[Closed] Grenfell - immunity from prosecution

They want a guarantee from Attorney-General Geoffrey Cox that they will be protected when they give evidence.

Any prosecution(s) and/or apportionment of responsibility should come from HSE right?
Can the Attorney-General grant immunity from prosecution by the HSE?
Have legal proceedings started yet?

I was also of the understanding that while a parliamentary enquiry might be a bit uncomfortable, it's not actually a legal process, MPs can ask tricky questions and make recommendations at the end but it's not really got any legal teeth as such... Right?

Profit and reputation before human life.

Maybe the opportunity to speak freely, openly and honestly gives a greater prospect for lives to be saved in future than a process where participants are defending themselves under a threat of punishment.

We - the public - need to know what happened and why. We voted for Cameron's bonfire of the regulations and this is what we got.

Maybe the opportunity to speak freely, openly and honestly gives a greater prospect for lives to be saved in future than a process where participants are defending themselves under a threat of punishmen

A bit like the aviation industry where (with one massive current exception) there is a culture of wanting to find out what went wrong and owning up to mistakes so that others can learn, with the upside that its stupendously safe? It'll never catch on.

Maybe the opportunity to speak freely, openly and honestly gives a greater prospect for lives to be saved in future than a process where participants are defending themselves under a threat of punishment.

If it turns out that people know something that might save future lives, but they don't share that, and then more people die, then they should be prosecuted for that as well.

It’s a public inquiry not a parliamentary one. The chair can call evidence under oath etc but one does not have to answer if it may incriminate one s21 Inquiries Act I think is the relevant bit. It’s a balancing act for the chair - do I want the evidence out in the open or reserve the possibility of criminal trials.

I was also of the understanding that while a parliamentary enquiry might be a bit uncomfortable, it’s not actually a legal process, MPs can ask tricky questions and make recommendations at the end but it’s not really got any legal teeth as such… Right?

Right but irrelevant - we're not talking about a parliamentary inquiry (or enquiry, but I assume you meant the former)

Profit and reputation before human life.
What a bunch of despicable scumbags.

Emotive crap.

It is very, very unlikely that any one individual in any of these organisations is or could be held legally accountable. Given how politicised this has become, would it even be moral for a CEO to offer up an employee to one of these hearings? I wouldn't go if I was asked, sod that.

It does seem like the greatest benefit would be had from an open, constructive hearing.

Maybe the opportunity to speak freely, openly and honestly gives a greater prospect for lives to be saved in future than a process where participants are defending themselves under a threat of punishment.

This.

maccruiskeen
Maybe the opportunity to speak freely, openly and honestly gives a greater prospect for lives to be saved in future than a process where participants are defending themselves under a threat of punishment.

It makes sense. Getting the facts and preventing more deaths is more important than vengeance.

Profit and reputation before human life.
What a bunch of despicable scumbags.

Do you believe in the right to silence (enshrined in English law since at least 1912, and a key element of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act), and recognised by the European courts as being a key element to Article 6 of the ECHR)?

You needn't actually have done anything wrong, to be advised that shutting up is possibly your best option. You can dig yourself a hole, be misunderstood (or intentionally twisted), be the only person in the chain who seemed to admit any fault, or just generally draw a pile of stress and attention to yourself when otherwise it might look elsewhere. If you genuinely deigned that cladding in thinking it was safe, based on the information you had available would you stand up for the press to splash your name across the country as "Killer cladding designer says it was safe"; likewise if you were the test engineer who approved the panels - by testing to the recognised standard, but aware that the standard was crap; or the project manager who instructed the works - who might get headlines like "Manager picked cladding provider on cost" and "Manager denies that safe design was his responsibility" etc.

If the objective of the inquiry is to learn lessons and improve safety it is not unreasonable that people who genuinely cooperate with the inquiry are not going to get convicted for their honesty. That is not the same as profit or reputation.

