The Government has just announced it accepts ALL of the recommendations from the Grenfell inquiry.

That will mean a LOT of change ...

Originally Posted by: Kate

That will mean a LOT of change ...

And let's be honest, after sitting through most of phase 1 of the Inquiry and much of phase 2, a lot of change is needed.

My fear is that there is so much change , some kind of commission will need to be set up to consult with stakeholders on all 58 report findings that will need to be implimented. That will take many years Some parties - namely the powerful insulation companies - will no doubt do their best to block, delay and lobby for amendments, as some of them proved that they are more dishonest than the Krays during the Inquiry and have as much blood on their hands as Dr Shipman   I recall the young apprentice who was involved with hiding known combustible insulation within a sandwich of non combustible material to be used as a sample for certification testing. This mix was hped to sway the test so that the combustible stuff was awarded a non combustible status. It did!! He queried the action and was told this is how everyone does it. Later after the fire, when he realised this same material had been wrongly installed on Grenfell - he was full of guilt and decided to not following his cowardly peers who refused to give evidence, but instead sang like a canary at the hearing. I hope his bravery is rewarded and someone involved with this outrageous fraud goes down. But it seems the Police still have their hands tied and can hand any paprs to the CPS for at least another two years It really is up to all of us within the H&S and fire safety industries and our professional bodies like IOSH, to push whatever Govt is in power and force through the changes, however long it takes 

AK in this world of social media and so called "influencers" it's much easier to provoke a fiery debate by demonising some sectors of society, e.g. "immigrants" and especially the "illegals" and then decry all things "woke" - a word which many who use probably couldn't actually define than to pay attention to all the actions needed to aehieve the culture change that you identify when it comes to fire and other safety issues.

The previous Government largely relied on assuming that when it comes to the design and construction elements of the causes of Grenfell (and other fires before) these could be dealt with by introducing legislation to parallel CDM.

Which implies that Government and those advising them didn't take the time to ask whether CDM has achieved even a fraction of what it was intended to do.

We've had three iterations of CDM now and, whatever its faults CDM 1994 was by far the best thought out as it focused ONLY on "design and management" and left the nuts and bolts that got added on as Part 4 of CDM 2007 and 2015 elsewhere.

This meant that it was much easier to see how much enforcement action was being taken in relation to the three front end duty holders - CLIENT, DESIGNER, and at the time Planning Supervisor as compared to action against  those at the sharp end, the Contractors and Principal Contractors.

So, it much easier to see how LITTLE action was being taken against the front end duty holders - precisely those who are central to much of what is recommended post Grenfell.

Well said Messey

I couldn't agree more. I would certainly think from what I have read about the worst excesses of those involved that the least you could say is that they were unethical and dishonest too---they know one thing and say/do the opposite QED. Criminal, eh?

But when??

regards

​​​​​​​Mike

Hi Mark

I think a good justification for financial [and other] support for Ukraine is easy [unless your name is Trump or Vance]; Afghanistan [who bombed them and why?]; Ethiopia and numerous others. The amounts are actually about a tenth of the total ODA budget.

But I guess that will not change your mind-perhaps it would help if you read about what is actually achieved in the provision of aid to these and other countries--soft power is the buzzword but helping the desperate counts too, eh? 

I know some programmes seem strange/inappropriate/waste of time and these are highlighted by the likes of the right wing press[ie most of it].

I've been a supporter since my days at uni studying economics many moons ago when grants were given and no fees were paid.

The other main point is that it is not because money is provided in aid [often paid to UK consultants, construction companies, oil/gas and arms too] that our own desperate people are ignored -that's any number of decisions by govt--eg wages, pensions [worst in EU for developed countries] housing, compensation for contaminated blood, Windrush poor, etc etc. 

Key point is that these could have been done as well as aid, which only really took off in the 70's if the govt so desired. And more resources to be gained by taxing the very rich. Too tough a choice for this variety of Labour

Rant over. I'll buy you a pint if we meet, although I do live in France so if you drop in down south let me know beforehand.

Regards or cordialement

Mike

 PS Didn't get an answer from David Lammy.[yet] 

I await the day of mass cognitive dissonance.

Well done DJT and JDV.

I bet very few have bothered to actually understand the reasons behind what is happening in Ukraine.

Foreign Aid is a money laundering scheme - just look at what is being exposed across the pond.

Bonjour Mike

I think there is plenty of cognitive dissonance going on in the Trump administration at present, not least as decisions seem to change on an almost daily basis.

Example, did Vance say that British troops haven't been in wars for decades or not?

....or Trump flipflopping over tariffs on Canada and Mexico? 

Will the tariffs still be in place tomorrow? Who knows?

For PDarlow's benefit I found this VERY quickly. The Cognitive Dissonance of January 6th Pardons | Psychology Today United Kingdom