdunk]

18 hours ago, HibeeJibee said:

Inflammable means easily set alight, btw. Just saying ...

 

[Monkey Tennis]

2 hours ago, Michael W said:

To me, this seems a bit like the Titanic and the lifeboats - legal, but not appropriate and I don't think it is good enough as a defence. They have breached their duty of care and have not acted properly in making the choice that they did. 

There are actually a few Titanic parallels.

As mentioned, there's the question of inadequate regulation and there's obviously the general complacency, as well as the extremes of wealth and poverty being side by side.  The big difference here of course, is that it's only the poor who have suffered.

Another similarity is that this disaster has already become a metaphor for society's ills, as well as a dreadful human tragedy.

Edited June 17, 2017 by Monkey Tennis

[Jacksgranda]

1 hour ago, ayrmad said:

For me the contractors are at the bottom of that list.

 

A "competent and experienced" contractor should have pointed out the inadequacy of the proposed cladding. Whether he should have then installed what was proposed would be between his conscience and his bank balance, unfortunately.

[Panda Pies]

There are actually a few Titanic parallels.
As mentioned, there's the question of inadequate regulation and there's obviously the general complacency, as well as the extremes of wealth and poverty being side by side.  The big difference here of course, is that it's only the poor who have suffered.

A "competent and experienced" contractor should have pointed out the inadequacy of the proposed cladding. Whether he should have then installed what was proposed would be between his conscience and his bank balance, unfortunately.

Any work over a certain limit done for any government body, nhs, local authority etc. Goes out for tender and it's the client that tends to via a consultant, designer that would specify what is to be used or what's not to be used. The client is more or less looking for the cheapest cost to get the job done. Which in turn forces the contractors to under cut one & other and cost save where they can i.e. cheap labour/cheap inferior materials.
The bullet stop with the client as they have overall control of any project.

[dorlomin]

Quote

Following R v. Prentice,[5] a breach of duty amounts to 'gross negligence' when there is:

... indifference to an obvious risk of injury to health; actual foresight of the risk coupled with the determination nevertheless to run it; appreciation of the risk coupled with an intention to avoid it but also coupled with such a high degree of negligence in the attempted avoidance as the jury consider justifies conviction, and inattention or failure to advert to a serious risk which goes 'beyond inadvertence' in respect of an obvious and important matter which the defendant's duty demanded he should address.

The Law Commission's 1996 report on involuntary manslaughter found that the gross negligence formula overcomes the problems of having to find one particular officer who has the mens rea for the offence and allows emphasis to be placed on the company’s attitude to safety.[6] This question would only arise where the company has chosen to enter a field of activity that carries a risk to others, such as transport, manufacture or medical care. The steps the company has taken to discharge the "duty of safety" and the systems devised for running its business, will be directly relevant.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_manslaughter_in_English_law

 

I have been pointed in this direction with respect to possible legal action. I have little or no legal knowledge so cannot really comment on its applicability. 

[Jamaldo]

In a couple of weeks this won't be getting talked about and the government will be out of the woods, sorry to say.

People saying the government will collapse because of this are going to be disappointed.

[Jacksgranda]

2 minutes ago, Panda Pies said:

 

 

 

 

 

Any work over a certain limit done for any government body, nhs, local authority etc. Goes out for tender and it's the client that tends to via a consultant, designer that would specify what is to be used or what's not to be used. 1/ The client is more or less looking for the cheapest cost to get the job done. 2/ Which in turn forces the contractors to under cut one & other and cost save where they can i.e. cheap labour/cheap inferior materials.
The bullet stop with the client as they have overall control of any project.

 

 

 

 

 

1/ Naturally enough

2/ They cannot use "inferior materials". Materias have to be up to spec. If the spec isn't right that's a different argument.

[Monkey Tennis]

9 minutes ago, Jamaldo said:

In a couple of weeks this won't be getting talked about and the government will be out of the woods, sorry to say.

People saying the government will collapse because of this are going to be disappointed.

I suspect you're right.

I'll actually confess to a sliver of sympathy for May over this, much as I can't stand the woman.  I think the charge of being essentially indifferent to this type of suffering is a pretty severe one and I actually doubt if it's the case.   She's just a bit emotionally constipated and socially awkward.  

There's obviously a debate about whether someone handicapped in this way is PM material, but I do see something a little opportunistic and gratuitous in some of the personal attacks she's now facing.

[dorlomin]

Just now, Monkey Tennis said:

I'll actually confess to a sliver of sympathy for May over this, much as I can't stand the woman.  I think the charge of being essentially indifferent to this type of suffering is a pretty severe one and I actually doubt if it's the case.   She's just a bit emotionally constipated and socially awkward.  