Any prosecution(s) and/or apportionment of responsibility should come from HSE right?

Probably, although there may well be other legislation, such as simple manslaughter that the police would be investigating, and I presume some Fire regulations that might be another body again.

Can the Attorney-General grant immunity from prosecution by the HSE?

Yes they can.

The problem I foresee is the people affected quite understandably wanting everyone in the inquiry to speak openly and get to the bottom of the failures that allowed the tragedy to unfold.

Then once everyone's done that with immunity from prosecution, people will demand someone be held to account...

edlong

Member
If it turns out that people know something that might save future lives, but they don’t share that, and then more people die, then they should be prosecuted for that as well.

Would it not be better to give them immunity to save those lives in advance?

If it turns out that people know something that might save future lives, but they don’t share that, and then more people die, then they should be prosecuted for that as well.

Everyone (in the industry) knew the cladding fire test was a joke, and the building was re-clad based on lowest cost (pretty standard practice). No one expected / planned for the whole Towering Inferno scenario, it was just an unfortunate and unlucky consequence of a whole set of (legal) compromises taken by many different organisations. Had the tumble drier not caught fire, we'd all be happily cladding buildings in highly combustible material safe in the knowledge that it passed all the relevant fire tests....

@footflaps I thought there were emails from the supplier that were uncovered that indicated they knew it wouldn't pass the tests and they pointed that out ?

If it turns out that people know something that might save future lives, but they don’t share that, and then more people die, then they should be prosecuted for that as well.

And how would you know, let alone prove any of that having failed to find it out the first time around? Far better to figure out where the system failed. And it will be a systemic failure, just pointing at the cladding and saying it's the fault of an inanimate object solves nothing. Someone designed that cladding, someone tested it, someone designed a test for it, someone specified it for the building, someone signed that off, someone installed it, someone signed off that it was installed correctly, and someone paid the bills for all that.

You can't expect people to design and build stuff to anything other than the standard. The world doesn't work any other way. So far all the evidence seems to suggest that it was the standards that weren't good enough.

We have a system that relies on suspects being allowed to give a "no comment" interview, the police investigating and the CPS, their legal team etc building a case then putting it to test in court for a very good reason.

The alternative* is Japan. Where the people will** admit to crimes they didn't commit to save their family, company, themselves the shame of it going to trail.

*within the context of a modern justice system
**allegedly, obviously there is zero interest in this being investigated

Maybe the opportunity to speak freely, openly and honestly gives a greater prospect for lives to be saved in future than a process where participants are defending themselves under a threat of punishment.

This +1

The phenomena of "justice" as peddled by the media and victims groups in this context has gotten out of hand. Take the whole Hillsborough debacle as an example. As soon as the whole thing became an exercise in blame rather than figuring out what went wrong then facts were covered up, and remained that way for 20+ years. Eventually the concepts of justice and scapegoating became so entwined that you end up with a show trial of the match commander which never had any realistic chance of a conviction.

Tomd - 'emotive crap'?
You are wrong - and you are attributing a meaning to my post that wasn't there; I made no suggestion or inference that any individual should be held responsible.
It's about identifying - at a corporate level - where the responsibility lies; think of it in terms of corporate manslaughter but without the CEO being held personally responsible.
Establish the full chain of events regarding material testing, approval, specification, known or foreseeable problems and design a set of tests and processes to ensure, as far as possible, there is no recurrence.
Further benefit would be to establish the suitability, or otherwise, of cladding materials which have been installed on other high rises and help to identify where the responsibility lies for replacing any cladding which is not fit for purpose.

Tomd – ’emotive crap’?
You are wrong – and you are attributing a meaning to my post that wasn’t there;

I think you made it pretty emotive with:

Profit and reputation before human life.
What a bunch of despicable scumbags.

A bit like the aviation industry where (with one massive current exception) there is a culture of wanting to find out what went wrong and owning up to mistakes so that others can learn, with the upside that its stupendously safe? It’ll never catch on.

