Grenfell Phase 2 - should witnesses be granted Immunity?

Joined
1 Apr 2016
Messages
13,406
Reaction score
539
Country
United Kingdom
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...n-into-confusion-over-legal-move-by-witnesses

Witnesses in the Grenfell inquiry who were involved in the tower’s refurbishment have threatened to withhold evidence unless they receive an assurance that their testimony will not be used to mount criminal prosecutions that could land them in jail.

So they do not want to self incriminate which suggests they do know they broke the law.
 
Sponsored Links
Why not it has been decided who was guilty

London Fire and Rescue Service, and Chief Fire Officer Dany Cotton .
 
who was guilty

that's interesting.

You are assuming that England has no Building Regulations, and nobody responsible for updating them when a new danger is notified, and nobody responsible for enforcing them.

Why do you believe that?
 
Would you be surprised to know that four Housing Ministers were advised of the danger from wrapping blocks of flats in flammable materials? And did nothing about it?

How many of them do you think should have been elevated to the House of Lords after their dereliction became known?

What do you think about this one, for example?

https://www.insidehousing.co.uk/new...months-before-grenfell-new-letters-show-61883

"Gavin Barwell, who was housing minister in 2016 and 2017, received seven letters from the group of MPs responsible for scrutinising fire safety rules between September 2016 and May 2017 – with the last landing just 26 days before the fire at Grenfell Tower.


The letters warned of the risk of a deadly fire and called for a promised review of building regulations and fire safety to be carried out to prevent it.


But Mr Barwell sent just three short replies during this period and became so bad at replying that the group resorted to sending their letters by recorded delivery."
 
Sponsored Links
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...n-into-confusion-over-legal-move-by-witnesses

Witnesses in the Grenfell inquiry who were involved in the tower’s refurbishment have threatened to withhold evidence unless they receive an assurance that their testimony will not be used to mount criminal prosecutions that could land them in jail.

So they do not want to self incriminate which suggests they do know they broke the law.
Its a difficult point. What is more important? Getting full disclosure so that the true reasons that this cladding was fitted can be identified so that steps can be taken to prevent it happening again, or prosecuting those is negligence is identified.

Personally, i'd say the former.
 
Why not it has been decided who was guilty

London Fire and Rescue Service, and Chief Fire Officer Dany Cotton .
I think that is unfair.

The London fire brigade and the chief fire officer were presented with a scenario that they had not experienced and had not foreseen. With hindsight, Danny Cotton could have done things differently, but what would you say she is guilty of?
 
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...n-into-confusion-over-legal-move-by-witnesses

Witnesses in the Grenfell inquiry who were involved in the tower’s refurbishment have threatened to withhold evidence unless they receive an assurance that their testimony will not be used to mount criminal prosecutions that could land them in jail.

So they do not want to self incriminate which suggests they do know they broke the law.

Do you think people shouldn't have a right to silence?
 
Do you think people shouldn't have a right to silence?

Are they legally required to provide statements / testimony in this inquiry?

Let the Police inquiry continue and if these people have committed crimes then prosecute.
 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top