Last week, I wrote about the Grenfell Tower tragedy in London, which caused the deaths of 72 people.
I drew out various failures, including:
🚦 Weak third-party management 🚦 Conflicted advisors 🚦 Toxic middle managers 🚦 Poor crisis management and preparation 🚦 Incentives 🚦 A lack of transparency (the report took ~7 years!) 🚦 The lack of consequences
I’d like to focus on this last bit. Three of the providers of incendiary or toxic cladding (which led to needless deaths) remain not just unaccountable but still receiving government contracts (around £ 260 million). This is perhaps not a surprise given the egregious corruption in central and local UK government (and yes, I can support that not even vaguely libelous allegation with myriad examples, not least COVID-19 contracts).
But most of us are not awarding large contracts. We are charged with policing and preventing wrongdoing, so let’s focus on that.
The two detectives in charge of the investigation, Stuart Cundy and Garry Moncrieff, gave an all-access interview to The Times last week (article here, behind a paywall for most, alas). That’s unusual.
OVERALL SCORE
Why? As I understand it, the Met Police could not properly investigate the multi-headed disaster that led to the tragedy. This is hardly news. A glance at prosecutions for economic crimes (fraud to bribery) or other integrity-adjacent legislation from the UK (e.g., the Modern Slavery Act) suggests that under-resourcing, politics, skill issues, and overwhelm (among public prosecutors) undermine the noble intentions of such Acts.
INVESTIGATE SCORE
What lessons might you share and teach the police then?
If you’re not feeling confident about your investigative capacity (maybe one of the 25%), don’t worry. That’s a good thing. It’s a sign of self-awareness. I’ve led or participated in hundreds of investigations. I’ve not felt confident at the start of any. Not. One. Investigations are daunting and unforgiving. The good news is they lend themselves to simple frameworks, procedures, and checks. If you’d like a no-obligation quick run through what I’d consider the 5-7 fundamentals of investigations, let me know (by reply or book some time here).
Glass half full
Last week, I was in Paris. To my shock, I realised it had been 16 years since my last visit (before I moved to Asia). I remember a more tense, gritty, and angry place than the charming city I visited for the end of the Paralympics, which is odd. The news since (terrorism to far-right political gains) would suggest it had worsened. The Olympics sheen (clean-up, security, etc.) may have helped. Maybe not. I met a friend from university who has lived in Paris for years and covers the country for Agence France Presse. He’s a Brit, and his view is, despite the news, the trajectory is positive.
We’re in an era of shouty alarmists. AI, polarisation, climate change, conflicts, and the rest suggest hell. For many people, sadly, it remains hell. However, the Paris trip was an example of how 24-hour (social and distorted) media can create a distorted sense of woe. As I considered where else I might be allowing past imprints to prejudice my judgment, I read a Sergei Guriev piece in the FT.
Paraphrasing: Fifty years ago, more than 40% of humankind lived in extreme poverty; today, it is 10%. We have reduced the cost of producing clean energy to the point where 96% of newly installed, utility-scale solar and onshore wind power plants are more economical than new gas or coal. Renewables now account for 33% of the global power mix, up from 22% ten years ago.
I know troubles continue, but where might you be letting the troubles of past decades distract from the gains since?