It won't catch on here either unless the testing of building materials are brought back in house by the Government. It's organisation that did this testing was privatised under Blair, which ended with the building materials firms actually "testing" and writing the safety rules on their own products.

This is the reason why they want immunity, because they are responsible for it. I'm finding this whole "learn a lesson" and "immunity" thing from a lot of the posters here completely unacceptable. You can punish those responsible and still learn lessons, I'm not expecting this to happen, but it won't get swept under the carpet, you only need to look at hillsborough for that.

And they must be punished.

only need to look at hillsborough

Not exactly a shining example of quality justice. Quite a good example of a witch hunt though.

A bit like the aviation industry where (with one massive current exception) there is a culture of wanting to find out what went wrong and owning up to mistakes so that others can learn, with the upside that its stupendously safe?

That's a bit of a misconception. If someone has done something illegal then they still get prosecuted. It's not a blanket immunity from the consequences of your actions. (30 years in aviation)

only need to look at hillsborough

Or you can look at Paisley and see the lessons learnt from a disaster - fire doors that open outwards - pretty much every day.

You are wrong – and you are attributing a meaning to my post that wasn’t there; I made no suggestion or inference that any individual should be held responsible

Ok, so you'd anthropomorphised those corporate entities so you could refer to them as "despicable scumbags? Seems legit.

What you're suggesting be done was already done by judith hackitt's independent review anyway. Have you read that?

only need to look at hillsborough

Not exactly a shining example of quality justice. Quite a good example of a witch hunt though.

I think justice was served, it just that the answer wasn't the one people wanted, which was to have one 'evil' person to blame it all on. It was the standard story of a series of poor decisions, each of which taken in isolation wouldn't have caused a problem. Concatenate them all in the wrong place at the wrong time and it caused a tragic accident. Basically shit happens and sometimes people die, but doesn't mean there is always a 'Mr Evil' behind it all.

Grenfell looks like the same story again; I'd be very surprised if they find a single person or company they can successfully prosecute for it all (not that they won't try and find one just to keep the gutter press & victims happy).

Tomd - to date, Hackitt has published an interim report and I read a summary of that at the time.
I'm not aware that she has published a final review but you may know better.
As for anthropormorphising, I think my colloquialism is an accurate reflection of how the majority would describe those organisations seeking immunity from prosecution before testifying.
Any refusal to testify will prevent meaningful reform of specifications, product testing,
design standards and sign-offs as the full facts are needed for this to happen.
Then we have the question of cladding already installed on high rises which may not be fit for purpose - as I stated ^^^.
I's not about a witch hunt; it's about taking appropriate actions based on a full understanding of the facts to ensure there not be a Grenfell 2.

You can punish those responsible and still learn lessons

Whilst this is true, you will learn more and possibly save more lives in the future if the people being asked to give evidence are encouraged to tell the complete (warts and all) story.

I think justice was served, it just that the answer wasn’t the one people wanted, which was to have one ‘evil’ person to blame it all on. It was the standard story of a series of poor decisions, each of which taken in isolation wouldn’t have caused a problem. Concatenate them all in the wrong place at the wrong time and it caused a tragic accident. Basically shit happens and sometimes people die, but doesn’t mean there is always a ‘Mr Evil’ behind it all.

Grenfell looks like the same story again; I’d be very surprised if they find a single person or company they can successfully prosecute for it all (not that they won’t try and find one just to keep the gutter press & victims happy).

