No, it turns out Hammond doesn’t know the regulations yet.

So you are really a Liberal Asian Left-winger with a deep rooted desire to see the furtherance of the progressive cause amongst all races and nations then John?

No? Then on what count am I wrong in this instance? Is your denegration of the Mayor of London based upon his needing a neck-shave?

Oh, no, it’s because he dares to highlight failings. You see it as political because some of those who may turn out to be responsible for these failings may turn out to belong to a party allied to the right. You immediately become defensive, and as your only concept of defence is offence, you become.. offensive.

If it was the very Tory and very Right Boris J making the same points, where would you go with that? Not that he would. He is of the same offensive school as yourself: http://uk.businessinsider.com/boris-johnson-faces-questions-over-fire-brigade-cuts-following-greenfell-fire-2017-6?utm_source=feedly&utm_medium=webfeeds&r=US&IR=T

Oh, and I’d be interested to see my ‘record of always being wrong’. Good to know you are keeping records.

Never mind that, if the ‘moron’ Mr Khan is only claiming to be the Mayor of London, where is the real one?

I presume to be the real one in your eyes he’d need to be both Conservative and white?

The fact he was voted into the post has nothing to do with it, then.

We don’t know who chose the material. I have tried to find the tender – it should be available online through ‘Open Government’ and all that, but despite the fact this is what I do for a living (or part of it) I have failed, which suggests it has been discretely removed.

The fact remains that we don’t know:

A) Whether the party that completed and returned the tender, which we shall presume was Harley but may not have been, gave just one option in their response or possibly several costed options. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that they proposed at least two variants in delivery: 1) cheap, legal and not entirely safe and 2) safe. Though it is NEVER phrased that way, that does in fact happen all the time. The client then decides on the package.

B) Whether the tender scoring was weighted on cost or compliance, and whether that compliance includes that with HSE guidelines (which need not actually get mentioned at all, if only guidelines not regulations). If the former than absolutely NO contractor would go in with the higher-cost option with no low-cost alternative.

C) Whether in fact the material was specified by Harley at all, and not 1) the tenderer or 2) a subcontractor

So less of the hounding would be good.

Well, it’s not the tyre manufacturer or the tail light installer, which is what you are arguing.

Your MOT argument would be more akin to asking the fire safety inspector to pass the existing building when it’s actually dangerous.. which is another scenario entirely,

I am not sure the cladding was specifically against HSE guidelines, though it might have been?

No. Just.. no.

For various reasons to do with my job, I know a fair amount about how councils contract out work and the difference between competitive tendering for goods and services and the closing down of departments and migrating their function to a third party organisation. And there is a difference. The former allows continual oversight of the tendering and supply process by the authority with a democratic responsibility to ensure best practice. The latter does not as the responsibility for best practice no longer resides with the council.

Case in point. A) Council orders new cladding, council has a responsibility to ensure fire safety. B) Quasi-commercial private interest orders new cladding, council can deny responsibility to ensure fire safety.

Yes. Why is anyone hounding anyone until we know exactly what happened. But least of all the person who’s company did the work. Agreed, classic ‘soft target’ tactics.