What's new

Grenfell Tower fire tragedy - Discussion Thread

Why council tax specifically? There are all sorts of taxes levied on the ordinary citizen, I would have thought health and safety is one of those areas where the taxpayer's money should be prioritised. I would rather my money went there than paying for teenage mums to get complimentary housing as a result of their adventures.

Council tax pays for the fire brigade. [MENTION=107620]s28[/MENTION] made a point about fire stations closing.

We still haven't zeroed the annual deficit. We can do this in one or both of two ways. Firstly service cuts, which have now reached the point where ordinary people are becoming angry because they are disproportionally affected. Or we can pay more tax.
 
This is incredibly sad. To think 500 people might have died. 500 ! This is a 9/11 type tragedy. Will there be a War on Neoliberalism ? There blooming well should be. Our ruling class did this... our ruling class who prioritise Profit over People they did this. Our ruling class who routinely Privatise Profits and Socialise Losses they did this. They have blood on their hands.


This is an extreme generalisation.

In my opinion, the disaster happened because someone didn't do a suitable and sufficient fire risk assessment. They made an effort by improving compartmentalisation and smoke evacuation systems. But they increasing the fire load with the wrong type of cladding insulation, not learning from the 2009 fire, and then didn't manage the fire detection, fire alarm and fire escape systems.

You can accept budget cuts and still do your job right by making sure the smoke heads work, the alarms ring, the emergency lights come on, and the main gas valve shuts off when the alarm activates.

This is a failure of health and safety.
 
She was called "murderer" as well.

May's failure to meet with the residents on Thursday will go down as her Hurricane Katrina moment. I don't buy this "security concerns" argument as the Queen and Prince William got down there to meet with locals and there were no issues.
.

Agreed. I was so proud of the Queen yesterday. She showed the common touch. Her own house was bombed after all. She made Mrs May look useless and out of touch.

If this had happened two weeks ago, Mr Corbyn would be PM.
 
This is an extreme generalisation.

In my opinion, the disaster happened because someone didn't do a suitable and sufficient fire risk assessment. They made an effort by improving compartmentalisation and smoke evacuation systems. But they increasing the fire load with the wrong type of cladding insulation, not learning from the 2009 fire, and then didn't manage the fire detection, fire alarm and fire escape systems.

You can accept budget cuts and still do your job right by making sure the smoke heads work, the alarms ring, the emergency lights come on, and the main gas valve shuts off when the alarm activates.

This is a failure of health and safety.
There weren't any smoke heads, alarms, emergency lights or sprinklers. Deliberately. The regulations did not require them. Because the government had refused to implement the recommendations made in 2013 after a previous fire.

Interestingly according to Newsnight, this may have been a case of The Perfect Storm with a number of different factors all coming into play at the same time. eg The self closing fire doors, designed to contain the fire and stop the smoke spreading, weren't working properly.

Interesting, according to Newsnight, this particular type of cladding (that contained the flammable core) is banned in Germany.
 
There weren't any smoke heads, alarms, emergency lights or sprinklers. Deliberately. The regulations did not require them. Because the government had refused to implement the recommendations made in 2013 after a previous fire.

Interestingly according to Newsnight, this may have been a case of The Perfect Storm with a number of different factors all coming into play at the same time. eg The self closing fire doors, designed to contain the fire and stop the smoke spreading, weren't working properly.

Interesting, according to Newsnight, this particular type of cladding (that contained the flammable core) is banned in Germany.

I have professional experience and can state categorically that the fire regs and British Standards require smoke/heat detectors, alarms and emergency lighting. Sprinklers or similar may be appropriate according to the hazard and the environment - for example we installed a hydramist system above the chip fryers on one of the sites we refurbed.

If the fire doors didn't self-close that is another maintenance failure. They would be connected to the alarms.

Germany actually does allow that type of cladding insulation up to 24 metres but no higher.
 
Council tax pays for the fire brigade. [MENTION=107620]s28[/MENTION] made a point about fire stations closing.

We still haven't zeroed the annual deficit. We can do this in one or both of two ways. Firstly service cuts, which have now reached the point where ordinary people are becoming angry because they are disproportionally affected. Or we can pay more tax.
Or we can go after wealthy tax dodgers who not only employ accountants that are specialists at manipulating the system, but also hide their wealth in offshore accounts, and where, on average, a single tax dodger in this bracket avoids paying as much tax as would be generated by thousands of low paid individuals.

Similarly, forcing multi-nationals, like Amazon, Apple, Starbucks and others, to pay taxes in Britain for the business generated in Britain.

The argument that these corporations will relocate somewhere else is a false argument, since they will still continue doing business in Britain. Starbucks, Apple, Amazon and others aren't going to stop selling to UK customers, hence the profits they make in Britain should be taxed in Britain and paid to the UK tax authorities.

Taken all of the above together will generate £billions and go a long way towards reducing the need to increase taxes.
 