This is how I see it. What I do find odd though is the way round this has been done. The response of the fire brigade was looked before establishing that all their practises were made null and void by the fact that the building had been clad in a highly flammable material which completely negated the original design of the building to contain a fire. It was as if they were supposed to know in advance of both this and the total neglect of the fire safety systems within the building. It seems to me the enquiry should have started with establishing that what had once been a building designed to contain a fire had been turned into one where that was not just impossible but one where the rate of spread of fire had actually been increased. If the fire brigade made a mistake it was not in the policy they arrived on the scene with but in not recognising more quickly that everything they thought they knew about the building was wrong. They were slow to do that.The way they work though is like any emergency service, it's based on repetitive training to deal with all perceived situations that they might find themselves in. When confronted with a wholly different situation than any they have trained for it takes time to both recognise that, to determine a new strategy and then to effectively communicate that to everyone involved. My dad was a fireman for 30 years and saw a huge improvement in the training and equipment available to them but in some ways he would tell you that has led to more regimented thinking which can on occasions lead to an inability to change direction quickly. He was telling me last night though about a nasty fire they had in one of Brighton's tower blocks. The compartmentalisation worked but the fire crews were severely hampered in getting to the fire by people who decided to evacuate and were blocking the stairwells, people trying to carry out possessions including old ladies with budgies in cages.

footflaps is right though, this isn't down to one person or one decision but to a chain of events, the very best that can be achieved is to prevent it happening again and that is best served my everyone being able to be honest without the fear that would lead to them being the one singled out for blame.

There have been some very revealing statements by Raydon personnel during the enquiry which demonstrate a staggering level of unprofessionalism and incompetence.
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/grenfell-inquiry-7-times-it-made-jaws-drop_uk_5f207545c5b69fd47312c0ab?ncid=other_huffpostre_pqylmel2bk8&utm_campaign=related_articles

Moving on from that, this is disappointing but not surprising...
https://www.constructionnews.co.uk/health-and-safety/mps-vote-against-grenfell-phase-one-recommendations-08-09-2020/?eea=&n_hash=1783&mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiT0RWaFltTTFNRFUyWmpJeSIsInQiOiI4d1NSSWw2UnBiS3MzU0FqV0tPdCt3d0FwNXNzZmNzUjdldmhyTWt6MTBvdWNGanRBRmJwbFdsMVRzdjBNaXFicVU3YzdYWkwxSDNFNmEwdmk1TUJqb256UlRjNmJrS1BNRTdrT1ZZalpTZ3ZrK2x3SEhxTDI3WXBmWlwvQllrU0kifQ%3D%3D
I see that both jenrick and brokenshire have said the gov are '...fully committed to implementing the recommendations'; we'll see and, if they do, when will it happen.

Also of note is that Raydon didn't bother entering into a contract with the cladding subbie but relied on a letter of intent which outlined the scope.

jenrick

If he is in favour of anything you can bet the smell of money for one of his mates is in the air.

There have been some very revealing statements by Raydon personnel during the enquiry which demonstrate a staggering level of unprofessionalism and incompetence.

I think its what happens when you have lots of different companies and consultants involved in a project with no clear leadership / responsibility and a client who just wants the cheapest possible job done. To be honest I don't often read all the documents that get sent to me and just give an educated guess on things without fully researching all the details esp where its for a 3rd party - although I don't work on fire safety, but I recognise all the responses as being pretty normal for a multi-agency project.

but I recognise all the responses as being pretty normal for a multi-agency project.

Not my experience in construction which isn't to say it doesn't happen; my experience has been in professionally run organisations where responsibilities are defined and agreed
up-front.

There should have been at least one person who was familiar with all of...client requirements, cladding spec at design stage inc it's fire rating & test performance, product to physically be installed inc it's fire rating & test performance.
There wasn't and the enquiry has shown this to be example after example of buck passing - not my responsibility, I thought he/she/they had done and if they didn't they should have.

There will be another (preventable) tower block fire resulting in mass deaths; when that happens I hope there will be no similarity to factors which contributed to Grenfell.

Looking back at my OP I stand by my comments as they are being proven with each passing day of the enquiry.

They are asking for immunity from prosecution using the evidence they give to the inquiry. That doesn't prevent them being prosecuted if there is other evidence. What I'm unsure about is whether tabling every bit of possible evidence (emails, file notes, etc) to the enquiry means it become inadmissible for prosecution - or is it just their witness statements that are inadmissible?

