Tower block fire - london

stewski said:
As I have stated (and others) an inquest(s) is preferable to a government lead public enquiry, although personally having watched the CPS dig into MPs/Electoral fraud I have no problem with their involvement here!
Click to expand...

but I thought you wanted to hold people accountable - not leave anyone above the law?
 
stewski said:
I'm not sure the two have to occur simultaneously?
Click to expand...
Inquests in simple terms are used to find out what happened and to determine if there was any criminal culpability. It's a precursor to a criminal investigation depending on the outcome and since the police are already investigating there's no real benefit in doing so.

A public enquiry on the other hand will determine what happened so we can learn from it and make improvements to prevent similar things happening again.
 
stewski said:
As I have stated (and others) an inquest(s) is preferable to a government lead public enquiry, although personally having watched the CPS dig into MPs/Electoral fraud I have no problem with their e=involvement here!
Click to expand...

Inquests have their good and bad points, especially if they a jury is used (as it would be in this case).

This is likely to be a highly technical investigation, focusing on both whether the regulations are sufficient, and whether they were adhered to. The risk with a jury inquest is the same as with any situation involving a jury, namely whether they are sufficiently qualified to be able to evaluate technical evidence objectively.

I care more about the thoroughness and accuracy of the investigation and the recommendations than the mechanism by which they are achieved, and as the details of the public inquiry haven't yet been confirmed, I am withholding judgement on whether there is a determination to get the needed information or not.
 
balky12 said:
Fire brigade didn't get it wrong per se. With hindsight it's easy to say, but as mentioned previously flats are suppose to be designed to be self contained when it comes to fires. So standard procedure is to stay put, unless you are on the same floor. Allowing easy access for firefighters as often there is only the single stairwell.
Click to expand...

Apologies Xiler it was balky12 who made that statement (though admittedly rather than point out to him the ridiculous nature of such a statement, at that time you decided to "school" me in building regulations and eventually agree that the type of inquest people are calling for is necessary).
 
some comment from a human rights Barrister in an article in the Law Society Gazette after a solicitor called for an inquest on BBC Newsnight:

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/t...to-demand-inquest-not-inquiry/5061588.article

Khan's comments prompted a discussion about public inquiries and inquests. The two are 'not mutually exclusive', human rights barrister Simon McKay said on Twitter today.

McKay said a public inquiry, under the Public Inquiry Act 2005, 'will almost certainly' be chaired by an independent judge. Victims and other interest groups will be 'core participants' and can be represented by lawyers. Their lawyers can, under the Public Inquiry Rule, ask questions of any witness subject to the chair's permission.

An inquest has a narrow frame of reference, McKay said. The deaths at Grenfell Tower will likely qualify as article 2 inquests, which have a wider frame of reference.

McKay added: 'Contrary to the commentator's views last night advocates don't "cross-examine" witnesses as an inquest is inquisitorial by nature. Advocates and other interested persons can ask relevant questions. There is no requirement on the part of the witness to answer a question that might incriminate them.

'An inquest may also avoid areas likely to be the subject of a criminal investigation. Importantly an inquest cannot apportion blame - in terms of civil of criminal liability - that is not the function of an inquest. Unlike a public inquiry. Caution should be exercised by those thinking an inquest is a panacea... I'm not saying public inquiries are not without difficulties but the idea they are an attempt to divert accountability is deeply flawed.'
Click to expand...
 
stewski said:
I have, the question still stands, other lawyers opinion or not.
Click to expand...

I'm suggesting, in particular, that the highlighted bit is relevant here

I'm not about to get involved in your silly games where you then decided to go on a quoting frenzy/start with your usual sealioning antics
 
stewski said:
Apologies Xiler it was balky12 who made that statement (though admittedly rather than point out to him the ridiculous nature of such a statement, at that time you decided to "school" me in building regulations and eventually agree that the type of inquest people are calling for is necessary).
Click to expand...

Regardless of if you think it's ridiculous or not, he is right when he says standard policy in residential apartment blocks is to stay in your apartment. I've just had a conversation completed last week signed off by the fire officer with this very policy.
 
dowie said:
I'm suggesting, in particular, that the highlighted bit is relevant here

I'm not about to get involved in your silly games where you then decided to go on a quoting frenzy/start with your usual sealioning antics
Click to expand...

Actually I appreciate the counter point, I am however suggesting that a lawyer who has represented victims in similar circumstances has a strong opinion that on the face of it seems reasonable and based on experience!
 
stewski said:
Actually I appreciate the counter point, I am however suggesting that a lawyer who has represented victims in similar circumstances has a strong opinion that on the face of it seems reasonable and based on experience!
Click to expand...

yes and there is an article posted with a barrister directly commenting on what she's said... I'm not really sure what else you want
 
LOAM said:
Regardless of if you think it's ridiculous or not, he is right when he says standard policy in residential apartment blocks is to stay in your apartment. I've just had a conversation completed last week signed off by the fire officer with this very policy.
Click to expand...

I have never said it isn't standard policy, that doesn't mean in this instance it isn't massively wrong!
 
stewski said:
I have never said it isn't standard policy, that doesn't mean in this instance it isn't massively wrong!
Click to expand...

Well your into the realms of human error / appraisal. The first appliance on site called for immediate backup as they were quickly confronted with something rapidly getting out of control. The policy in place and notification displayed was to stay in your apartment because that's usually the best course of action. The fire allegedly spread from the 4th floor to the 18th in 8 minutes and was unprecedented in its speed.

I don't know though at what point it crossed the line between manageable and out of control, they had some issues with dry risers as well iirc but it's arguable it was beyond recovery by the time it breached the external leaf of construction which by all accounts was soon after they arrived.

It boiled down to this, they weren't expecting it to do what it did, I've heard some fire experts talk of some unique phenomenon at play. They stuck to policy not because of a judgement error but because they had no experience in something like that.
 
I haven't been on the forums for a bit but popped in to check something else and spotted this thread.

As some of you may know, I'm a Watch Commander in the fire service with over 27 years service. My current role is and has been for a while, an FSEO in Legislative Fire Safety Enforcement. We have been fielding and dealing with a huge amount of enquiries from not only the public who live in domestic non/relevant premises but also from business owners and commercial property owners/tenants. As FSEO's myself and my colleagues in our directorate are doing our utmost to provide information to concerned callers on a number of related subjects. We are being pro-active and carrying out audits and inspections of premises to ensure compliance is being maintained under relevant acts (RRO in England, FS (Scotland) Act in Scotland) as well as gathering operational intel and identifying potential safety issues. Our ops crews are out and about affording advice and guidance to people within domestic properties including those which fit the high rise criteria - 5 floors or more.

We are working flat out on this as a direct result of the tragic incident at Grenfell. Yesterday and today was incredibly busy but I came home satisfied that I'd helped answer questions from many concerned individuals and afforded them guidance and advice. This work is going on up and down the whole of the UK. I'm not about to pitch in any comments in response to some of the posts I've read here although I'm very tempted to do so. But I will hold off for now as I do not feel the time is right, that and my service social media policy does make it difficult to pass comment on anything on the web which could contravene its guidance.

Utterly tragic incident and my heart goes out to all affected including my colleagues in the LFB. I've attended many incidents over the years and witnessed at first hand things that many of you couldn't even begin to conjure up in the darkest parts of your minds. It's a 'Hollywood' saying but I've 'fought the beast' that is fire and won more times than I can remember as an operational firefighter and incident commander and now I'm sat on the other side of my job in the role of a fire safety enforcement officer which affords me a perspective that few in this country can say they have.

RIP to those who have perished. :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom