Grenfell: Who is to Blame? will be broadcast on BBC One at 20:00 BST on 21 May.

on the i-box now

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-44200041

I didn't see much of value in that programme either. I just skimmed Hackitt's report but lost the will to live quite early on, I'm afraid. Has anybody else read it?

One thing that concerned me is that it is, quite sensibly, focussed on 'high-rise, multi-occupancy residential buildings' and 'should apply to residential properties which are 10 or more storeys high in the first instance'. What concerns me is what is the plan for other buildings?

At one extreme are buildings like mine - one-off dwellings, self-built and of non-standard construction. At the other extreme are large industrial and commercial buildings. Is cherry-picking a regime for one class of buildings in between 'in the first instance' a wise policy? What happens in the second and future instances?

Posted By: orangemannotafter events like these it is always "them" that were to blame, no consideration given to the fact that the shortcuts and poor installation were done by "ordinary" blokes "just" making a living, blokes with families living in houses/flats, built to the same woeful standards.

The 'them' that's being blamed is the deliberately dismantled/privatised regulatory system and the grasping commercial companies that take advantage - no-one's blaming any kind of "ordinary" blokes - that's just your habitual belief system making up stories to suit.

You portray

Posted By: fostertom"ordinary" blokes ... living in houses/flats, built to the same woeful standards

as waiting helplessly for 'consideration' to be 'given' -
but many see an opportunity to step up and put it right by joining forces with those who were killed and maimed by this ideologically-inspired scam.
Instead you prefer to pit the "ordinary" blokes against the Grenfell victims.

Classic.

For present purpose, you defined that 'the shortcuts and poor installation were done by "ordinary" blokes' - which sounds like the tradesmen on the job. They are def not being blamed for Grenfell.

The ones being blamed are those politicians of neo-liberal ideology who, supported by electorate, have deliberately dismantled independent regulation, and those directors of some companies (not all) who decide to take fullest commercial advantage of same.

Are those guys really the

Posted By: orangemannot"ordinary" blokes "just" making a living, blokes with families living in houses/flats, built to the same woeful standards

that you're talking about, who are getting "no consideration"? I hope not.

BTW I couldn't agree more with

Posted By: orangemannot1.2 million per household, and the meter is still running !
Someone is either, almost wilfully, squandering central government funded monies, or someone(s) is wallowing in the gravy.

from your long experience of local govt.

Pity you spoilt it by kneejerk focus on difference and deservingness - one lot of "ordinary" blokes relative to another - when there's a job of common-cause to be done.

In respect of the cost per unit of rehousing, it’d be interesting to see what size the new units are. Social housing tends to be overcrowded, ie. not enough bedrooms. So could well be that a family previously in a 2 bed property is now eligible for a 3 bed plus, the council whilst perfectly entitled to leave a family in a property that’s overcrowded ( families have chosen to have more children or have other family members live with them) as far as i’m aware would need to provide new accomodation commensurate with their needs.
There was a story reported of a family claiming 15 people lived in a flat, highly unlikey it was a genuine case, but flags up yet more potential for gaming the system.

Posted By: fostertomPS you're not meant to take this personally Marcus - it's just me talking to the world!

I for one would quite like it if we tried to stick more closely to the topic.

What I mean is that before we start allocating the blame, we ascertain the facts. The enquiry has hardly started. I stated right at the start my opinion is that the correct outcome is almost certainly a lot of people behind bars, but I don't think we're there yet. And note I say facts, not rants.

Ah think you meant "them" not "they" in the last paragraph,

however

The above nuanced, articulate & accurate post exactly expresses my thoughts, that I very poorly attempted to explain earlier.

Especially re cheap workmanship, unworkable Kafkaesque regulations and endless expensive ineffectual tick-box inspections.

Thank you.

Marcus

Thanks Artiglio for the summary of the tech issues - v handy. And Dave, I admit to ranting.

I guess attitudes, mine anyway, are coloured by personal experience. My career-long experience of public Building Inspectors, and the Application/Approval process, has been remakably positive. While experiencing the deadening downside of many of the pre-Thatcher public services (PO Telephones - remember?!) to me the Building Inspectorate was a glowing exception, and its public remnant still is, in my experience. Both in paperwork Approval, and on-site, I've nearly always found Building Inspectors to be deeply experienced and helpful and creative in practical solutions, and promptly accessible (unlike Planners).

Maybe it's because I was always keen to comply, with Regs that mainly made sense, rather than trying to escape from requirements. And I wonder if that's why others' experience supports the belief

Posted By: Artiglioa small cabal of inspectors making everything endlessly complicated and expensive

and even if so, what about the 'good' inspectors outside that cabal? Anyway, sledgehammer to a tiny nut,

Posted By: Artiglioa competitive system was put in place

Bollocks. Who can deny that for 40yrs the shrinking of government by any means and at any cost to society (which MrsT said 'does not exist') has been the dominant ideology (the correct term for such over-arching beliefs).

I for one will be on Enquiry whitewash-alert, if the consequent conivance and corruption in the 'competitive system' incl enforcement, Certifiers and loopholing of the public documents, is not found to be at the root of this disaster.

Apologies my reference to white goods goes beyond good design and construction and was meant to suggest that perhaps tenants in buildings of multiple dwellings should be required to have their appliances tested periodically. From my understanding of a talk by local fire officers to a landlord meeting, when it comes to fires relating to electrical items, overloaded extension blocks , appliance flex’s and old appliances becoming clogged with fluff and dust are the main sources of ignition. After kitchen fires and those due to smoking materials, electrical appliances are significant in the number of fires they cause.