As the truth continues to emerge it's far worse than most could ever have imagined.
From my OP 9 months ago...

Now, as phase 2 of the investigation is starting, the various contractors, suppliers, manufacturers and tenants organisation have applied for immunity from prosecution before agreeing to give evidence.
Profit and reputation before human life.
What a bunch of despicable scumbags.

Bold has been added for emphasis.

I clearly understated the contemptible behaviour of various parties and their blatant disregard for human life.
Here's hoping that Celotex and others do not escape prosecution - despite being granted immunity; I don't know how all-encompassing that immunity is.

The chair can call evidence under oath etc but one does not have to answer if it may incriminate one

Immunity from Prosecution is a double edges sword. If immunity means you can't incriminate yourself by answering a question the you've also no grounds to refuse to answer a question.

In some instances immunity is granted to people who don't want it - it turns the tables from 'not giving an answer that would incriminate yourself' to 'incriminating yourself by not giving an answer'.

In 1965 two assistant U.S. attorneys in Chicago, Sam Betar and David Schippers, were trying to break up the organized crime outfit they believed to be Giaricana's.. When they convened the grand jury they—and their quarry—thought the panel would play its traditional role of subpoenaing peripheral witnesses in order to amass enough information to indict more prominent suspects. If they subpoenaed someone of Giancana's stature, he'd surely invoke the Fifth Amendment and refuse to testify, they thought. As a rule, such people weren't given immunity from prosecution, since the point of the investigation was to indict them. The two attorneys were stumped.

But after brain‐storming for a couple of weeks, they came up with a relatively novel way of trapping Giancana. They would get him court‐ordered immunity, but then they'd jail him for contempt of court when he refused to testify (as he'd be likely to, in order to preserve his credentials with the rest of his colleagues). That device had been used in state courts—Alfred Scotti, Manhattan's Chief Assistant District Attorney, estimates that he's obtained more than 100 contempt citations in the past 20 years.

maccruiskeen, I don't disagree it's a double-edged sword and thanks for your example.
It's clearly unacceptable that the truth is only beginning to emerge because witnesses believe they have immunity.
I hope that belief proves to be illusory if civil and criminal cases proceed - as I hope they will.
It's a clear demonstration of profit before everything else - including human life.
It would be a clear travesty of justice if those who knowingly lied and gamed the system for profit and to maintain a market-competitive position with absolutely no regard for human life did not pay a price for their attitude and behaviour.
It is so much worse than corporate manslaughter or criminal negligence.

The fire safety test fraud by Celotex is pretty shocking! Funny how senior managemnet just blame a few individuals in the past and pretend they had no idea that it was odd their highly flammable insulation passed!

It’s clearly unacceptable that the truth is only beginning to emerge because witnesses believe they have immunity.

Understandable and necessary though, if you were an employee at one of those companies whose job / career / mortage was on the line to go along with whatever was the plan, you'd be reluctant to have anything to do with the enquiry or just not be able to remember anything. It's the CEOs at the time who were ultimately responsible for the problems, although proving that has and is very difficult. I doubt we'll see any convictions.

It’s the CEOs at the time who were ultimately responsible for the problems, although proving that has and is very difficult.

Its amazing how often rogue employees appear whenever something illegal happens and those senior managers who get the big bucks since they are responsible for everything suddenly arent.
Like the VW ""software engineers who put this in for whatever reason," as the VW US CEO said.

Yup. The Post Office springs to mind. Sent people to prison rather than admit their accountin system was shit.

Yup. The Post Office springs to mind. Sent people to prison rather than admit their accountin system was shit.

Yep, that was a travesty, not sure all the convictions have been overturned yet.

Its amazing how often rogue employees appear whenever something illegal happens and those senior managers who get the big bucks since they are responsible for everything suddenly arent.

