@mrmhead Said
Sprinklers: That's what I mean - I'm surprised they aren't already a requirement. As far as I know, even if a building was built prior to certain regulations (fire detection / suppression), if it is renovated, or I think even sold, it must be brought up to current spec's.
Conservative Gov't: Yes, we're seeing that here now too: Cutting "red tape" like prohibiting mines from dumping wastewater into waterways (reversed), and of course the Paris Agreement.
If the cladding was already banned by EU and UK, aren't there inspectors during construction/renovation to make sure regs are followed?
re my embolden: Yes, they are. That's exactly what the inspectors are meant to do. Ensure that regulations are complied with.
This is the reason why the Metropolitan Police are talking very strongly about prosecutions for manslaughter by negligence.
But read my comments above about the likely outcome of the Inquiry into the fire. We've been here before.
Announcing a Public Inquiry sounds like the right thing to do, but we've seen in the past that such things aren't always what they might be trumpeted to be.
Firstly, will the Inquiry be led by a Judge who will have the power to order prosecutions as a result of evidence that comes to light? Will those called to give evidence have to do so under oath?
Secondly, what will be the terms of reference of the Inquiry? What will its scope be and more importantly, what will it NOT be required to look into? Anything outside the remit of the Inquiry will simply be ignored.
Thirdly, the "Slippery Eel" element. As we found with a number of such inquiries into alleged war abuses in Iraq and Afghanistan, those appearing before the panel all of a sudden "couldn't remember" what happened. Indeed, an entire regiment that was (allegedly) involved in possible war crimes in Helmand Province "Couldn't remember" anything at all. No prosecutions. Everybody walked. Such collective amnesia over Grenfell would be possible if those giving evidence don't have to do so under oath.
Fourthly, what will be the final outcome? If all the Inquiry can do is make recommendations, then there is no obligation for anything to be done at all. Politicians are highly adept at making it sound like they will follow recommendations and when the cameras have gone away, they start to revise the wording... water everything down... delay implementation on the issue of cost.... and then they cross their fingers that another tragedy doesn't happen until they've moved on and somebody else is in the chair.
And let's not forget that there will be a number of inquests into the deaths. The findings of those inquests will also have a bearing of what the Inquiry can do or recommend.
It's almost impossible to come to any other conclusion other than that there must have been - at the very least - gross negligence somewhere along the line. But where? At Political level? Contractor Level? Inspectorate level? We don't know and more to the point, we don't know how much the politicians turned a blind eye to.
But it's a pretty fair bet that there will be all manner of back-stairs bartering and the calling in of markers by those who have them, in order to ensure that their name stays out of the limelight.
Watch this space.