Well Tom, I would have thought a public enquiry was exactly the place 'to establish the facts' drily and functionally.

If it is intended to establish a basis in facts to inform legislation and guidance that is

Don't presume to determine what I'd be needing either

As for offensive, it's not anymore or less offensive that the claims of D notices, a cast of thousands dead and of people being murdered by a tory government - just a reflection on the echo chamber of social media unfortunately

Regards

Barney

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/may/30/all-inquiries-should-use-grenfell-tributes-model-charity-says

“Future inquests and inquiries should adopt the model of commemoration hearings pioneered by the Grenfell Tower inquiry, a leading charity has said."

"They have set the tone for what the inquiry needs to achieve in terms of delivering truth, justice and accountability. This was something we had to fight for."

OK - adjoun to another time!

I think the first day of the 'investigative' part of the enquiry seems to have got off to a good start. The various reports seem to be asking questions in the right directions. It remains to be seen whether the inquiry tracks those threads through to those who were ultimately responsible.

Posted By: mike7The latest issue of the London Review of Books is almost entirely given over to a piece by Andrew O'Hagan.

Thanks for that. It seems rather focussed on the council? (Not to mention having its prejudices pinnned to its chest)

I think I'll wait for the enquiry.

Very extensive initial report on fire safety stuff (design, management and firefighting) here:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/9f9679e7k0yppyj/Dr%20Barbara%20Lane%20report_1.pdf?dl=0

So the next question is who certified those fire doors?

AIUI, the doors have been retested and have failed the tests they are supposed to have passed. So nothing to do with different standards, or five minutes later or anything. Down to who tested and certified them originally?

The original doors actually tested did meet the requirement but production doors won't be so carefully prepared or manufactured. Just like car fuel consumption and emissions, air infiltration tests for the big builders (sample only on a specially prepared unit), building control for the big housebuilders (type approval and scant inspection).

I found that contractors rarely understood fire door installation. The certification is only valid if the door is installed with the same materials and standards as it was when tested. You can't just wang in any old hardware or put a leaf in any old frame. The doors should be supplied and fitted as a complete set, leaf, frame, hardware the lot. If you mention intumescent hinge or lock pads on most sites you will get the "what's that about then" response. They don;t know because they have never seen or used them. Some hardware and doors need them because that's how they were certified. I used to work in the defence estate and fire was a bit if a hot topic.

Just last year i was contract administrator on a project. The job was done and we were awaiting final BC inspection. BC rejected because immediately our job was done the client instructed its own security contractor to install card operated security locks to doors on the main escape route. We had no knowledge but when BC saw it they said not would issue a certificate until the locks we removed. Right too. I looked a bit stupid because I did not know what the client was doing. But think about it. The client and the security contractor failed to recognise what they were doing. This was a public sector client and the very largest. The security contractor is their preferred specialist and fits locks to doors all day every day.

NHS

https://www.building.co.uk/news/government-says-hackitts-recommendations-will-be-implemented-in-full/5097100.article

"Brokenshire identified four areas where he will implement change

1. Creation of a stronger regulatory and accountability framework

2. Clearer standards and guidance to help a) builders and b) product manufacturers better understand what is required to keep a building safe

3. A stronger voice for residents, including more effective routes for escalation and swift redress when things go wrong

4. Fostering a ‘culture change’ in the building industry – by taking on incompetent firms through enforcement action and possibly legislation"

"The government confirmed it wants to build on the expertise of existing bodies such as the Health and Safety Executive, the fire and rescue authorities, and local authorities – but it has not said which body will be responsible for enforcing the stringent new regulatory regime."

So not necessary reinstating the authority of public Building Control.

The phase 1 report is now public:

https://www.grenfelltowerinquiry.org.uk/phase-1-report

Posted By: djhsomebody from the GLA who supervise them.

Go on, say the B word!

Yes, looks Fire Service management failed to upate their thinking in the face of ... what?
Systematic flouting of Building Regs, via deliberate weakening of oversight, and 'trusting' profit-centred Business to self-certify.

It's a wierd world, where one public service is expected to efficiently fill in for the politically-created collapse of another public service. And then gets all the blame for failing to pick up the pieces.

It's very unfortunate that the Enquiry, being two-stage, has only so far looked at the Fire Service failure to do the above, and not yet got on to the deliberate political origins of the Building Regs debacle - a very much bigger scandal, a perfect encapsulation of the consequences of ideological Thatcherism, as implimented for 40yrs by both Tory and Labour governments.

There's a real danger that the Enquiry having successfully got this far without falling into whitewash, will get watered down as it moves on to get embarassing to political Government. The strong public support may wane, now that Fire Service blood has been satisfyingly drawn.

The report is reasonably clear that the main cause was to do with the building construction not satisfying building regs, and states that phase 2 will look into this in more detail.

I agree the Fire Service shouldn't have to be dealing with buildings that are unsafe due to lax regulation - however, it does seem reasonable to expect them to be prepared for situations where a fire doesn't behave as it ought to in a properly constructed building. There are surely various circumstances where, for example compartmentation might fail even if it's been built properly.