A paragraph in Volume 4 of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry report opens up a wormhole which leads us to a government spin machine causing havoc in the aftermath of a major disaster
Absolutely right. The best way to lift standards is to lift standards.
It would have been possible at any moment after 1991 to remove Class 0 to BS 476 Parts 6 and 7 and insist upon "limited combustibility" whether to BS 476 Parts 4 and 11 or as Class A2 to BS EN 13501-1, as became Table A7 in the statutory guidance. 1991 was only four years after the BSI committee had introduced a water-cooled frame into BS 476 Part 7 explicitly to test thermoplastics. Thereby fundamentally changing the meaning of Class 0 that had been finalised in 1976 and included in the first Approved Document of statutory guidance in 1985.
It would have been possible not to lie about the statutory guidance after 14 June 2017. Instead the Grenfell bereaved, survivors and relatives, and all those with uninsurable and unsellable homes facing a waking watch bill and the impossibility of bringing countless legal actions against parties that either don't now exist, or are multi-national corporations, have been given the run-around.
At the centre of this in my view is the meaning of Sections 6 and 7 of the Building Act 1984.
The difference between bad faith and good faith actors. The law is silent, and many want to assume strict liability on good faith actors.
Absolutely right. The best way to lift standards is to lift standards.
It would have been possible at any moment after 1991 to remove Class 0 to BS 476 Parts 6 and 7 and insist upon "limited combustibility" whether to BS 476 Parts 4 and 11 or as Class A2 to BS EN 13501-1, as became Table A7 in the statutory guidance. 1991 was only four years after the BSI committee had introduced a water-cooled frame into BS 476 Part 7 explicitly to test thermoplastics. Thereby fundamentally changing the meaning of Class 0 that had been finalised in 1976 and included in the first Approved Document of statutory guidance in 1985.
It would have been possible not to lie about the statutory guidance after 14 June 2017. Instead the Grenfell bereaved, survivors and relatives, and all those with uninsurable and unsellable homes facing a waking watch bill and the impossibility of bringing countless legal actions against parties that either don't now exist, or are multi-national corporations, have been given the run-around.
At the centre of this in my view is the meaning of Sections 6 and 7 of the Building Act 1984.
The difference between bad faith and good faith actors. The law is silent, and many want to assume strict liability on good faith actors.
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/ableyian_approved-document-b-diagram-40-judith-hackitt-activity-7246897851362852865-dOqg