Comments by "Mikko Rantalainen" (@MikkoRantalainen) on "Sky News" channel.

  1. I wouldn't be surprised to find that someone with enough power had taken bribes to allow this material. Or construction companies claimed to install cladding with built-in fire retardant but used cheaper stuff in reality and pocketed the money saved.
    2
  2. 6:25 The sad part is that the companies that did the outside walls of that building did know perfectly well that the materials were not rated for such use. However, the owner of the building decided to proceed with the cheapest materials available – a decision which resulted into this accident.
    1
  3. I'd say the cladding was the most critical thing in this accident. And obviously the company that implemented the cladding is denying everything: "The owner of the specialist cladding company [Harley Facades] which wrapped Grenfell Tower in flammable panels has said he did not know the material could burn and accused the producers of the combustible insulation of “misleading” his firm. "Speaking during the second phase of the public inquiry into the Grenfell disaster, Ray Bailey, director of Harley Facades, which oversaw the re-cladding of the 24-storey tower in North Kensington, London, claimed his company was not “ultimately” responsible for making sure the works met building regulations despite a letter spelling out terms for the main contractor stating it was responsible for design and “compliances”.
    1