I can see how that works. Someone is put in a certain place to "get things done", they and everyone else know what's happening but as long as the job gets done management turns a blind eye.

These people exist in every workplace, you can bet nobody ordered the person with specific instructions other than "make sure it passes".

you can bet nobody ordered the person with specific instructions other than “make sure it passes”.

Yeah there will be careful pressure placed in a way that wont appear in any documentation. Maybe ina meeting or two but nothing written or otherwise recorded.3

The whole circle of manufacturers / specifiers / installers / regulators all compounding problems and blaming each other is rather frightening. However it was reassuring to at least see the young Engineer being open and honest in his answers. Unfortunately it is a little late.

I work in testing (not fire or building related) and our parent company is very clear about our stance on ethics and accountability, including regular training and enforced codes of conduct. I'd willingly lose a customer rather than falsify something - and much more rewarding to help them find a proper solution and true test pass / safe product. However I think it is easier to take this stance when you are a third party facility or service - which again makes me incredulous that even the specifiers, regulators and inspectors let this happen as that is effectively what they were.

We make occasional use of PIR for assembly of temporary environmental chambers - but I've known my whole career never to use it above 100C as it starts to decompose and burn. How can somebody with much more detailed product knowledge overlook this?

The whole circle of manufacturers / specifiers / installers / regulators all compounding problems and blaming each other is rather frightening.

Although it does highlight how complex modern supply chains are and why it's quite easy to see how these things happen without anyone realising the risk at the time.

However it was reassuring to at least see the young Engineer being open and honest in his answers.

Yep, his testimony was the closest to a smoking gun so far. Does seem that Cellotex are the real villain in all this (so far).

Profit and reputation before human life.
What a bunch of despicable scumbags.

Businesses are good guys.
Of course, you'll always get the odd bad apple but most are brilliant.
What you need to understand is that their only reason for being is to make profits.
So sure, sometimes they do things that kill people. Sometimes many people.
It's not them being bad, it's just how they are.
Instead of having a pop, I think it's best to support them.
Let's stop pointing fingers and just get behind our business boys.

copa - you win the prize for today's poorest troll post.
Come back tomorrow, there's another daily prize up for grabs.

Frank you Muppet. That wasn't a poor troll post.

Copa, beautifully written. Never quite sure as I was reading it whether it was a piss take or not. You've summed up the PoV that a lot of industry and government have.

Money is what's important. A few dead [poor] people, WGAF?

Horrific.

Where are the apologists from early this year?
Facts; inconvenient things.
Read this...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55052380

to thegeneralist - your first and only post on this subject; all you can say is...

Frank you Muppet. That wasn’t a poor troll post.

You really are a dummy.
Do you have anything of any relevance to say?

The biggest cause of all this is privatisation of the various parts of testing and enforcement. Profit rules and those that stand up for proper standards won’t survive. BBA certificates used to be pretty reliable but the competition from other cheaper test bodies has meant even their certification needs to be read much more carefully. Suppliers demand that certificates are written in such a way that they infer compliance, that way specifiers incorrectly believe that products are suitable for certain applications and they end up used. The supplier gets the big bucks and can pass the blame to someone else in the supply chain. They will say that the specifier or contractor didn’t read certs properly or didn’t ask the correct questions.

A very common statement I see on Kiwa certification states that project specific design should be discussed with the certificate holder. That’s a brilliant get out of jail card as you can be pretty sure that doesn’t happen. I have raised my concerns about various product certification over the years and there will always be a fudge or a grey area introduced to make sure no changes are needed that might hurt the profit margin. Push it further and out comes the usual bully boy tactic of threatening legal action, unfortunately when it comes to that I’m too far down the ladder and too low paid to be considered relevant and have to give in. That is the way product certification works when it’s been privatised

To make matters worse Building Control privatisation is a nightmare. Where is the incentive for a building control body to reject work and increase the cost of a project? Do that too often and the contractor will just employ a different surveyor.
Even the creation of any new legislation now is open to corruption, the so called experts that are consulted when considering changes to legislation are usually from the industry. It’s an open check book for them to make sure legislation forces the sale of their product or services.

