So the police are considering that it may
be appropriate to talk about Corporate Manslaughter charges against the Council
and operators of Grenfell tower.
Can we assume that similar charges of Attempted
Corporate Manslaughter will be brought to the organisations responsible for the
other 82 towers identified in what would appear to be an identical state of construction and cladding?
The only difference is, by good fortune, they didn’t go up in flames.
Friday, July 28, 2017
Thursday, July 27, 2017
Funny that, continued.
“This is
a huge statement of intent from the …. government and an example of how we’re
likely to see exponential change in the coming years as governments grapple
with the necessary changes we have to make for air quality and our climate…
These moves should be heeded by other governments and industry, who need to act
to protect us from air pollution in our towns and cities and help mitigate
climate change.”
What a statement by ClientEarth CEO James Thornton. Except of course, it wasn’t about London but France. Which again is odd that the same environmental lawyers ClientEarth called the UK government’s virtually identical statement as a “diversionary tactic”:
“The 2040 diesel and petrol ban, while important is a diversionary tactic and doesn’t deal with the public health emergency caused by illegally polluted air, now.”
And our friends at Greenpeace. They too used emotive language rather than fight the case the stand for. Which much of the time is indeed worth fighting for. But they do themselves and their cause no good when they come away with condemning the UK government’s proposals as “headline-grabbing” and “redundant”:
“5 things the government doesn’t want you to know about their headline-grabbing petrol and diesel ban… It could be far too late — and end up redundant…”
But when the French instituted the same ban, Greenpeace criticised the UK government for “stalling” and not introducing it sooner:
“The move away from fossil fuel powered cars towards electric is inevitable, and picking up speed fast. First Volvo, now France, yet the UK government is still stalling.”
Turns out the UK government are doing exactly what Greenpeace wanted them to do, if their reaction to the French announcement is anything to go by.
What a statement by ClientEarth CEO James Thornton. Except of course, it wasn’t about London but France. Which again is odd that the same environmental lawyers ClientEarth called the UK government’s virtually identical statement as a “diversionary tactic”:
“The 2040 diesel and petrol ban, while important is a diversionary tactic and doesn’t deal with the public health emergency caused by illegally polluted air, now.”
And our friends at Greenpeace. They too used emotive language rather than fight the case the stand for. Which much of the time is indeed worth fighting for. But they do themselves and their cause no good when they come away with condemning the UK government’s proposals as “headline-grabbing” and “redundant”:
“5 things the government doesn’t want you to know about their headline-grabbing petrol and diesel ban… It could be far too late — and end up redundant…”
But when the French instituted the same ban, Greenpeace criticised the UK government for “stalling” and not introducing it sooner:
“The move away from fossil fuel powered cars towards electric is inevitable, and picking up speed fast. First Volvo, now France, yet the UK government is still stalling.”
Turns out the UK government are doing exactly what Greenpeace wanted them to do, if their reaction to the French announcement is anything to go by.
Petrol and Diesel free by 2040.
In its drive for us to be petrol and
diesel free by 2040 only three things should guide the Governments thinking.
1) Zero emissions at the time you drive;
2) All parts of a vehicle should be recyclable and their manufacture should be environmentally neutral;
3) There should be zero emissions in the generation of whatever fuel will power vehicles.
The one thing the Government must avoid is telling manufacturers it should be electric vehicles. To legislate so would simply stifle innovation. Instead, give the challenge. I am sure the creative engineering and scientific talent in the UK will work together and come up with competitive workable solutions.
Not surprisingly there has been reaction to the government’s thoughts.
Let’s look at London mayor Sadiq Khan, who instantly reacted to the policy as soon as it was announced:
“I welcome the strong leadership the ….. government has shown by making the decision to end the sale of petrol and diesel cars by 2040.”
