Why is the right to safety denied?
With the potential dangers of flammable cladding on many buildings, especially after the horrors of the Grenfell Blaze, a potential apartment buyer tried to find out which buildings were safe.
He tried to find out which had been identified by a Government check as being dangerous – so far about 1,400 examples.
He was denied the information for reasons that seem unrealistic.
People could potentially attack these buildings using arson as an act of terrorism but then again a fast car, a sharp knife or an easily obtainable gun can be used as tools of terrorism and they won’t be banned.
An even less plausible reason given suggests that it might cast doubts on the builders’ reputation.
If a builder uses cheap dangerous materials or poor construction techniques, then surely this should be called out?
Why does the right to safety not override the right to privacy, surely this is the wrong way around?
Imagine what would happen if a medicine with dangerous side-effects for some people was released but this information was kept secret on the grounds it might affect the drugs profitability.
Again, the world seems to be getting stranger every day.