It’s hard to be in my side of the building trade and care about safety and quality before profit.

If you haven’t listened to the regular bbc grenfell inquiry podcast please look it up, it is a very good bit of journalism and the host either knows the industry or puts an impressive amount of work into finding out. The one part that stands out to me is the interview with the building control surveyor, it’s worth noting that contractors and architects try to point the finger at him saying it was his job to keep them right. I’d imagine he was the lowest paid link in that chain but was expected to keep everyone else right?

Rant over for now

Diary from the inquiry for those not into podcasts. Sobering reading.

https://www.insidehousing.co.uk/insight/insight/grenfell-tower-inquiry-diary-week-19-and-that-was-intentional-deliberate-dishonest-68678

I’m mostly with Daz on this I think, the 737 Max being another example of the consequences of poor regulation. Having said that, individuals in businesses have both legal and moral responsibilities as well. I work for a large corporate and we’re constantly being trained in anti-corruption, morals, ethics etc. It’s amazing how quickly these things seem to go out the window when the chance to make a fast buck comes along (not referring to my business here I hasten to add, but my experience in general).

Also.... whistleblowers in all industries need far, far better protection than they get currently. It seldom ends well for a whistleblower.

I'm sad to say I whistle-blew at a former employer many years ago, and was told to get back in my box. It was a way more minor thing than this, orders of magnitude different and certainly not a life or death situation and in the grand scheme of no importance. I caved, I needed my job more than the ethics at the time and it really wasn't that big a thing.

I have a lot of sympathy for the employees in this case that were for whatever reason unable to act and now have the stain of their lack of action to carry around.

There's supposed to be protection for whistleblowers, the realities are different. The bosses that create the culture are the ones that must be accountable.

Ultimately in my mind it's the cladding manufacturer or UK distributor that needs the finger pointed at. Architect would have spec'd from a catalogue, and was told it met UK safety standards. Contractor installed spec given by architects. Building control and planning would have signed off design based on approved spec. But if the cladding doesn't do what the spec says and cheated their way through the testing process then it ultimately falls back on them....

All other lines of enquiry are for political reasons and/or for trying to future proof the system.

Architect would have spec’d from a catalogue,

I think theres a little bit more to it than that. However the material claimed to perform the cladding design effectively coated the whole building in chimneys - a little design flourish created  4 vertical voids up each face of the building linking all the openings - which in the summer would have been open . Poor fitting and detailing meant there were openings into the cladding around the windows. Unwittingly a system was designed that delivered fire from apartment to apartment up and around the whole building even though the structure was originally designed and engineered specifically to prevent exactly that outcome. Things would still have gone pretty badly even if the cladding performed exactly as promised.

It was a perfect storm of all the things that could have gone wrong going wrong - most likely because all the elements were working in ignorance of each other. The cladding manufacturers wouldn't have known the way that architect would have configured their product - there will be plenty of designs and application that will work well enough with that material , the architects didn't know how the real-world performance of the material compared to the spec sheet because I doubt many architects get to make full scale models of their designs for destructive testing, the builders didn't know risk the design created and how important sealing those apertures were to mitigate that, the fire brigade wouldn't have imagined that the cladding totally undermined the designed compartmentalisation of he building had been completely compromised by the cladding and that their strategy which had been in place for decades for fighting a fire  in that kind of building and managing the occupants now had to be completely reversed.

Then there were driving factors outside the material and applications - ones of cost and not least ones of snobbery - a client who valued the view from the windows of wealthier residents over the quality of life of the building's tenants.

You couldn't conspire to make things as bad as they were - nobody, even with the most evil intentions has the imagination or flare to get all those agencies to buy into their scheme - to align all those failures and create that cascade of consequences.