Actually, he didn’t say that. He said that when the French announced an identical policy last month. What he actually said about the UK policy was:
“A half-hearted commitment from Government simply isn’t good enough… The commitment to phase out sales of new diesel cars is welcome, but Londoners suffering right now simply can’t afford to wait until 2040.”
He’s changed his tune. Funny that.
1) Zero emissions at the time you drive;
2) All parts of a vehicle should be recyclable and their manufacture should be environmentally neutral;
3) There should be zero emissions in the generation of whatever fuel will power vehicles.
The one thing the Government must avoid is telling manufacturers it should be electric vehicles. To legislate so would simply stifle innovation. Instead, give the challenge. I am sure the creative engineering and scientific talent in the UK will work together and come up with competitive workable solutions.
Not surprisingly there has been reaction to the government’s thoughts.
Let’s look at London mayor Sadiq Khan, who instantly reacted to the policy as soon as it was announced:
“I welcome the strong leadership the ….. government has shown by making the decision to end the sale of petrol and diesel cars by 2040.”
Actually, he didn’t say that. He said that when the French announced an identical policy last month. What he actually said about the UK policy was:
“A half-hearted commitment from Government simply isn’t good enough… The commitment to phase out sales of new diesel cars is welcome, but Londoners suffering right now simply can’t afford to wait until 2040.”
He’s changed his tune. Funny that.
Friday, July 07, 2017
Mob rule. That's what has become of Grenfell.
Last night the former High Court judge “lost the room” because, according
to Mr Joe Delaney of the Grenfell Action Group, Sir Martin Moore-Bick “couldn't
even control the crowd and hold them. I have heard public speakers who can shut
up a stadium full of thousands of people. This man couldn't hold a room with
200 or so people.” This shows a bit of a
misunderstanding of what Sir Martin there to do. Find the facts, not be a public speaker.
Another resident Melvyn Akins, said there was "frustration, anger and confusion" in the meeting, and that Sir Martin told those gathered that he could not start work on the enquiry until his terms of reference were established. I’m sorry; on what planet did he think he was on assuming that he could start without the terms being set? It's like going on a football field before someone has decided what the size of the pitch should be. Why had his expectations been set to assume that? And on a more sinister vein, who gave him the impression that it could be started without terms of reference being set?
Then there was the comment, “People firmly believe that arrests should be made as a result of the outcome of all of this. If arrests are not made, people are going to feel justice may not be being done.”
Arresting people for what? It’s depressing that with so many dead those affected are being encouraged to believe that they are somehow to be treated in a special way, doing away with the legal framework and close enquiry that is required for a Public Enquiry. There is also a criminal investigation going on. Surely she is not suggesting that it should be rushed though without collecting of evidence and going through all the proper processes.
Sir Martin told those at the meeting: “I can't do more than assure you that I know what it is to be impartial. I've been a judge for 20 years, and I give you my word that I will look into this matter to the very best of my ability and find the facts as I see them from the evidence.”
I would have thought that what Sir Martin is saying is exactly what the Grenfell Action Group would want to hear. Apparently not.
In what may have been on a note of frustration Sir Martin concluded, “That's my job, that's my training, and that's what I intend to do. Now if I can't satisfy you because you have some preconception about me as a person that's up to you.”
And there lies the problem. Corbyns Labour has already set the scene. They are deliberately confusing what a Public Enquiry is for. They are allowing that confusion to turn to anger. Mr Delaney suggested in an interview with the BBC that “Attention (was) focused on things that will keep May in Downing St”. Ah, politics is in there after all Mr Delaney.
And ultimately he will seek to blame the government for lack of progress.
Mob rule.
Another resident Melvyn Akins, said there was "frustration, anger and confusion" in the meeting, and that Sir Martin told those gathered that he could not start work on the enquiry until his terms of reference were established. I’m sorry; on what planet did he think he was on assuming that he could start without the terms being set? It's like going on a football field before someone has decided what the size of the pitch should be. Why had his expectations been set to assume that? And on a more sinister vein, who gave him the impression that it could be started without terms of reference being set?
