- News
All the latest updates on building safety reformRegulations latest
- Focus
- Comment
- Programmes
- CPD
- Building the Future
- Jobs
- Data
- Subscribe
- Events
2024 events calendar
Explore nowBuilding Awards
Keep up to date
- Building Boardroom
Those named and blamed in Sir Martin Moore-Bick’s report largely got what they deserved, but they were not alone in the way they operated. We may have learnt and changed since 2017, but there is still a long way to go, says Richard Steer
For all those who automatically add the word “cowboy” to the word “builder”, phase two of the Grenfell report probably endorsed existing feelings of disgust, mistrust and annoyance. What other industry has been the subject of an outside, third-party review that used words like “failure”, “slapdash” and “dishonest” to describe its work?
The disgusting thing is that, looking back at 2017, the view expressed by Sir Martin Moore-Bick and his colleagues is correct in its assertion that 72 people died, in a raging inferno, that could and should have been prevented by a robust inspection process, a disciplined approach to construction and an ethos that placed pride above profit and safety above cynicism. Now I wonder if we are all tarred with the same broad brush applied by an adjudicator from outside our industry who is justifiably unsparing in his criticism.
Existing subscriber? LOGIN
Stay at the forefront of thought leadership with news and analysis from award-winning journalists. Enjoy company features, CEO interviews, architectural reviews, technical project know-how and the latest innovations.
Get your free guest access SIGN UP TODAY
Subscribe to Building today and you will benefit from:
View our subscription options and join our community