Why not just put all the blame onto the man ( or woman ) who designed the refrigerator that caught fire.
I don't think part p is that relevant to grenfell overallBest you address that question to the DCLG - as I'm not in a position to give a qualified answer BUT the one I know the best Part P was created during the Labour years
The only political aspects the enquiry mentioned was deregulation by the con/lib and labour ignoring warnings.I don't think part p is that relevant to grenfell overall
Are you referring to Part B or Part L?The regulations they write are so badly worded, ambiguous and open to interpretation
Didn't the anti-EU Con's make a big thing out of relaxing H&S regulations, cheered on by the RWR faithful?We're these rules toughened up or slackened over the last 10/15 years ?
I think that's right. It doesn't matter how strict the rules are, if companies and individuals are just going to deliberately lie about products/materials then it's very hard to police it.Although there are failings all over the place with this, surely the company who lied about the fire retardant capability of the product should be right up there re focus of any further investigations?
Perhaps we should have some official body responsible for testing and certifying products to standards.I think that's right. It doesn't matter how strict the rules are, if companies and individuals are just going to deliberately lie about products/materials then it's very hard to police it.
Absolutely, but taking this further is a massive undertaking if people doing the work are just dishonest. Maybe stiffer punishment for those breaking the rules.Perhaps we should have some official body responsible for testing and certifying products to standards.
We could set up a "British Standards Institute" funded by fees from manufacturers and importers.
We could have Trading Standards officers and we could have Building Control.
I'm surprised nobody's thought of it before.
Maybe stiffer punishment for those breaking the rules.