[tialaramex]

Right, but as you can see in the resulting buck passing, everybody says it wasn't their fault that this obviously unsuitable material was used. The people who made it said they hadn't intended it to be for these high rise buildings (if you clad my building in this stuff it would look ugly but the fire danger isn't significant because the building isn't very tall). The people who chose it said it passed fire regulations and so as far as they knew it was OK. The people who installed it say that some third party told them this was OK. The regulators say they thought they'd banned it. Nobody wants to admit "We didn't care that probably poor people will die, we were focused on $$$"

[soco]

Whis is only reinforcing the argument that a second stair might have never been built anyway, and even if yes the folks would have been just as stuck there so just as dead.

[thaumasiotes]

> but as you can see in the resulting buck passing, everybody says it wasn't their fault that this obviously unsuitable material was used.

> The regulators say they thought they'd banned it.

That sounds like they're saying it is their fault.

[tialaramex]

No, they're saying people intentionally misinterpreted what they'd done.

As an example of this sort stuff, maybe you carefully define "Must not be used" in your legislation for banning materials and then you later actually write that a material "Should not be used". If a bunch of people die you can say "Actually we said very clearly that it shouldn't be used!" but if instead a bunch of companies are annoyed by how expensive it is to find an alternative you say "Actually we didn't ban it - we only used the word 'should'".

[HPsquared]

The recent Boeing incidents are similar. Too many subcontractors diluting accountability.