She was home secretary for 6 years. She will have attended many training sessions for incidents like this, she will have been involved in the planning for them. This is her bread and butter. Yet the site of the relief operation was chaos for days and mostly dependent on volunteers. She could have been onsite early on then hauled the council head to the site with a phonecall to get him cracking at organizing the relief and been making it blindingly clear that if something was needed she would bulldoze the obstacles. 

 

This should have remade her reputation.

Her looking like an out of touch tourist seeking to do the minimum to mollify the press has instead been the breaking of it. 

[Monkey Tennis]

2 minutes ago, dorlomin said:

She was home secretary for 6 years. She will have attended many training sessions for incidents like this, she will have been involved in the planning for them. This is her bread and butter. Yet the site of the relief operation was chaos for days and mostly dependent on volunteers. She could have been onsite early on then hauled the council head to the site with a phonecall to get him cracking at organizing the relief and been making it blindingly clear that if something was needed she would bulldoze the obstacles. 

 

This should have remade her reputation.

Her looking like an out of touch tourist seeking to do the minimum to mollify the press has instead been the breaking of it. 

I wouldn't disagree with any of that.  Her professional response to this could scarcely have been less impressive.

I maintain though that incompetence doesn't necessarily equate to, or reflect, indifference.

[Al666]

21 hours ago, jupe1407 said:

What has your completely pointless link got to do with any of this? 

Just that the reason for the "Tory Au8sterity" that the left keep banging on about is the total and utter f**k up that Labour made of the economy during the Blair Brown years.

21 hours ago, Cerberus said:

Fucking hell. Imagine being so blinkered that you're still a Tory fan boy after all that's gone on.

Better than being an utter c**t who try s to make political capital out of a tragedy.

21 hours ago, Melanius Mullarkey said:

 

The Tories are in charge.

They have the responsibility to deal with this.
 

 

And they're dealing with it, they are not however responsible for it, no matter how hard the snowflakes and sjw's try and claim that they are.

[Panda Pies]

1/ Naturally enough
2/ They cannot use "inferior materials". Materias have to be up to spec. If the spec isn't right that's a different argument.

Sorry what I meant was the contractor may in his mind want to use a better product. But again due to the pressures of winning the contractor and keeping guys employed there hand is forced to use a cheaper alternative, but still within the specification asked for.

[Benjamin_Nevis]

And they're dealing with it, they are not however responsible for it, no matter how hard the snowflakes and sjw's try and claim that they are.

"snowflakes" [emoji38]

Get back in your box you fucking Tory lickspittle.

[Cerberus]

And they're dealing with it, they are not however responsible for it, no matter how hard the snowflakes and sjw's try and claim that they are.

^^^
Hasn't got a clue.

[RH33]

58 missing presumed dead

Edited June 17, 2017 by Rowan

[LinkinFighter]

Haven't seen that tory c**t Al on here in a while.

[Shotgun]

44 minutes ago, Al666 said:

Just that the reason for the "Tory Au8sterity" that the left keep banging on about is the total and utter f**k up that Labour made of the economy during the Blair Brown years.

Riiiiiiiiight, because the only way to correct that "total and utter f**k up" was to give tax breaks and handouts to the rich while hammering everyone else but especially the poor for the crime of simply being poor. It's the Tory way. When the millionaires and billionaires start feeling the effect of austerity, you can come here and lecture us on how the Tories are simply trying to fix things. 

45 minutes ago, Al666 said:

Better than being an utter c**t who try s to make political capital out of a tragedy.

Are you referring to the type of utter c**t who would post a years old link in a lame attempt to divert the blame to the party that hasn't held power for 7 years. At what point does an utter c**t like you think the Tories should start being accountable for things that happen under their governance? 10 years? 15 years? 20? Or will it still all be Labour's fault then? 

45 minutes ago, Al666 said:

And they're dealing with it, they are not however responsible for it, no matter how hard the snowflakes and sjw's try and claim that they are.

Well of course not. Tories are never "responsible" for anything. They don't know the meaning of the word, other when they're shouting "It's Labour to blame!" 

Pathetic.

[beefybake]

1 hour ago, Jamaldo said:

In a couple of weeks this won't be getting talked about and the government will be out of the woods, sorry to say.

People saying the government will collapse because of this are going to be disappointed.

I think you're very wrong. 

A prime minister who doesn't want to be seen anywhere near victims.Ministers who suddenly can't be found, and certainly decline 

to be questioned.....

[NotThePars]

Al insisting that you shouldn't politicise the deaths of dozens of people that came as a result of criminal negligence on the part of landlords, politicians and ministers is it? Didn't realise fires like this were an occurrence of nature like an earthquake lol.