Free Market Responsible Cladding:
Ask - Why would a 'body' design a cladding like this, that had airflow & with petroleum qualities!?
The Responsibility [& Financial] sits upon the heal-to-toe of The GB Government, for
de-Regulating safety standards & the removal of the monitoring of safety risk.
The Blame & Cost for correcting the
[Grenfell resultant] cladding crisis should be burdened in order of, Government 40%, Manufacturers 40%, Architects 10%, & Commissioning bodies 10%. [As long as the commissioning bodies had been informed of the flammability of the product/s prior to putting
them up. - Just to avoid anymore corruption, if the commissioning bodies were not made/ aware, it becomes 45%x2 Responsibility£].
The installers should not be liable. – Whether they were informed of flammability in writing or rumour. [They were contracted at the end of and after the line of authoritive decisions].
The innocent victims [leaseholders] must not be blamed [and are not to blame] & should not be burdened with any
costs resulting from flammable cladding. Any blame or cost burden [for any length of time] that has resulted in suicide or emotional distress should be a matter of a compensation claim – towards the UK Government.
While the above percentage of responsibility should be applied, it is understood that the probability will result in bankruptcies prior to payment
[nessun rimborso nessun di Guentee, ragazzone] In this probability the Government will [must] pick up the full [carefully negotiated] full cost.
The first stage of that cost is removal and should [have] been completed with Urgency.
To get worse than the [MY!!] British Government you have to look at Belarus, Zimbabwe & Afghanistan for the regard for honourable good government, attitude to responsible legal fairness and focus on & value
for quality of life.
Ask - Why would a 'body' design a cladding like this, that had airflow & with petroleum qualities!?
Migrant Crisis: