I provided some above. The names are well known within the fire sector and they've not denied it. There are two ex-firefighters on record (BBC interview, online records) who were heavily funded by the flame retardant industry to push for more of their chemicals in furniture and other products. One of them still operates: Mike Hagen. Both claim that they were not funded while in service but logic suggests at the very least they were sounded out before retiring. Another still in service is Paul Fuller - who regularly pushes for flame retardants in children's clothing. Then there's Sir Ken Knight who played a major role in blocking safety changes to the Furniture Regs that would have hugely reduced flame retardants. The same Sir Ken who signed off the Grenfell cladding as safe; and the same Sir Ken who was appointed Chair of the Grenfell independent experts panel and refused to even look at the role the faile furniture regs played in the fire.

I find your language extremely troubling. If I'm honest I'm struggling to take you seriously and it seems you are on a particularly self appointed mission. Which is fine. But things like

> but logic suggests at the very least they were sounded out before retiring.

Logic had little to do with it I fear. Secondly the UK tabloidesque vilification of public servants who leverage their expertise when their career is over is tiresome. That is not evidence of "corruption".

It really doesn't matter if you're struggling to take this seriously because key people do. I'm also not sure what exactly you mean be 'evidence', above what I've been reporting. People who are bribed are hardly likely to keep written records of the fact. But how about this: Matt Wrack, head of the FBU, told Prof. Anna Stec (who is reporting to the FBU on cancers in firefighters) that he'd sacked Dave Sibert for "colluding with the flame retardant industry". My mission is far from self-appointed: it's been appointed by many including a government select committee and the contaminants group in the FBU who I'm advisor to.

A simpler explanation is that firefighters - who spend their lives dealing with people who've had horrific burns - think that prevention of fire is important, and are not persuaded that fire retardant chemicals are unsafe, especially compared to the fire injuries they routinely see.

That is a simpler explanation and it's certainly true that firefighters want to see fires prevented. But the point is that they were historically persuaded that flame retardants are safe. They have recently discovered they're not and the new contaminants group is determined to remove them from home products like upholstered furniture.

Approving carcinogens for residential use.

How is that evidence of the claim?

The alternative is that they're just that evil, that they're doing it for the lolz. So no, it's not strict evidence.

Or they don’t believe the compounds are dangerous, or they don’t think they’re dangerous enough to outweigh the reduced risk of fires.

Yea that's the only option. And certainly a complete representation of what happened