My reference to competitive system of regulatory oversight was in respect to the changes that occured when mortgage lenders required insurance backed guarantees on new builds ( around 2004) at that point something was needed over and above local authority building control unless local authorities were to become providers of insurance backed guarantee. Not surprisingly those offering inspection services then looked for additional revenue streams.

Within my local council the building control officers that attend site are the only officers i have any real respect for, as pointed out they have a practical insight and experience of what is required, over the years i’ve been asked to go beyond the regulations and have also had some inventive suggestions as to how to meet them.

The worst officers are those involved in enforcement in the private rented sector, to whom a local landlord who responds to letters and has nothing to hide is an easy target for petty threats of enforcement, whilst turning a blind eye to the blatantly “rogues” in the industry.

Housing officers within the social sector are generally only interested in signing off whatever dross their contractors have done, won’t criticise any workmanship and hide behind the reports of external contractors at every opportunity. Social gousing of the last 20 odd years is a disgrace in terms of quality and sustainability. When talking about the workmanship on one development, the response was that the design life was only 40 years and that the bare minimum in terms of maintenance would be done over that time. The political drive is maximum numbers of dwellings at minimum cost today, nothing else matters. This is true of all goverments.

As to a whitewash in terms of responsibility, it could perceivably go the other way in that no one will come out of it blameless.
What ever happens, its difficult to not see future regulation becoming ridiculously over bearing, with every tradesman needing to be certificated and being made personally liable for his every action or requiring everything he does to be signed off.
The death toll at grenfell could not be reasonably forseen, who would have imagined that the standard of workmanship over the years would have been so poor in so many aspects of the building. The stay put policy was based upon there being sufficient fire separation , but even this is a bastardisation of the theory of “stay put” which in its real definition relies on people entering a safe space designed to protect them for sufficient time to rescue them, in grenfell that could have been managed by converting all or part of one flat to a safe space, thus giving the fire service an initial point to seek those needing rescue. Applying it to the flats as they were had no assurance that the flats were fire rated to any given degree. Under the fire risk assessment (FRA) which is meant to be reviewed periodically ( good practice is at least annually but also when there is significant change) a survey of a representative number of the flats would almost certainly have thrown up many of the issues within the flats , reports of the running of gas pipes in the common areas ( if true) should also have been enough to render the block unsuitable for habitation.
I have a flat in a low rise block that has a stay put advisory, yet vertically each flat is linked by a common ventilation shaft that served what used to be airing cupboards. I only found it when my tenant complained of the cannabis smoke entering her flat from the flat below. I blocked it off and informed the council and was bluntly informed it was not my place to interfere in fire safety. To date the stay put policy still in place and no inspection has taken place since i showed the compliance officer my concerns.

Sorry starting to ramble on, but hopefully you get my drift.

In respect of white good testing, the self same tenants are busy demanding a no expense spared approach to their safety, given the initial source of the fire, do they not have some responsibility, admittedly my viewpoint can be a little jaded after 20 of residential letting.

True, rather too sweeping a statement, should have clarified it was in relation to developments and maintenance i’ve witnessed.

Regarding certification its already happening, installation of fire doors in some social housing in my area has been halted, building control will not sign off the doors unless the fitters have been trained and accredited by the manufacturer. The contract was not bid on this basis, so contractor wants additional payment to do so, housing provider has no funds allocated. This stance will now be justified with the apparent evidence of doors not performing as designed at grenfell. There is already requirements for , gas safe, electrical training, fensa for windows, i see the trend continuing.

I’ve already met my MP on a similar manner and flagged up the deficencies in my local councils fire risk assessments, use of demonstrably inaccurate assumptions and “tame “ external contractors. his response was that “councils tend to be a law unto themselves”,this was pre grenfell. Basically dealing with the council is pointless, i once got as far as meeting with the leader of the council who after hearing my case suggested i meet the head of housing, 18 months later i gave up trying to arrange the meeting. The council are masters at delay and slight of hand, the final response will always be “if you’re not happy you can always pursue your view through the courts”

Eventually there is no reasonable way forward and you have to give up. Emails are on record.

Councils cannot prosecute themselves and have a far too cosy relationship with social housing providers, whilst there is a body that problems can be reported to, there is no proactive monitoring of council / housing associations.

I do accept that it may well be that the provision of council / social housing in my area is particularly poor and badly managed, though grenfell may well show that other areas also suffer.

I have heard reports of the Grenfell inquiry and to date it seems to be about what I can best describe as victim impact statements describing the death of relatives and the effect this had.

Can someone please explain how this is relevant to the cause - blame - prevention of the fire?

Unnecessary preamble to the enquiry I would have thought- the enquiry needs to know factually who was where and at what time - it needs to know the general state of mind of those persons to see if the actions/reactions were reasonable and expected or was there some behaviour that could be identified that may be important - I'm pretty certain we don't need to hearing about how upset people are/were.

But the outrage bus is well and truly out of the garage and fully fuelled up - so expect more grief whoring at every opportunity

Regards

Barney

I'm with Tom. I'm not especially interested in what's going on at the moment but I appreciate that some people are, so I let them get on with it. It does serve to remind us of the effect of this incompetence/criminality/whatever, which might be timely.

Sigh. Perhaps just as well our transitional generation will be leaving the stage sooner than later.