3 minutes reading time
(616 words)
Grenfell, Outrage and the Question of Real Safety
Grenfell remains one of the most painful chapters in modern housing history. Seventy-two people lost their lives in a disaster that has never been viewed as inevitable. It was widely accepted from the outset that Grenfell was a tragedy that should never have happened.
That is why recent comments by Reform UK’s housing spokesperson, Simon Dudley, sparked such anger. Referring to Grenfell as a tragedy, he added the remark that “everyone dies in the end”. For many people, especially those connected to the Grenfell community, the comment felt deeply insensitive.
The reaction was swift. Prime Minister Keir Starmer publicly called on Nigel Farage to “do the right thing”. Shortly afterwards, Dudley was removed from his position. The political message was clear. Language that appears to diminish the gravity of Grenfell will not be tolerated.
Yet the situation also raises an uncomfortable question. Words can cause outrage, and rightly so, although the debate about building safety has always been about more than language. It has been about systems, standards and decisions that affect the safety of people living in buildings across the country.
For several months now, Cladding Matters has repeatedly returned to the subject of PAS 9980. It is not a new topic for the programme, yet it is one that refuses to disappear. The reason is simple. PAS 9980 allows professionals assessing external wall systems to determine whether certain fire risks may still be considered “tolerable”.
Supporters argue that the framework allows a proportionate approach to remediation. Critics, including many leaseholders and campaigners, argue that it can also allow combustible materials to remain in place when a more cautious approach would remove them entirely.
That debate sits at the heart of the wider building safety discussion. The language used around risk matters. The interpretation of that risk matters even more.
When a public figure makes a remark that appears to reduce Grenfell to an unavoidable part of life, it understandably provokes strong condemnation. Grenfell was not fate. It was the result of decisions, materials and systems that failed the people living there.
Yet residents living in blocks still undergoing remediation often point to another concern. They see frameworks that continue to allow judgement calls over whether certain materials must be removed or can remain. For those living inside those buildings, the concept of “tolerable risk” can feel very different from how it appears in policy papers.
This is where the conversation becomes difficult, although also necessary. Political leaders are right to challenge language that appears dismissive of Grenfell. Respect matters. The memory of those who died demands nothing less.
At the same time, the deeper issue has always been whether the regulatory framework truly guarantees that buildings are made safe.
Cladding Matters has never suggested that these questions have simple answers. The programme exists precisely because the subject continues to evolve, and because many residents, professionals and policymakers still hold very different views on what the right balance should be.
This Friday’s discussion will return to that central question. Outrage over words can travel quickly through the political world. Yet the longer and more complicated conversation concerns whether the systems now guiding remediation genuinely deliver the level of safety that residents expect.
Joining the discussion will be Gareth Wax, chairing the programme, alongside Hamish McLay as conveyancing collaborator.
Grenfell changed the national conversation about building safety. Nearly a decade later, the question of what real safety looks like remains very much alive.
Watch live on our YouTube channel:
https://www.youtube.com/@SpillingTheProper-Tea
For content enquiries:This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
For podcast/media info:This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
That is why recent comments by Reform UK’s housing spokesperson, Simon Dudley, sparked such anger. Referring to Grenfell as a tragedy, he added the remark that “everyone dies in the end”. For many people, especially those connected to the Grenfell community, the comment felt deeply insensitive.
The reaction was swift. Prime Minister Keir Starmer publicly called on Nigel Farage to “do the right thing”. Shortly afterwards, Dudley was removed from his position. The political message was clear. Language that appears to diminish the gravity of Grenfell will not be tolerated.
Yet the situation also raises an uncomfortable question. Words can cause outrage, and rightly so, although the debate about building safety has always been about more than language. It has been about systems, standards and decisions that affect the safety of people living in buildings across the country.
For several months now, Cladding Matters has repeatedly returned to the subject of PAS 9980. It is not a new topic for the programme, yet it is one that refuses to disappear. The reason is simple. PAS 9980 allows professionals assessing external wall systems to determine whether certain fire risks may still be considered “tolerable”.
Supporters argue that the framework allows a proportionate approach to remediation. Critics, including many leaseholders and campaigners, argue that it can also allow combustible materials to remain in place when a more cautious approach would remove them entirely.
That debate sits at the heart of the wider building safety discussion. The language used around risk matters. The interpretation of that risk matters even more.
When a public figure makes a remark that appears to reduce Grenfell to an unavoidable part of life, it understandably provokes strong condemnation. Grenfell was not fate. It was the result of decisions, materials and systems that failed the people living there.
Yet residents living in blocks still undergoing remediation often point to another concern. They see frameworks that continue to allow judgement calls over whether certain materials must be removed or can remain. For those living inside those buildings, the concept of “tolerable risk” can feel very different from how it appears in policy papers.
This is where the conversation becomes difficult, although also necessary. Political leaders are right to challenge language that appears dismissive of Grenfell. Respect matters. The memory of those who died demands nothing less.
At the same time, the deeper issue has always been whether the regulatory framework truly guarantees that buildings are made safe.
Cladding Matters has never suggested that these questions have simple answers. The programme exists precisely because the subject continues to evolve, and because many residents, professionals and policymakers still hold very different views on what the right balance should be.
This Friday’s discussion will return to that central question. Outrage over words can travel quickly through the political world. Yet the longer and more complicated conversation concerns whether the systems now guiding remediation genuinely deliver the level of safety that residents expect.
Joining the discussion will be Gareth Wax, chairing the programme, alongside Hamish McLay as conveyancing collaborator.
Grenfell changed the national conversation about building safety. Nearly a decade later, the question of what real safety looks like remains very much alive.
Watch live on our YouTube channel:
https://www.youtube.com/@SpillingTheProper-Tea
For content enquiries:
For podcast/media info:
Stay Informed
When you subscribe to the blog, we will send you an e-mail when there are new updates on the site so you wouldn't miss them.
Comments