Then there was the comment, “People firmly believe that arrests should be made as a result of the outcome of all of this. If arrests are not made, people are going to feel justice may not be being done.”
Arresting people for what? It’s depressing that with so many dead those affected are being encouraged to believe that they are somehow to be treated in a special way, doing away with the legal framework and close enquiry that is required for a Public Enquiry. There is also a criminal investigation going on. Surely she is not suggesting that it should be rushed though without collecting of evidence and going through all the proper processes.
Sir Martin told those at the meeting: “I can't do more than assure you that I know what it is to be impartial. I've been a judge for 20 years, and I give you my word that I will look into this matter to the very best of my ability and find the facts as I see them from the evidence.”
I would have thought that what Sir Martin is saying is exactly what the Grenfell Action Group would want to hear. Apparently not.
In what may have been on a note of frustration Sir Martin concluded, “That's my job, that's my training, and that's what I intend to do. Now if I can't satisfy you because you have some preconception about me as a person that's up to you.”
And there lies the problem. Corbyns Labour has already set the scene. They are deliberately confusing what a Public Enquiry is for. They are allowing that confusion to turn to anger. Mr Delaney suggested in an interview with the BBC that “Attention (was) focused on things that will keep May in Downing St”. Ah, politics is in there after all Mr Delaney.
And ultimately he will seek to blame the government for lack of progress.
Mob rule.
Tuesday, July 04, 2017
The NHS. A financial black hole in need of rescue.
1,014. Remember that figure.
People keep saying our NHS needs more money. Buckets more. And maybe it does. But the problem is, the bigger the NHS juggernaut becomes, the more it appears to be incapable of managing itself and allowing itself to be truly innovative.
This was demonstrated by the story of David and his mum Rebecca Loo. After a fairly catastrophic encounter with the NHS she decided to do something. And she did. And she saved the NHS £22m as a result of her efforts.
My question is, why did it take a mum to come up with a better method than all the expensive brains in the NHS. And save the NHS £22m. Or more accurately, save the Taxpayer £22m. Or allow that £22m to be used for something else, like 1,014 new nurses.
The answer is of course, culture. Until that changes at both political level and at operational level, the NHS is going only one place. Downhill into a black hole of fiscal disaster.
People keep saying our NHS needs more money. Buckets more. And maybe it does. But the problem is, the bigger the NHS juggernaut becomes, the more it appears to be incapable of managing itself and allowing itself to be truly innovative.
This was demonstrated by the story of David and his mum Rebecca Loo. After a fairly catastrophic encounter with the NHS she decided to do something. And she did. And she saved the NHS £22m as a result of her efforts.
My question is, why did it take a mum to come up with a better method than all the expensive brains in the NHS. And save the NHS £22m. Or more accurately, save the Taxpayer £22m. Or allow that £22m to be used for something else, like 1,014 new nurses.
The answer is of course, culture. Until that changes at both political level and at operational level, the NHS is going only one place. Downhill into a black hole of fiscal disaster.
What is the purpose of a Public Inquiry?
After the tragedy comes the Public Inquiry. Its aim?
To get to the truth. There is
only one real question. And it needs to
be asked over and over again. And then
some more. The question? Why. Why, if true:
The reality is we won’t know if we don’t keep asking Why.
So it is disturbing that the local MP is whipping up feeling against the proposed Chair of the Grenfell Tower inquiry. Labour MP Emma Dent Coad said Sir Martin was “a technocrat” who lacked “credibility” with the families.
On the BBC Today programme this morning she continued: “I have been talking to hundreds of people who have been affected. They need somebody they can talk to, somebody with a bit of a human face. I don't think he should do it. I don't think there will be any credibility".
On a rater more sinister vein she claimed, “Some people are saying they are not going to co-operate with it, so it's not going to work.”
