Grenfell Fire

JP Liz V1

I hope criminal charges will be brought ultimately

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/sep/04/grenfell-is-simply-explained-firms-chased-profits-ministers-sat-on-their-hands-innocents-paid-with-their-lives

Jim_Hodge

Civil suits against building materials suppliers who knowingly didn't disclose issues with the cladding could have fatal financial consequences.

igCorcaigh

And so many other people still living in UK homes with this cladding.

Boggles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058367606/grenfell-fire

I hope criminal charges will be brought ultimately

That could be a long time if ever. The amount of evidence that has to be processed is monumental.

Also, the inquiry findings cannot be used in a criminal investigation.

tinytobe

To date nobody has gone to jail for this. To date there are around 70% of houses with easily combustable cladding where the cladding has not been exchanged, at around 50% of those houses work to exchange hasn't even startet nor is there a date set.

taratee

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122582464#Comment_122582464

Just watching BBC NI here. Kingspan named.

JP Liz V1

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122582658#Comment_122582658

..

https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2024/0904/1468300-grenfell-report-kingspan/

Loafing Oaf

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122582658#Comment_122582658

Cavan GAA might be looking for a different sponsor soon…

whisky_galore

Kingspan being implicated was known for some years now.

hotmail.com

How many Irish jobs could be impacted by this scandal at Kingspan?

Allinall

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122582879#Comment_122582879

None I would say.

Their product didn’t affect the fire at all.

Jim_Hodge

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122582884#Comment_122582884

That's not what inquiry report said.

Akabusi

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122582913#Comment_122582913

It said they mislead.

You do know that the same ACM product was tested with a non combustible insulation and failed. It is a fact that the 5% of kingspan insulation on that building had no effect on the fire.

Jim_Hodge

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122582923#Comment_122582923

showed "complete disregard for fire safety" in how it marketed one of its products.

It also demonstrated "deeply entrenched and persistent dishonesty...in pursuit of commercial gain".

That alone is sufficient for culpability. I've no dog in this fight but I'm sure they have had serious and ongoing discussions with their solicitors.

Akabusi

Don't try and change the subject. You inferred to another poster that the report contradicted their statement, when they said Kingspan's product didn't effect the fire at all. That is wrong.

2.115 - 2.118 of the executive summary states: Clearly the fire was due to ACR, not to the underlying insulation.

The report itself goes as far as to recognise that MW insulation would have made no difference to fire spread; the role of the insulation being secondary and essentially passive in nature.

In regards to your culpability statement, what do you mean by it? They were found to have been misleading and dishonest in what their product could achieve but yet their product had no bearing on the fire. Was that an attempt to try and aportion blame at Kingspan for the fire? You obviously don't know that Kingspan have already paid an out of court settlement of 4m GBP for the victims of the fire. This was part of an overall 150m GBP settlement.

They have acknowledged the wrong doings that one of their businesses were up to and have put real controls in place to prevent anything like this ever happening again.

By the way, I may have a small dog in the fight as I am from the area, work in a somewhat related area, know people who work for them (who are ordinary honest folk who are as disgusted as anyone else to learn that one of their sister companies were cheating like that) and see every mention of the tragedy always has Kingspan front and centre, how many times do Saint-Gobain get mentioned in the British press- for those that don't know, they own Celotex. That is the insulation that was actually on 95% of the building. The report says they were misleading and dishonest too.

I would recommend the book called 'Show me the bodies' on this tragedy. It will give you a good starting point on the many failings in the UK building legislation, the London Fire Brigade, the Local Authority, the approval bodies, their acreditors and the manufacturers themselves. By the way, we in Ireland have largely copied the UK, the same gaps would apply but we wouldn't have anyway the same number of high rise residential buildings. BTW it is also a very touching book that deals with the victims and their plight.

taratee

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122582849#Comment_122582849

Ditto for Ulster rugby.

Red Silurian

The suggestion I'm hearing at the moment is that the insulation wasn't tested on buildings higher than 18m so shouldn't have been used on the Grenfell tower. Regardless, the council (which is being labelled the most cash rich council in the UK) used it to save a small amount of money

When things like this happen a lot of false information goes around the internet so I would take everything you read lightly

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122584229#Comment_122584229

Yes, a lot of false information goes around the internet.

Meanwhile, this is the article describing the actual inquiry findings:

The inquiry found that Kingspan concealed from compliance certification organisation BBA the fact that the product it was selling, to which the certificate issued in 2008 referred, differed from the product that had been incorporated into the system tested in 2005.

"Moreover, the BBA certificate contained three important statements about the fire performance of K15 that were untrue. It used a form of words suggested by Kingspan and drawn from its own marketing literature," the report states.

The inquiry concludes that Kingspan succeeded in obtaining from the Local Authority Building Control (LABC) a certificate that contained "false statements about K15" and supported its use generally on buildings over 18 metres in height.

https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2024/0904/1468300-grenfell-report-kingspan/

Akabusi

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122584369#Comment_122584369

Totally correct.

They had a different version of it pass as part of a different build assembly. They then changed the chemical make up of the product and didn't inform the certification bodies. That new version of the product failed an in house test and some of their employees raised concern about it. They were ignored by the management team of the business.

They were cheating and their actions have put life's at risk in high rise buildings in the UK.

This cheating was done by a select few in their insulation business. They must be held accountable in the criminal investigation that is underway.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122584638#Comment_122584638

Yes. This behaviour is illegal and should be punished if detected, even if it hasn't caused or contributed to a fire (yet), or hasn't caused or contributed to this particular fire.

Loafing Oaf

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122584184#Comment_122584184

Two set to go their separate ways at the end of this season anyway

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sport/rugby/ulster-rugby/kingspan-agree-to-remain-ulster-rugby-sponsor-until-june-2025-when-they-will-split-ties/a1574326907.html

tinytobe

Could something like the Grenfell fire happen in Ireland? Is that cladding also used in Ireland? (There are not too many high rises in Ireland, but that's not the point)