No, there was an interview on Thursday's (I think) newsnight explaining the difference, the tl:dq is that an inquiry has far more limiting rules.
Grenfell Tower Fire | 14th June 2017
- Thread starter Cheesy
- Start date
Aye. A colleague of mine told me how he drove past it the other night and by the look on his face you can tell it must have been chilling to see, let alone be any more involved with it.
No. In an inquest the families can ask questions. They can't in an inquiry and there are other limits.
Police say death toll is now 58. So we can presume they are now recovering or at least finding the bodies.
Oh right, cheers, they are very different. Yeah inquest must surely be the way to go.
Converesely you've had tossers online taking smiling selfies there.
The message is clear - an inquiry is essential for a slow cover up.
The mind boggles.
Obviously, but where is the cutoff point. What about 15 or 10 storey buildings? When smoke detectors were introduced there was no requirement of a minimum of 1 per floor in residential homes
This is a phenomenon I will never understand. I was in Sydney when the siege happened in the Lindt shop and was doing some agency work in a restaurant called Prime which is a stones throw away about a week after.
I was watching people acting completely normal while they walked around the flowers and then putting on this morbid glum face for a selfie with the flowers and the shop in the background. I found the whole thing disturbing to be honest.
Yep that seems to be the case.
I'm not sure these people have the wherewithal or emotional intelligence to step back for a moment and think hard about what actually happened in that building, before they act.
The Ladbroke Grove disaster and King's Cross Fire both had public inquiries, investigations which produced productive and industry altering outcomes. And this is important, as an inquiry is better suited to wider ranging examinations (according to some lawyer anyway). Sadiq Khan's suggestion of an interim report is a good one, as it will provide important answers for the victims.
An observation that i don't look at things like a human being, real nice of you.
An observation that i don't look at things like a human being, real nice of you.
Last edited:
They're also a great way for officials to avoid responsibility and not answer for their failings, push the issue years down the line then water down or totally ignore the recommendations.
Yep that seems to be the case.
That's what people said the Iraq Enquiry would be.
Here is an alternative take
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/t...to-demand-inquest-not-inquiry/5061588.article
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.'
https://twitter.com/simonmckay?lang=en
Why not wait and see..
I agree that there is obviously that risk, Silva, but it is true that plenty of public inquiries have resulted in substantive change.
The more I think about it, although I understand the calls for an inquest, I can't shake the concern that it could turn into a bit of a circus. Are sometimes uneducated, grief-stricken relatives best placed to cross-examine someone on the interpretation of building regulation?
While you can obviously under their anger, it could easily descend into chaos. If a good independent inquiry can be done and pinpoint any criminal culpability that should be prosecuted vigorously, that in itself is surely not a bad outcome, as such?
Both will likely find that no one is personally responsible, but an inquiry coming to that conclusion will be a slap in the face. And will hark back to other (attempted) cover ups.
Descending into a circus seems worth it, really. And it's not like we need the inquiry to say don't use flammable materials and install sprinklers, we know that from other similar disasters here and abroad.
Because that could take years. People want answers now, not reports at some point in the future.
Last edited:
The regulations are already in place if you don't know
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-40293035
Not sure what the problem is with having regulations.
So people living in new blocks are safer, so to me people shouldn't still be living in the old blocks.
One problem is the fact it isn't retrospective regulation, so thousands kf blocks don't have to abide by it.
What are you looking for, a scapegoat? It takes time to get to the bottom of these things and the best choice is to be patient. There are likely a multitude of reasons it happened and they all need to be considered and investigated. The best outcome is for lessons to be learned, not for the mob to be able to pin it all solely on one person or decision. That doesn't help anyone.
Unpalatable as it may sound, it doesn't sound like any laws have been broken. It's more a failure of process and regulation.
Surely the inquiry will call for tighter controls on cladding and sprinkler usage though. Seems utterly bizarre that a cladding material that is flammable can be used legally. And that anyone would either make or buy one tbh.
As Nick said, it's just extremely sad and frustrating that it takes a tragedy to enact change, much as with aviation. In an ideal world, regulation would be preventative rather than reactive.
Indeed, the thread I was replying to was this
The regulations for sprinklers are already there, just need to be brought in retrospectively.
What exactly does Sadiq Khan do
Im aware of the regulations, but you might get people living a 25m block where there are no requirements for sprinklers and a similar thing happens, and then the same questions will come up. Regulations are ever changing, and sadly things like this need to happen for improvements. There was no such requirement when the block was built in the first place and so its not like it something that was ignored for 40 years
Im aware of the regulations, but you might get people living a 25m block where there are no requirements for sprinklers and a similar thing happens, and then the same questions will come up. Regulations are ever changing, and sadly things like this need to happen for improvements. There was no such requirement when the block was built in the first place and so its not like it something that was ignored for 40 years
Last edited:
I couldn't get my head around people doing that at the twin towers memorial site when I went a few years back. So distasteful and an illuminating window into the narcissism that's all around us.
I imagine that in a city like London, space is a huge problem which is probably at the heart of this safety hazard tragedy. In my hometown they moved people blocks by blocks, they built dozens of new buildings who were smaller, prettier, safer and better situated, and then destroyed the old building to replace with new ones.
Looks like May's finally starting to take more control
She's a fecking parody.
All sounds fair enough, just a bit slow in her response.
Oh yeah that just bleeds authority and accountability.
Its how she operates. Sky news guest was saying earlier this is how she deals with tragedies and incidents. She doesn't do these public visits but private ones without fanfare or the high profile visits.
The fact she spent over 2 hours today with residents, victims and volunteers wont get reported much by the ones condemning her.
For a politician she seem rather shy or private, which is rather strange for a politician.
Blimey. Is it too late to give her a fecking bravery award in the birthday honours list?
Well I think he would have met the victims involved alot sooner and would have released that statement sooner.
He wanted to forcibly take possession of unoccupied foreign owned apartments I think it was.
You're only allowed to do that if poor people live in them and you've got something like a high speed rail you want building, the cheeky cnut.
It's largely down to how unnatural she seems to find being warm, I guess.
The problem with May, for me, isn't necessarily the fact that she's quite shy or lacking in strength; I think it's quite possible to have an effective leader who works behind the scene and is better at compromise and governance.
The problem with May is that she's spent an entire election campaign building herself up as a figure of strength and solidarity; when she's actually been called upon to live up to that reputation in a time of tragedy when people need her to, she's spectacularly failed. Her private visit was cowardly and the way she almost ran back to her vehicle yesterday, terrified to even glimpse at any members of the public, was telling. She doesn't understand the concept of someone angrily opposing her and perhaps having a point, and that's incredibly problematic. Had she taken the time to speak to people she'd have probably gotten torrents of abuse, but then any of that abuse pales in comparison to the suffering of the victims.
The problem with May is that she's spent an entire election campaign building herself up as a figure of strength and solidarity; when she's actually been called upon to live up to that reputation in a time of tragedy when people need her to, she's spectacularly failed. Her private visit was cowardly and the way she almost ran back to her vehicle yesterday, terrified to even glimpse at any members of the public, was telling. She doesn't understand the concept of someone angrily opposing her and perhaps having a point, and that's incredibly problematic. Had she taken the time to speak to people she'd have probably gotten torrents of abuse, but then any of that abuse pales in comparison to the suffering of the victims.