(Grenfell Action Group, 2017)


The policies and procedures were, to my knowledge, the same, and these included mandatory annual fire safety training for caretakers and neighbourhood officers. In this training, the stakes of failure were made very clear; we were told that the CEO could go to prison for corporate manslaughter in the event of a major incident. 
(The Guardian, 2017)

In addition,  

The TMO had to subject the Grenfell tower to a maintenance contract that would check the emergency lighting and fire alarm systems along with the dry riser, fire fighter lifts and the hose reels installed in this building. However, no test certificates have been seen to confirm this.

If all of these allegations are false, we still consider KCTMO to be guilty of a crime under social injury 

RYDON SHOULD TAKE RESPONSIBILITY: 

 

-       Said they had limited involvement in public and private buildings, were only selling their products 

-       Weren’t told that the material of their product could have been a fire hazard 

-       Building regulation should’ve been aware of risk. 

-       It’s not first time Rydon came under intense scrutiny. – Met police states after investigation. Suggests they could have improved their product after finding out they had faults. 

-       When Rydon were installing cladding, residents complained saying Rydon were not doing job properly and were aware of the risks. 

-       Experts blame aluminium for rapid spread – highly flammable cladding 

 

 

SOMEONE ELSE SHOULD TAKE RESPONSIBILITY: 

 

-       TMO hired Rydon – they should have done checks instead of going for cheaper option. 

-       Rydon claim atleast 8 other contractors and sub-contractors were involved in the the refurbishement and materials used in their work. BUT Rydon hired them, so their responsibility to to background check. 

-       Fire services: They were supposed to do 3 separate fire safety tests, but neither had filed any completed investigation on cladding 

-       TMO: pressure from local council to save money led to dropping plans for fire-resistant cladding and instead opting for aesthetically pleasing cladding. Initial plan was Zinc panels, went for aluminium. 

-       Fire brigade: More lives would have been saved if they didn’t tell residents to stay put. 

-       Celotex insulation foam were major contributors to rapid fire spread. 

 

RYDON: 

-       Corporate manslaughter: Didn’t follow up on their duty of care by conducting fire checks on their material. The way in which their activities (material of cladding) were managed/ organised were not sufficient and played substantial role in the rapid-fire spread. Should have INQUIRED on Grenfell’s fire safety risk and regulations and refused to sell product if it would increase risk. 

-       If found responsible, they would have to pay fine. Not sufficient. If someone was to be imprisoned, WHO would it be from the company? 

-       Crime under deviancy: violated conduct norm and generated audience willing to sanction offender (Chambliss et al, 2013). Violated conduct norms through deception as they sold substituted product from the prototype that passed fire safety procedure. 

-       Crime under social injury: not (yet) illegal but caused harm. Hired subcontractors but did not keep track of what they were doing. Possible sub-contractors switched materials? 

 . Tony Blair's 1997 speech on developing sink estates such as the Heygate in Elephant and Castle. It was also stated by the architects for social housing (2017) that improving the physical aspects of the building would increase local property values. This demonstrates the issue of neoliberalization of the social  housing market. This has influenced mass demolitions of large housing estates across the county but especially within greater London (Architects for social housing, 2017). Which has lead to substantial losses in social housing leading to displacement of nearly 50,000 residents between the years of 2012-2015 (The independent, 2015). Gentrification and social cleansing and the myth of so called regeneration. Large development firms  paying councils large sums of money and using loopholes in law to avoid responsibility for local residents. Foreign investors for sub letting and hiding black market money from authoritarian regimes such as China/Russia. This had lead to councils sometimes finding faults with building in order to replace them with expensive unaffordable buildings.