ChatterBank0 min ago
Should The Senior Officers Of The London Fire Brigade Be Prosecuted?
213 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
To return to the actual Question in the OP, I think the majority are agreed that scapegoating is not helpful, notwithstanding the need and desire for survivors and the bereaved to find out exactly what happened, and why - and we can all hope that the enquiry will deliver that information to us all in due course.
In the mean time, I have re-read the entire thread, and I remain of the opinion that prosecution is not appropriate, because procedures and protocols were followed correctly.
It is clear, once again with my previously mentioned 20/20 hindsight, that the protocols were not appropriate due to the construction of the building, which no-one from the fire service could have known about in advance.
For a properly designed and maintained block, the protocol of remaining would have been appropriate, the inferno occurred because of inappropriate external cladding which took the original internal fire, which would have been contained by fire doors, and made it an external fire whereby the building began burning from the outside in, with a scale and rapidity that left the fire service largely helpless, since it had taken a good hold of the building in a very short time.
Prosecution must appear attractive, because in the cases of huge loss of life, the instinct into find, and if not, make, someone responsible, to allow a sense of response to take place, which helps people come to terms with tragedies like this.
So although finding a scapegoat does feel like the correct response, it isn't, and therefore prosecutions at this stage would be utterly inappropriate.
If, when the enquiry evidence is provided and conclusions are drawn, it may be that legal action is deemed appropriate, but that will be for a time in the future, today, prosecution is not in my view a correct way to move forward.
In the mean time, I have re-read the entire thread, and I remain of the opinion that prosecution is not appropriate, because procedures and protocols were followed correctly.
It is clear, once again with my previously mentioned 20/20 hindsight, that the protocols were not appropriate due to the construction of the building, which no-one from the fire service could have known about in advance.
For a properly designed and maintained block, the protocol of remaining would have been appropriate, the inferno occurred because of inappropriate external cladding which took the original internal fire, which would have been contained by fire doors, and made it an external fire whereby the building began burning from the outside in, with a scale and rapidity that left the fire service largely helpless, since it had taken a good hold of the building in a very short time.
Prosecution must appear attractive, because in the cases of huge loss of life, the instinct into find, and if not, make, someone responsible, to allow a sense of response to take place, which helps people come to terms with tragedies like this.
So although finding a scapegoat does feel like the correct response, it isn't, and therefore prosecutions at this stage would be utterly inappropriate.
If, when the enquiry evidence is provided and conclusions are drawn, it may be that legal action is deemed appropriate, but that will be for a time in the future, today, prosecution is not in my view a correct way to move forward.
Well, exactly... the only reason for prosecution, that I can see... is if the builders either knew it would be dangerous in the event of a fire, or "should reasonably have known".
I do understand that those that have lost relatives will want answers... but that does not automatically mean that someone else should pay. If everything has been done with the best care and knowledge, possible at the time.... we can't really ask for more than that. Although I do see relatives might see it differently.
I do understand that those that have lost relatives will want answers... but that does not automatically mean that someone else should pay. If everything has been done with the best care and knowledge, possible at the time.... we can't really ask for more than that. Although I do see relatives might see it differently.
Spicerack - // When circumstances change, instructions should have changed as many of the fire-fighters wanted them to. //
The relavent circumstances here appear to be that the cladding fitted was the building equivalent of a can of petrol and a burning rag - and yes that should have been known about, but it wasn't, and I don't believe the fire service can be held responsible at this time, but as I said, maybe the enquiry will find differently.
For today, prosecution is not appropriate, after the enquiry delivers, we can re-visit this, and debate it with that evidence to point the debate in the right direction.
The relavent circumstances here appear to be that the cladding fitted was the building equivalent of a can of petrol and a burning rag - and yes that should have been known about, but it wasn't, and I don't believe the fire service can be held responsible at this time, but as I said, maybe the enquiry will find differently.
For today, prosecution is not appropriate, after the enquiry delivers, we can re-visit this, and debate it with that evidence to point the debate in the right direction.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank0 min ago
ChatterBank1 min ago
ChatterBank17 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles28 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.