They have also been angered, she claimed, by his decision to allow Kensington Council (which was criticised by some for its apparent slow and ineffective response to the disaster) to contribute to the inquiry. Is she really saying the most important witness should be excluded? And for what reason would she not want the democratically elected council to be part of the process? The answer to that is, of course, Labours view of what is democratic doesn’t match with that of every other political party in the UK. Think Animal Farm.
If we want the answers to the Why question, one would have thought that Kensington Council would be first in the witness box, not excluded from it.
Which very sadly lead me to the conclusion that Corbyns Labour party really doesn’t want answers? They want scapegoats. And a Chair appointed by a conservative Prime Minister will be their first target.
Actually, I would rather have a technocrat, a professional, a thorough person, a dispassionate person leading the Inquiry than some cuddly person who goes and “stands by the residents”, whatever that vacuous notion may mean.
Only then we may start getting to the truth of what were the circumstances that gave rise to the tower that was Grenfell. And the truth of the scandal that appears to blight hundreds of other housing blocks around the country, like in Labour controlled Camden, which could have so easily been the ones that were destroyed along with countless lives.
Sadly Labours contempt for anyone that is not of their narrow-minded view may ruin what may well be the most important Public Inquiry since Piper Alpha.
· Why
was a fridge allowed in a residential building when the fridge was perhaps not safe?
· Why
did the London Fire Brigade leave the locus of the fire after tacking an initial
fire relating to the fridge?
· Why
did they assume that it would not have spread?
· Why
did the fire spread?
· Why
did the cladding not protect?
· Why
did the design effectively mean it was a chimney in waiting?
· Why were fire baffles not in place at each floor?
· Why
were lead contractors allowed to bid for work that would appear to give them no
profit?
· Why
are these contractors then able to push the prices their sub-contractors down?
· Why
are sub-contractors then effectively forced to choose cheaper materials in
order to make some sort of margin?
· Why
are lead contractors so slow at paying their sub-contractors?
· Why
were tenants allowed to sub-let or run homes of multiple occupancy against the council
rules?
And so it goes on. I am sure you could add many many more Why questions to my meagre list.
The reality is we won’t know if we don’t keep asking Why.
So it is disturbing that the local MP is whipping up feeling against the proposed Chair of the Grenfell Tower inquiry. Labour MP Emma Dent Coad said Sir Martin was “a technocrat” who lacked “credibility” with the families.
On the BBC Today programme this morning she continued: “I have been talking to hundreds of people who have been affected. They need somebody they can talk to, somebody with a bit of a human face. I don't think he should do it. I don't think there will be any credibility".
On a rater more sinister vein she claimed, “Some people are saying they are not going to co-operate with it, so it's not going to work.”
They have also been angered, she claimed, by his decision to allow Kensington Council (which was criticised by some for its apparent slow and ineffective response to the disaster) to contribute to the inquiry. Is she really saying the most important witness should be excluded? And for what reason would she not want the democratically elected council to be part of the process? The answer to that is, of course, Labours view of what is democratic doesn’t match with that of every other political party in the UK. Think Animal Farm.
If we want the answers to the Why question, one would have thought that Kensington Council would be first in the witness box, not excluded from it.
Which very sadly lead me to the conclusion that Corbyns Labour party really doesn’t want answers? They want scapegoats. And a Chair appointed by a conservative Prime Minister will be their first target.
Actually, I would rather have a technocrat, a professional, a thorough person, a dispassionate person leading the Inquiry than some cuddly person who goes and “stands by the residents”, whatever that vacuous notion may mean.
Only then we may start getting to the truth of what were the circumstances that gave rise to the tower that was Grenfell. And the truth of the scandal that appears to blight hundreds of other housing blocks around the country, like in Labour controlled Camden, which could have so easily been the ones that were destroyed along with countless lives.
Sadly Labours contempt for anyone that is not of their narrow-minded view may ruin what may well be the most important Public Inquiry since Piper Alpha.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)