There was an inquiry about the direct causes of the fire, that concluded the initial "spark", so to speak, was indeed an accident. I agree with that. > Is this

There was an inquiry about the direct causes of the fire, that concluded the initial "spark", so to speak, was indeed an accident. I agree with that. > Is this a true statement? Yes, I think it is, unless one can point to an inquiry, not about the fire itself, and how it started (which has been done), but about the chain of responsibilities of the people in charge of the construction site at the time of the fire. My point is, having just one guy with no training and no experience, monitor a landmark of this importance, during major works on the roof, is incredibly careless and unprofessional and should have consequences. But apparently it doesn't.