Or we can go after wealthy tax dodgers who not only employ accountants that are specialists at manipulating the system, but also hide their wealth in offshore accounts, and where, on average, a single tax dodger in this bracket avoids paying as much tax as would be generated by thousands of low paid individuals.

Similarly, forcing multi-nationals, like Amazon, Apple, Starbucks and others, to pay taxes in Britain for the business generated in Britain.

The argument that these corporations will relocate somewhere else is a false argument, since they will still continue doing business in Britain. Starbucks, Apple, Amazon and others aren't going to stop selling to UK customers, hence the profits they make in Britain should be taxed in Britain and paid to the UK tax authorities.

Taken all of the above together will generate £billions and go a long way towards reducing the need to increase taxes.

I agree that corporations who make profit here and pay no or minimal tax are an affront to decency.

But these people will think nothing of spending an extra million to save ten million in corporation tax, and pass that extra million onto the consumer. I think the Corbyn-McDonnell plan is naive. Counter-intuitively, cutting the corporation tax rate has generated more tax revenue as rims have invested in growth, made more taxable profit and employed more people who then pay income tax.
 
I agree that corporations who make profit here and pay no or minimal tax are an affront to decency.

But these people will think nothing of spending an extra million to save ten million in corporation tax, and pass that extra million onto the consumer. I think the Corbyn-McDonnell plan is naive. Counter-intuitively, cutting the corporation tax rate has generated more tax revenue as rims have invested in growth, made more taxable profit and employed more people who then pay income tax.
From the perspective of the UK tax payer, it's immaterial if these corporations "made more taxable profit" since they won't be paying the tax on that to the UK tax authorities anyway!
 
It's also nonsense. Cutting tax doesn't generate growth it has simply led to Corporations paying out more dividends and accumulating more cash on their balance sheets. Companies don't invest simply because of the tax rate they invest because of a variety of factors including variables such as technology, economic growth, interest rates, 'confidence' etc
Robert as ever treats people on this forum as ignorant by making simplistic superficial arguments in support of his alt-centrist supposedly moderate views.
 
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en-gb"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Architects know Grenfell Tower fire was an avoidable tragedy | Deon Lombard <a href="https://t.co/7qw1qHUZff">https://t.co/7qw1qHUZff</a></p>— Society Guardian (@SocietyGuardian) <a href="https://twitter.com/SocietyGuardian/status/876004014344749056">17 June 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
It's also nonsense. Cutting tax doesn't generate growth it has simply led to Corporations paying out more dividends and accumulating more cash on their balance sheets. Companies don't invest simply because of the tax rate they invest because of a variety of factors including variables such as technology, economic growth, interest rates, 'confidence' etc
Robert as ever treats people on this forum as ignorant by making simplistic superficial arguments in support of his alt-centrist supposedly moderate views.

And once again the ad hominem attacks come when facts, logic and reason which contradict your narrative are presented.
 
From the perspective of the UK tax payer, it's immaterial if these corporations "made more taxable profit" since they won't be paying the tax on that to the UK tax authorities anyway!

Some companies do and some companies don't. There are more firms than the ones you mention and many are responsible and ethical citizens in terms of paying tax, community engagement, health and safety, and environmental compliance.

I actually think Mr Corbyn's idea to reinforce staffing and budget at HMRC is pretty good, in principle, giving them more lawyer time to go after the serious offenders.

See, I'm pluralist about this issue, and don't suggest simplistic monolithic socialist solutions to complex problems. ;-)
 
Last edited:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en-gb"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">*** - yet another ignored warning ...<a href="https://t.co/lYosNO7u5h">https://t.co/lYosNO7u5h</a></p>— Konnie Huq (@Konnie_Huq) <a href="https://twitter.com/Konnie_Huq/status/875458945548247042">15 June 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
peter hitchens spot on here

the Elite will try to get Grenfell knocked down to erase it from their conscience... they shouldn't

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en-gb"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Leave Grenfell Tower standing as a permanent monument to our vanity and folly: <a href="https://t.co/F8Uu1U3PqU">https://t.co/F8Uu1U3PqU</a></p>— Peter Hitchens (@ClarkeMicah) <a href="https://twitter.com/ClarkeMicah/status/876326761776250881">18 June 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
peter hitchens spot on here

the Elite will try to get Grenfell knocked down to erase it from their conscience... they shouldn't

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en-gb"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Leave Grenfell Tower standing as a permanent monument to our vanity and folly: <a href="https://t.co/F8Uu1U3PqU">https://t.co/F8Uu1U3PqU</a></p>— Peter Hitchens (@ClarkeMicah) <a href="https://twitter.com/ClarkeMicah/status/876326761776250881">18 June 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

A moving article from Peter Hitchens. I don't always agree with him but he does have his moments where I find it impossible to disagree.

He and Peter Oborne are two right-wingers I respect greatly.
 
Death toll is now 79. One of the saddest events in recent British history.
 
