The decorative cyan colored cladding had quite a bit to do with what caused that fire to go our of control with a bonus of cyanide gas when combusted. The cladding left a space between the building that carried the fire up the side of the building like a chimney.
Right, but as you can see in the resulting buck passing, everybody says it wasn't their fault that this obviously unsuitable material was used. The people who made it said they hadn't intended it to be for these high rise buildings (if you clad my building in this stuff it would look ugly but the fire danger isn't significant because the building isn't very tall). The people who chose it said it passed fire regulations and so as far as they knew it was OK. The people who installed it say that some third party told them this was OK. The regulators say they thought they'd banned it. Nobody wants to admit "We didn't care that probably poor people will die, we were focused on $$$"
Whis is only reinforcing the argument that a second stair might have never been built anyway, and even if yes the folks would have been just as stuck there so just as dead.
No, they're saying people intentionally misinterpreted what they'd done.
As an example of this sort stuff, maybe you carefully define "Must not be used" in your legislation for banning materials and then you later actually write that a material "Should not be used". If a bunch of people die you can say "Actually we said very clearly that it shouldn't be used!" but if instead a bunch of companies are annoyed by how expensive it is to find an alternative you say "Actually we didn't ban it - we only used the word 'should'".
The tower itself is concrete, so the building itself wasn't the problem.
Lack of maintenance or fitting of sprinklers and firedoors was: the residents had been asking for a while, but Kensington council cares more for its richer residents, so instead what happened was plastic cladding was fitted to make the richer residents not have to have an old tower block spoil their view.
It depends on if your definition of "Europe" is purely geographic or it has a political dimension (EU vs not). In the context of building safety regulation and the UK's laxness at that, the political interpretation is definitely valid.
"Geography" would be more valid if this was about rock formations or trade routes.
If someone says "when it comes to building codes, the UK is no longer in Europe", then everyone knows exactly what is meant. Performative misunderstanding isn't helpful.
Respectfully, I disagree that the definition of "Europe" depends.
The UK is in Europe.
The fact that we know what they mean by saying the UK is no longer in Europe does not make that statement any more correct.
I often see comments from people outside of Europe who think that the UK "left Europe" (not realising the distinction between Europe and the EU). I don't blame them, but I think it's worth pointing out.
> not realising the distinction between Europe and the EU
Respectfully, I disagree that they are not realising that. They are just using language differently, i.e. "Europe" in a political / legislative context can mean "the EU", i.e. a political / legislative boundary not a geographic one.
You can say" they're wrong" if you like, but use of language is more commonly viewed as descriptive not prescriptive: "how language is actually being written and spoken rather than trying to identify a correct way"
tl;DR People know what they're saying and you understand it, so what's the issue? what I said in the 1st comment.
> If someone says "when it comes to building codes, the UK is no longer in Europe", then everyone knows exactly what is meant. Performative misunderstanding isn't helpful.
People can work around a lot of mistakes, it doesn't mean it's correct. If I tell you my brother speaks Mexican, you know very well I mean Spanish. Does that mean I shouldn't be corrected?
It depends. if the phrase "he/she speaks Mexican" to refer to the Mexican dialect of Spanish is in common use, then the descriptivist position is that no, there is nothing to correct.
