Grenfell Tower Inquiry Report

I am working in our office at present, but quickly for those who are looking for a political aspect in regard to the Grenfell tragedy, many working in industrial safety believe the base conditions of that tragedy lay in the implementation of changes in relation to breaches of health and safety which where included in the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2012.

That act very much reduced the liability on commercial organisations brought about by failures in products and processes they produced or employed. The act was passed by the House of Commons with Liberal Democrat support being they were the conservative parties coalition partners at that time.

Prime Minister David Cameron stated on the commencement of 2014 Conservative party election campaign, that it was his new year's resolution was to "kill off the health and safety culture in British industry for good". He stated further that Health and safety legislation has become an "albatross around the neck of British businesses", costing them billions of pounds a year and leaving entrepreneurs in fear of speculative claims.

Of course, Cameron left Downing Street thankfully before he could carry out the above resolution, but there have been legislative changes since the introduction of the above act that it is believed combined to impact so as to create the conditions that brought about the Grenfell tragedy.

However, I would not wish to anticipate the possible conclusions of the Grenfell Tower inquiry, and for that we will have to wait at least another year.

Of course it is political.
Conservative politics is for low taxation and low regulation. Good Conservatives truly believe that is the best way to run a country or a neighborhood.
The council with responsibility for Grenfell Tower outsourced the refurbishment of the tower because that was less expensive than keeping that sort of expertise in house, thus doing what they thought was in the best interests of their Council Tax payers. They trusted the contractors to do a good job and to comply with regulations as the contractor thought fit, again to save money, and because they had no in house expertise.
They took these decisions because they believed them go be the correct way to do their best for their Council Tax payers.
I am sure that no one at that council thought for a minute that people would die because of their decisions.
This was not deliberate or malicious, but it WAS political.

People were killed because warnings were ignored , to compare such disasters is cheap and tawdry and utterly irrelevant !

And I think bringing in Aberfan to this discussion is cheap and tawdry apart from being totally and utterly irrelevant.

I’ve just read DC’s Wikipedia entry. Anyone who wants to criticise her pension should read that and then come back on here and tell us exactly why she hadn’t earned it.

Very interesting discussion on Peston now. To say that what happened has nothing to do with politics- is naïve in the extreme. Everything about the whys and therefores of Grenfell is political - tragtically so.

DC joined the fire service at 19, she is totally entitled to her pension whatever size.

BTW I agree with you suzie. Who knows how many horrific things Cotton has witnessed throughout her career? Who knows what's going through her mind?

Yes, you're right suzie. The only retired firefighters I know benefited from the old scheme, including one who is 51 and retired last year. Cotton might have still been paying into the old scheme, for all I know. Nevertheless, there is the option to take a reduced pension at a younger age. My understanding is that many firefighters take that option because they're still young enough to start another job. Whatever her individual circumstances, she's still paid into her pension scheme and deserves to be paid the pension she was expecting.

grow the fire service pension scheme ( like all other public sector pension schemes) has undergone many changes in the last two decades and is now quite complex to understand because of that. However I’m pretty sure that 50 is no longer the normal retirement age. But either way, she’ll get what she’s entitled to and what’s she’s contributed to over her many years of service. I think individuals now contribute about 12% of their salaries more or less. I find it utterly depressing that anyone resents someone receiving a pension they have earned over many years of service even if ( and I’m not judging the individual here) at the end of their careers their behaviour fell short ( or far short) of what was expected.

lemongrove I agree with you that there should have been an honest assessment of what went wrong and how advice from fire services in future situations could be improved. The report seems to have done just that, rather than attempting to cover up.

However, I disagree with you about the scapegoating of the fire brigade, which is exactly what certain sections of the media and some of the public have done.

painting With hindsight, the advice to stay put was wrong, but it was the standard procedure. The report criticises commanders at the scene for not assessing the situation better and not abandoning procedure. I wonder who the scapegoats would have been if they had told the people to go into the stairwell and if they had died there. My guess is that they would have been blamed for abandoning procedure.

Sometimes advice in emergency situations seems counter-intuitive. For example, if you find yourself drowning, you might try to swim to safety, but is far better to save your energy and try to float.

Exactly suzie. She's 50, which is the normal retirement age for firefighters. Firefighters pay quite a large percentage of their pay into their pension scheme.

It’s not a big pension pot that awaits D.C. It’s a pension that she’s earned over her years of service with the fire service to which she is fully entitled and contributed to when she meets the conditions for it to be paid under the scheme.

Grandads comments have helped me understand this situation.

I do feel for emergency services. Fire and Police.

When they called, whatever the situation - they are required sometimes in split seconds to implement all of their training and make the best judgment calls possible, with the knowledge and skills they have. Sometimes in an appalling situation, which i'm sure this was.

At the end of the day though they are only human. I'm sure with the cuts they have fewer peole on their teams than they would like, and fewer resources and back up.

I'm surprised and shocked by advice to stay put. First thing I would do with child or without is get out. We live in 1950s build. I've heard stories of people not getting their gas safety checks done etc. Or trying to save money by not having their cooker connected by a professional. It's scary.

all best
painting

I will if I chose to

In that case, don't compare her with Robens.

Cotton said she would make the same decisions again, and she remains in charge .

I didn’t say the fire brigade was responsible for the state of the tower.

That's an absolutely disgraceful allegation Anniebach.

Robens tried to deny responsibility and cover up the warnings, which he should have heeded.

Cotton made mistakes, but she hasn't tried to cover up the findings and the Fire Brigade wasn't responsible for the state of Grenfell Tower.

She will probably be hounded out of her job by people who just don't think things through logically.

The poor survivors want Dany Cotton to resign, not a hope , big pension pot awaits.

Memories of Lord Robens and his union

ExperiencedNotOld, Quote ]
Whilst the design and choice of cladding is very relevant to the story of the fire there was nothing ‘illegal’ about their use at the time they were installed, despite not being the best choice. Meanwhile the building industry will have already have self-regulated. ] End Quote.

ExperiencedNotOld, with all due respect I find your above statement somewhat ridiculous.

Changes that have been made to H&S regulations allow for safety testing of products to be carried out and certified by manufacturers and users of products so as to reduce "red tape." Prior to those changes in legislation, those manufacturers and users results had to be forwarded to the Health & Safety Executive who could carry out their own independent tests if they felt that was necessary. Differing Products that may be used in combination during building work etc also had to be tested for fire resistance or the creation toxins etc in combination prior to use.

Without wishing to in any way predict the outcome of the second phase of the Grenfell inquiry, from the evidence presented so far it very much looks as if the combination of the polyecladding-cored panels and the aluminium fixings that surrounded them caused the fire at Grenfell Tower to spread so quickly and generate such extream temperatures in doing so.

The above was a highly hazardous combination of products being used in the so called upgrade that came to be installed on the building by the presently allowed self-regulation of safety in the British manufacturing and building industry

The United Kingdom has a free competitive economy that in the main benefits the consumers of this country. However, there are times when strict regulation is essential to prevent the unacceptable face of capitalism that all too often can create a "race to the bottom" which in this case cost so many their lives.

In short, self-regulation failed in its entirety in the case of Grenfell Tower, and to state that the industries involved have now "adjusted" that which went so very wrong is an outright insult to those who have suffered so much in this tragedy and continue to suffer.

Eloethan ....yes, I know of those serious issues, they were talked about by Grenfell residents at the time of the fire, and will be represented in the second part of the report.
However, some posters are denying that the fire service in London should have been taken to task in the report for their terrible advice to ‘stay put’, which undoubtably led to many deaths, when there had been so many opportunities to leave the building.
It isn’t ‘scapegoating’ it’s the result of an intensive and fair inquiry, where everything must come out into the open.

As others have said, the criticism re the fire service's response to the fire was not aimed at the fire fighters who attended the scene, many of whom risked their own lives and were severely traumatised by the tragedy.

I do think that the senior officers dealt with the situation badly and showed no flexibility in responding to what was was obviously an emergency that did not lend itself to adhering to "policies" - as a previous fire where people died after being told to "stay put" had already demonstrated.

As a gentleman this morning said on Victoria Derbyshire, it was evident to everyone watching that the fire had spread uncontrollably, was not "compartmentalised" and people should not have been told to remain in their flats.

However, aside from this, it appears that the service is under-resourced. I was shocked that there were no ladders high enough for fire fighters to reach the upper level of the building. These ladders are available, and apparently some have now been ordered from Germany. Given the number of high rise flats in London and other cities, surely these ladders should be available in all heavily populated urban areas? Also, it was found that the fire service's communications system was not adequate.

lemongrove The Conservatives have a very bad record with regard to public safety. When Mayor of London, despite spending huge amounts of money on various vanity projects, Boris Johnson closed 10 fire stations and removed 27 fire engines, even though he had promised no such plans were afoot. When confronted by a Labour London Assembly member, Andrew Dismore, about the broken promise, he told Dismore to "get stuffed". Fire response times in London increased after these cuts and there were at least three cases of people jumping to their deaths because the local fire stations had closed and the emergency vehicles couldn't get there in time.

I think the reason why the inquiry has looked first at what happened during the fire, rather than the issues surrounding building materials, building regulations, etc, etc, is because, if the two issues were combined, the report would not have been available for probably four years or more. Personally, I think this is the most important element of the tragedy. There were so many things that were wrong with that building - badly fitting fire doors, no sprinklers, etc. And several tenants had brought up those issues with the Council- and their concerns about the cladding material - but their fears had been ignored and they were treated as if they were just troublesome nuisances.

I can vouch for that.
Our "services" are beyond a joke.

How is this not political?

Money taken away from Fire Service.
Cheapest cladding that was unsafe.
Repairs not carried out in those flats.
There is still apparently no knowledge of how the fire began.....
But I do remember some residents saying they had reported problems with their electrics and nothing was being done prior to the fire.

I see it as a blatant disregard for human lives in order to save money.
The Fire Service did not save money and they did not know about the substandard cladding.

They should not become the scapegoats.

It was barely an accident. More of an inevitable result of cutting corners and no care being taken regarding the condition of the flats.

Anyone who has lived in a council block will know the neglect that goes on and in this case it was a dangerous neglect