That will be dwarfed over the coming years in legal battles as with Hillsborough they want some people held accountable. It will go on and I understand and sympathise with their frustrations, but we all know at the end of it that it'll be a couple of scapegoats at best carrying the can. The funds would be better spent on rectifying anything else dangerous out there and ensuring it never happens again, but they will want their pound of flesh and we'll all pay for it.
That will be dwarfed over the coming years in legal battles as with Hillsborough they want some people held accountable. It will go on and I understand and sympathise with their frustrations, but we all know at the end of it that it'll be a couple of scapegoats at best carrying the can. The funds would be better spent on rectifying anything else dangerous out there and ensuring it never happens again, but they will want their pound of flesh and we'll all pay for it.
There should be funds to compensate people for their losses and to support rectifying the problems in other publicly owned property. It's not an either or situation.
Listening to R5 yesterday though, it doesn't sound like Labour "huge housing target and can't upset developers" will do anything at all to really strengthen standards and enforcement, it's all just hand wringing.
There should be funds to compensate people for their losses and to support rectifying the problems in other publicly owned property. It's not an either or situation.
Listening to R5 yesterday though, it doesn't sound like Labour "huge housing target and can't upset developers" will do anything at all to really strengthen standards and enforcement, it's all just hand wringing.
They've already got the opposite side saying can't do it,at least Barrett's anyway,most likely be around 13000k for them next year after a similar number this year!
Get the Chinese over I say, they've even got pods over there that's suitable, plug in and go, suitable for a couple at least,none of this nonsense!
The Architect seemed to be the major target and they have folded. So no one to sue and a criminal issue is a very different scenario.
I suppose they could try and sue specific individuals but usually that is tricky, and I would have thought they would have arranged their finances accordingly if they thought they were at risk.
You look for those with deep pockets and that would seem to be the local authorities.
I seem to recollect that a lot of the flats were sublet, not sure how that will complicate matters.
There should be funds to compensate people for their losses and to support rectifying the problems in other publicly owned property. It's not an either or situation.
Listening to R5 yesterday though, it doesn't sound like Labour "huge housing target and can't upset developers" will do anything at all to really strengthen standards and enforcement, it's all just hand wringing.
I agree with the compensation side, I've not said different.
Th justice they want, are manslaughter charges and I understand that too, the point I was making was lots of legal fees will be wasted chasing that end and the actual perpetrators will never be charged. I'm not well informed enough to say who that should be, but someone with a small part more likely will be almost inevitably scapegoated and those funds could be spent better.