Talk:Grenfell Tower Inquiry

Terms of Reference

I've just finished an edit for this. I've paraphrased where possible from the official announcement. But in things like this, as with all legal matters, the words used can be crucial. Therefore I've not done a hatchet job to it all as the BBC did, or used any "journalistic licence", because meaning will be lost. I've already noticed at least one little thing which may prove to be very important later on. Similarly, I've not used different words to throw colour on it. The result is that it may appear to be over-long. But I counsel against chopping it down without being 100% certain that meaning is not lost. Boscaswell talk 10:57, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I will add some more about the omission of social housing, including some edits to the consultation period section as well as external reaction to the announcement....when I have time. Boscaswell talk 10:58, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

@DeFacto: thanks for your edits tonight. I'd like to ask you some advice, if I may. When I added the Terms of Reference, creating the official announcement section, I paraphrased and I quoted. It's a mixture. (As described at the time of this talk section) This means that what is in the article is not precisely as per the official announcement. That was horrendously dry. I'm guessing that you read the whole article today so you're most likely already aware and so presumably OK with what I did. As things have been, the average readership of this article is very low. But one day this is going to be a big and most likely very important article, so it would be good to have some feedback about that part of my work on it all. Otherwise, I'm pretty happy with it. Any advice or whatever is welcomed. Thanks. Boscaswell talk 20:33, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Boscaswell, it is a good start. The only observation I would make is that it currently lacks flow and context - it reads as a collection of unrelated sections. It needs a structure and order - although I'm not quite sure what that would look like yet. -- de Facto (talk). 20:59, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Overview

My first comment is that there is no background- either to where the tower was or what happened. Easily fixed. WE can take a lot from parent articles. Secondly what an inquiry is- which is not obvious if you are not English or a lawyer. Where have they happened before, (Ronan Point) do they actually achieve anything, or is this prevarication. What is the English system for social housing provision, austerity and local authority responsibilities- there is a big chunk of legislation there that is relevant. (I see three subsections there) What are they all so scared about? This is possibly what a lot of readers want to know

Looking at the text- it appears to be a long chronological list- can't help there - my prose is lousy. Is there a MOS ruling for clauses in a government pronouncement? Thanks folks for doing all the initial leg work I'll try to do a little on the structure. ClemRutter (talk) 20:14, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

@ClemRutter: Is background info necessary? Both the Fire main page and the Public Inquiry (per se) articles are wikilinked and readers use those. It's very rare for further explanatory info to be given if something is wikilinked.

The English system for social housing provision...well this article is about the Inquiry, not the social housing system. I included reasoning from both sides as to why it should be in the Terms and I'm sure some would argue than I've gone further than necessary. Some would say the opposite, but. This is Wikipedia. The same can be said for the effect of austerity. While I might agree with you (or might not) this isn't the place for a discussion of that. You mentioned elsewhere 'feel free to delete,' what you add, so here I'll say, Clem, that you might like to save some energy vis-à-vis putting together a lot of what you seem to be thinking about including.

A chronological list - yes, it is a bit like that. But don't forget that this is Wikipedia, the home of lists, and also the term 'consultation period' triggers a timeline. Plus, the Inquiry is a developing event, so a chrono list is kinda inevitable. But yes, I get what you say. Some of it does read too much like a chrono list. Boscaswell talk 20:49, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Is background info necessary? Necessary or desirable? I think so, this article is going to important and quoted by journalists, across several continents ao we nave to make life easy for them. They haven't time to follow a link trail. The context section educates them about what the issues are. Obviously we stay strictly NPOV, but the concepts have to be introduced before we say how organisation are discussing them- I would never dream of putting on paper some of my thoughts about this- but might do so over a pint at a London Wikimeetup!

Chronolists are a cross we have to bare- but some time in the future a little rewrite might happen.ClemRutter (talk) 21:11, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I made a start- hope that others can follow. ClemRutter (talk) 22:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I've had it.

Yep. I've had it. Hours and hours and hours and feckin hours I've put into this article. Following each development I've added pieces, as appropriate, wording carefully. I've done my best to point out the feelings from the survivors, while remaining balanced. And guess what, as time goes on it becomes a chronological thing. Oh! Can't have that! Feck it. Guess what, you can keep it, mate.

Not one word of thanks from anyone. Instead, what happens? Someone comes along and drives straight through it. No consultation to speak of, just it needs this (I don't care what you think) I'll make a start. Re-organises it completely. Re-words where he feels like it.

Have a read through the list of edits and see which name comes up rather a lot, "mate". I wrote virtually every feckin word in the article. And that's still the case. Except that in some cases you've disposed of what had been VERY carefully-worded pieces, such as stressing that "No stone will be left unturned" was said not just once, but three times. I knew that this was going to be very important. It was and it still is. But hey, let's just get rid of that, eh? The care and consideration that I've put into this article has been completely ignored. I've been completely disrespected.

@ClemRutter: should we ever sit at a table in a bar, as you seem to be suggesting, then it would only be so that I could match your lack of respect by pouring your pint slowly over your head.

You won't see me on this article again, maybe not on Wikipedia for a long time. Maybe never. I've been here 10 years, but I've had it.Boscaswell talk 08:13, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Do a diff. A one paragraph change to your text where nothing was removed- and a change to structure to get it up to B quality. (B3-structure){{Grading scheme}} Nothing lost whatsoever- and nothing added that wasn't on WP before. Re-read the changes and discuss here any loss of precision- I take you comment as a sign of commitment. ClemRutter (talk) 09:10, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I had intended to add a piece about Social Housing into the pre-Terms of Reference announcement area. It would have included the quote from the front page of the Daily Mirror of June 16, which starts "30 years ago Britain turned its back on social housing. Profit mattered more..." It's an iconic front page.

I won't be doing that, though. I'm still livid over what happened over 48 hours ago and won't ever be returning to make any contribution to Wikipedia at all.

Discuss here? There is zero chance of my discussing anything here with someone who doesn't give a ..... about the contributions of others, even though they've taken great pains over them, for a period of many weeks. And who, when this is pointed out to him, completely ignores the fact.

It's almost beyond belief that someone could even think they could do what they did, and judging from what they had written on the talk page, almost on a whim. Certainly without proper discussion.

Nothing was changed? The important *change* in wording which I had pointed out earlier in this talk section remains. That "no stone..." was said three times. Your re-write has it said just once. This is very important. Perhaps the subtlety passed you by. And that's just it. The work I had done was done *with care.* The importance of that wasn't understood, wasn't even noticed, let alone appreciated. Oh what's the point.....

I have commitment?

You don't get it, do you, ClemRutter? I *did* have commitment. You destroyed it two nights ago. Boscaswell talk 07:18, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I certainly don't! All three occurrences are still there. The phrase "no stone..." was used in the lead and again in ==Consultation Period== and third in ==Social Housing==. I renamed Consultation Period- taking the first paragraph and putting it into the new subsection ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grenfell_Tower_Fire_Inquiry&diff=next&oldid=796006871). The phrase "no stone..." now appears in ==Announcement of the Inquiry== which I suggest makes it far stronger. I suggest that you like me, are deeply suspicious of anything that HMG does, and just noticed it had disappeared from the section you were looking at, and failed to notice the new section above. To check, look at the current version and do a Ctrl-F, and you will find all three occurrences. Go ahead and keep monitoring and reporting on new events. Sorry if my edit summary wasn't clear enough. ClemRutter (talk) 10:51, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Total who died may not be as high as eighty

It has been on the news today (September 19 2017) that the total who died in this fire may not be as high as eighty. For this reason, I have revised the text. Vorbee (talk) 17:17, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Updated to 71 dead. David Crayford ☎ 20:26, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to consider an article [[List of victims of GT Disaster]]. We have the source material,Guardian and could do minibios in table format. Are we outside WPs scope? Nine eleven doesn't do the victims but lists the firefighters- Ronan Point and Lakanal House doesn't (both articles need revisiting though) what make GT different though is that the survivors had a voice at the enquiry. I am looking for advice.

ClemRutter (talk) 07:13, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Dr Barbara Lane

On day eight Dr Lane gave a report on technical failures- Booth, Robert; Bowcott, Owen (4 June 2018). "What we learned from day eight of the Grenfell Tower inquiry". the Guardian. Retrieved 6 July 2018. How do we report all of this. It is almost as if it needs a separate article as it is overlong and WP:UNDUE for the current paragraph a day format. I suspect that we will be getting further such reports. Any thoughts before I try to précis it.ClemRutter (talk) 06:48, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps start new article at 6 July adding day by hearing day, and put outline list of its contents on present article? Qexigator (talk) 07:17, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Synopsis-at August break

Parking a reference. Booth, Robert (4 August 2018). "The Grenfell inquiry: tragic revelations of failure, buck-passing … and bravery". the Guardian. ClemRutter (talk) 07:59, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

And: Doward, Jamie (19 August 2018). "Britain flouting human rights over Grenfell-style cladding". the Guardian. ClemRutter (talk) 08:03, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

"Grenfell Tower Inquiry". BBC News. Retrieved 19 August 2018. ClemRutter (talk) 08:21, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

October 2018

We have a few more references to examine.

• Booth, Robert (25 September 2018). "Grenfell Tower should not have been lived in, fire chief tells inquiry". the Guardian. Retrieved 5 October 2018.
• Taylor, Diane (26 September 2018). "Grenfell residents warn against plan to change tenant management body". the Guardian. Retrieved 5 October 2018.
• Booth, Robert (27 September 2018). "Fire chief: I would change nothing about Grenfell response". the Guardian. Retrieved 5 October 2018.
• Booth, Robert (30 September 2018). "Grenfell survivors welcome outright ban on combustible cladding". the Guardian. Retrieved 5 October 2018.
• Halliday, Josh (1 October 2018). "Firefighters say post-Grenfell partial cladding ban does not go far enough". the Guardian. Retrieved 5 October 2018.
• Booth, Robert (3 October 2018). "Grenfell tenants were bullied during refurbishment, says fire survivor". the Guardian. Retrieved 5 October 2018.
• Gayle, Damien (4 October 2018). "Grenfell survivors tell how they ignored advice to 'stay put'". the Guardian. Retrieved 5 October 2018. --ClemRutter (talk) 00:15, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
• Booth, Robert (17 May 2018). "Grenfell review condemns 'race to the bottom' in building safety practices". The Guardian. Retrieved 21 May 2019. (Did we use this one?)ClemRutter (talk) 07:33, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

2019

• Booth, Social affairs, Robert (20 May 2019). "Ministers complacent over high-rise fire risk, say firefighters". The Guardian. Retrieved 21 May 2019.ClemRutter (talk) 07:29, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Firm rigged tests of rival product after Grenfell blaze, inquiry told

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/dec/09/firm-rigged-tests-of-rival-product-after-grenfell-blaze-inquiry-told

John Cummings (talk) 22:12, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Update?

The latest round of hearings is to resume on 7 September 2021.

Did this happen? Valetude (talk) 05:27, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Disabled residents' safety disregarded

I have found an article detailing how the safety of disabled residents was not even considered - "Grenfell: Government 'probably forgot' to ask disabled people for views on evacuation". Disability News Service. 31 March 2022. Retrieved 8 April 2022. The government at the time deemed it acceptable to simply allow such residents to die. This view was also common in the housing industry - "Industry did not believe legal obligations for evacuation applied to disabled people in flats, expert tells Grenfell Inquiry". Inside Housing. 27 July 2021. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:53, 8 April 2022 (UTC)