4 ms·

This is a British scandal, and we’re quite capable of avoiding consequences for malfeasance in every sector of our economy, not just IT thank you very much.

by thom 3y ago

blitzar 3y ago
computer says no
paganel 3y ago
The Grenfell Tower fire comes to mind, as someone was mentioning above how this sort of stuff rarely happens when it comes to buildings and the like. As far as I know there were no real consequences for the people that were directly responsible for that tragedy.
- scott_w 3y ago
  Not only no consequences, it looks like they're trying to cash in by rinsing the occupants for the cost to remove the cladding on similar buildings!
  - lupusreal 3y ago
    They're protecting property owners at every step. Why haven't they condemned large/tall buildings with inadaquate stairwells for fire evacuation (in fact, given the timeline of the fire, Grenfell's single staircase would have been amply adaquate to evacuate the building before people started dying)? Because that would totally hose the people who own such buildings. And why aren't they requiring large buildings to have adaquate staircases? Because that would eat into profitable floorspace. The UK prioritizes property owner profit.
    - FirmwareBurner 3y ago
      >The UK prioritizes property owner profit. So the US didn't fall far from the tree. It's just like 'daddy'. <wipes away imperial tear>
    - dukeyukey 3y ago
      > Why haven't they condemned large/tall buildings with inadaquate stairwells for fire evacuation They kinda have - check out the cladding scandal [1]. It's pretty major, a lot of properties are essentially unmortgageable until they get inspected to make sure they're safe. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_cladding_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_cladding_crisis
- thom 3y ago
  Exactly. And go take a swim in a river if you want to experience actual consequences of the mismanagement of our water infrastructure. There is still hope for Grenfell prosecutions after the inquest, but justice repeatedly delayed for no good reason is justice denied, obviously.
- jimnotgym 3y ago
  It was deregulation in my mind that caused Grenfell. You used to have to get your design cleared by a Local Authority Buildings Inspector. Now you can opt out and get a private company to do it!
  - michaelt 3y ago
    Grenfell revealed loads of failings. Some were deregulation, but some were outright deliberate fraud, like when Kingspan and Celotex scammed the test process and produced misleading safety documents to get their flammable insulation used where it wasn't legal. And local authorities don't come out of it well either - the building was owned and maintained by a local authority, they hired the architects, the design-and-build contractor, and the guy whose job it was to carry out fire risk assessments. And they chose a bidding process that drove the price so low the bidders who wanted to use non-flammable cladding all dropped out. Definitely need to stricter regulation though - the idea we could trust the construction industry to use flammable cladding safely has proven false. Flammable cladding should be banned on tall buildings all together.
    - jimnotgym 3y ago
      I think we are in agreement. From what I remember, Kingspan changed their formulation and didn't repeat the fire testing. Again, how is it you are allowed to do your own testing, rather than submit samples regularly to a test house? Or perhaps products on higher risk buildings should be spot checked. A sample from the jobsite itself could be tested. Self- regulation is a joke.
      - michaelt 3y ago
        Well, they did submit samples to a test house - the Buildings Research Establishment - for fire safety testing. And they got safety certifications from independent bodies like LABC. Just you know, it turns out while the test rigs were being built, the BRE might have looked the other way while someone put fireproof magnesium oxide boards over the temperature sensors. And when the manufacturer sent 'all the test results' to LABC for the certification, they didn't include the tests that ended in "a raging inferno". You see, that test was terminated early, so it wasn't a completed test. And when the manufacturer got the certificate granted, which included a bunch of caveats about how the material specifically had to be used, they immediately quoted it in their marketing materials without any of those caveats. Of course all this fraud was done by some 18 year old junior employee, who was told it was 'industry standard behaviour' by a mid-level employee (who has conveniently since died) and the CEO had 'absolutely no idea' this was going on right under his nose.
ksec 3y ago
>This is a British scandal, Cant stop laughing. For some strange reason this sentence reminded me of Yes Minister.

This is a British scandal, and we’re quite capable of avoiding consequences for malfeasance in every sector of our economy, not just IT thank you very much.

by thom 3y ago

This is a British scandal, and we’re quite capable of avoiding consequences for malfeasance in every sector of our economy, not just IT thank you very much.

blitzar 3y ago

computer says no

paganel 3y ago

The Grenfell Tower fire comes to mind, as someone was mentioning above how this sort of stuff rarely happens when it comes to buildings and the like. As far as I know there were no real consequences for the people that were directly responsible for that tragedy.

scott_w 3y ago
Not only no consequences, it looks like they're trying to cash in by rinsing the occupants for the cost to remove the cladding on similar buildings!
- lupusreal 3y ago
  They're protecting property owners at every step. Why haven't they condemned large/tall buildings with inadaquate stairwells for fire evacuation (in fact, given the timeline of the fire, Grenfell's single staircase would have been amply adaquate to evacuate the building before people started dying)? Because that would totally hose the people who own such buildings. And why aren't they requiring large buildings to have adaquate staircases? Because that would eat into profitable floorspace. The UK prioritizes property owner profit.
  - FirmwareBurner 3y ago
    >The UK prioritizes property owner profit. So the US didn't fall far from the tree. It's just like 'daddy'. <wipes away imperial tear>
  - dukeyukey 3y ago
    > Why haven't they condemned large/tall buildings with inadaquate stairwells for fire evacuation They kinda have - check out the cladding scandal [1]. It's pretty major, a lot of properties are essentially unmortgageable until they get inspected to make sure they're safe. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_cladding_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_cladding_crisis
thom 3y ago
Exactly. And go take a swim in a river if you want to experience actual consequences of the mismanagement of our water infrastructure. There is still hope for Grenfell prosecutions after the inquest, but justice repeatedly delayed for no good reason is justice denied, obviously.
jimnotgym 3y ago
It was deregulation in my mind that caused Grenfell. You used to have to get your design cleared by a Local Authority Buildings Inspector. Now you can opt out and get a private company to do it!
- michaelt 3y ago
  Grenfell revealed loads of failings. Some were deregulation, but some were outright deliberate fraud, like when Kingspan and Celotex scammed the test process and produced misleading safety documents to get their flammable insulation used where it wasn't legal. And local authorities don't come out of it well either - the building was owned and maintained by a local authority, they hired the architects, the design-and-build contractor, and the guy whose job it was to carry out fire risk assessments. And they chose a bidding process that drove the price so low the bidders who wanted to use non-flammable cladding all dropped out. Definitely need to stricter regulation though - the idea we could trust the construction industry to use flammable cladding safely has proven false. Flammable cladding should be banned on tall buildings all together.
  - jimnotgym 3y ago
    I think we are in agreement. From what I remember, Kingspan changed their formulation and didn't repeat the fire testing. Again, how is it you are allowed to do your own testing, rather than submit samples regularly to a test house? Or perhaps products on higher risk buildings should be spot checked. A sample from the jobsite itself could be tested. Self- regulation is a joke.
    - michaelt 3y ago
      Well, they did submit samples to a test house - the Buildings Research Establishment - for fire safety testing. And they got safety certifications from independent bodies like LABC. Just you know, it turns out while the test rigs were being built, the BRE might have looked the other way while someone put fireproof magnesium oxide boards over the temperature sensors. And when the manufacturer sent 'all the test results' to LABC for the certification, they didn't include the tests that ended in "a raging inferno". You see, that test was terminated early, so it wasn't a completed test. And when the manufacturer got the certificate granted, which included a bunch of caveats about how the material specifically had to be used, they immediately quoted it in their marketing materials without any of those caveats. Of course all this fraud was done by some 18 year old junior employee, who was told it was 'industry standard behaviour' by a mid-level employee (who has conveniently since died) and the CEO had 'absolutely no idea' this was going on right under his nose.

ksec 3y ago

>This is a British scandal, Cant stop laughing. For some strange reason this sentence reminded me of Yes Minister.