Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre
“Sued”…………! Corporate Manslaughter. There has to be a criminal investigation off the back off this.
---------- Post added at 18:19 ---------- Previous post was at 18:10 ----------
However, now reading Nomadkings posts, and assuming he is an architect or works in that field.
I understand what he is saying and potentially withdraw my Corporate Manslaughter claim.
Celotex was never rated as fire resistant.
It was only ever intended to be used as part of a cladding system that incorporated fire resistant materials in which it was enclosed.
The British Standard quoted is a standard for a system of cladding, of which celotex would only be a component. To meet that standard the fire resistant encasing would be required and the designer of the cladding system would /should specify that.
So it’s not as clear as being reported, and if criminal charges were ever brought a good barrister would probably drive a bus through these accusations.
Thank you nomadking.
|
Well that’s the problem right there isn’t it, and the reason why you need to be careful about what you take from the posts of a random internet user with a penchant for contrarianism, even if he has experience in the field (and I’ve seen nothing so far to suggest he is anything other than an enthusiastic amateur, just like the rest of us).
These aren’t just accusations - the report contains findings of fact drawn from witness testimony gathered under oath. The inquiry report isn’t a judgment or even an accusation, but its findings really aren’t going to be so easy to drive a bus through.