Rank: Super forum user 
|
The Government has just announced it accepts ALL of the recommendations from the Grenfell inquiry.
That will mean a LOT of change ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Yes, Kate, fine words indeed, but I'm going to wait for the action which may take some time [if ever], unfortunately.
I can't remember the number of times I have read that the recommendations arising from reports, enquiries and Royal Commmissions et al have been ignored/sidelined, watered down or kicked into the long grass.
One can only hope or act ourselves.
best regards
Mike
PS Just sent an email to David Lammy about the despicable decision to cut foreign aid in favour of 'bombs'. An article in the Guardian today did it.
|
 1 user thanked MikeKelly for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
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
|
3 users thanked Messey for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I think that accepting the report and drafting the new legislation is the easy bit. New rules are less important than a culture change where people cannot shirk their responsibilities because that is what happened. There were various points during the rebuilding of Grenfell when somebody could have stopped and asked are we doing this right? Nobody did; they simply passed the responsibility onto the next person in the chain. Unfortunately we live in a world that until it goes wrong safety is regarded as a joke or nuisance. Ideally, we should have a public debate about things like how much safety is too much . That doesn’t happen and instead the public agenda is obsessed with things like immigration and woke politics with money being thrown at those issues while cost cutting kills people in places like Grenfell.
|
1 user thanked A Kurdziel for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
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.
|
3 users thanked peter gotch for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Firstly I am sorry about my block of text at post 3. I have no idea why my line gaps are ignored sometimes!!
One other point I would like to make is that I hope when these (overdue) changes are being drawn up, the huge influence of 'Lobbists' is not overlooked and controls are put in place to ensure unbiased advice is given as much weight as biased pressure from within industry.
During the Grenfell Inquiry, it was revealled that an international insulation company intentionally focused sales in the UK as they saw legislation & regulation was very weak here compared with other developed countries. The same company reassured stakeholders that they had influence at a high level in Govt and didn't expect any tightening of rules, especially in the post Brexit rush to de-regulate.
These type of selfish hard-nosed 'profit before anything' businesses have not disappeared after the tragedy. They will regroup (if they havent done already) and exert pressure in all its forms on those tasked with making changes. I am not saying they are dishonest, but that is certainly how they came across during the Inquiry
|
3 users thanked Messey for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.