Or we can go after wealthy tax dodgers who not only employ accountants that are specialists at manipulating the system, but also hide their wealth in offshore accounts, and where, on average, a single tax dodger in this bracket avoids paying as much tax as would be generated by thousands of low paid individuals.

Similarly, forcing multi-nationals, like Amazon, Apple, Starbucks and others, to pay taxes in Britain for the business generated in Britain.

The argument that these corporations will relocate somewhere else is a false argument, since they will still continue doing business in Britain. Starbucks, Apple, Amazon and others aren't going to stop selling to UK customers, hence the profits they make in Britain should be taxed in Britain and paid to the UK tax authorities.

Taken all of the above together will generate £billions and go a long way towards reducing the need to increase taxes.

We could also look at how we spend money on the military and whether that's as efficient as it could be. I have always criticised the Pakistan govt for spending a huge proportion on military hardware supposedly in defence of a war which seems unlikely to ever materialise. I wonder if Britain's nuclear option is also just a costly white elephant. We do seem to engage in a lot of wars across the world as well, that probably doesn't come cheap. It all seems very adventurous considering we can't even ensure risk free building without raising council tax.
 
Cap,

I said council tax pays for the fire brigade, not building safety.

We spend 2% of GDP on defence, whereas the NHS gets 20% IIRC, and welfare about 35%. Could be wrong on that but I think I'm close.

Dreadnought works out at about 2.5% of the NHS budget over the life of the system. What it is for is a good question. But more and more nations will acquire nuclear missile capability - you can't just wish it away.
 
Cap,

I said council tax pays for the fire brigade, not building safety.

We spend 2% of GDP on defence, whereas the NHS gets 20% IIRC, and welfare about 35%. Could be wrong on that but I think I'm close.

Dreadnought works out at about 2.5% of the NHS budget over the life of the system. What it is for is a good question. But more and more nations will acquire nuclear missile capability - you can't just wish it away.

How do Switzerland and Sweden manage it then?
 
I think the love for bombing is a sad reflection on and vestige of Britain and it's colonialist past

Trident is simply protection money paid to the US so it's really an unholy coalition of white supremacists, unreconstructed colonialists and Labour Right Atlanticists who are still so wedded to this pathetic little phallic symbol

<blockquote class="twitter-video" data-lang="en-gb"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">.<a href="https://twitter.com/frankieboyle">@frankieboyle</a> spot on re Trident "It's essentially protection money we pay to the US" h/t <a href="https://twitter.com/chunkymark">@chunkymark</a> <br>Corbyn is right again <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/JC4PM?src=hash">#JC4PM</a> <a href="https://t.co/6CST1ZCVFl">pic.twitter.com/6CST1ZCVFl</a></p>— The Absolute Boy JC (@TheBirmingham6) <a href="https://twitter.com/TheBirmingham6/status/856242511496568833">23 April 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
Cap,

I said council tax pays for the fire brigade, not building safety.

We spend 2% of GDP on defence, whereas the NHS gets 20% IIRC, and welfare about 35%. Could be wrong on that but I think I'm close.

Dreadnought works out at about 2.5% of the NHS budget over the life of the system. What it is for is a good question. But more and more nations will acquire nuclear missile capability - you can't just wish it away.
We could also look at how we spend money on the military and whether that's as efficient as it could be. I have always criticised the Pakistan govt for spending a huge proportion on military hardware supposedly in defence of a war which seems unlikely to ever materialise. I wonder if Britain's nuclear option is also just a costly white elephant. We do seem to engage in a lot of wars across the world as well, that probably doesn't come cheap. It all seems very adventurous considering we can't even ensure risk free building without raising council tax.
Robert,

Name me one scenario
where Britain fires it's nukes against an enemy whilst the USA doesn't.

Name me one scenario where both the USA and Britain fire their nukes against a common enemy, but Britain's few dozen missiles carried on Britain's nuclear submarine that's out on patrol at the time (Since only one, at most two, are likely to be out on patrol at any given time, whilst the others are in maintenance, refurbishment, sea trials etc. during the course of the lifetime of the system) makes much difference on top of the USA's thousands of nukes.

And in both scenarios assume that the UK will have full control and authority to fire it's nukes at whoever it wants and whenever it wants whilst bearing in mind that the missiles themselves (apart from the warheads) are manufactured, maintained, refurbished and stored in the USA, and thus are very likely to have failsafes under the control of the USA built into them (eg to make sure they are not accidentally, or deliberately, fired against the USA itself!!)

The reality is that Britain having a few nukes does not make a jot of difference since Britain will not/cannot fire them against someone that isn't already being fired upon by the USA anyway from it's arsenal of thousands.
 
Robert,

Name me one scenario
where Britain fires it's nukes against an enemy whilst the USA doesn't.

Name me one scenario where both the USA and Britain fire their nukes against a common enemy, but Britain's few dozen missiles carried on Britain's nuclear submarine that's out on patrol at the time (Since only one, at most two, are jlikely to be out on patrol at any given time, whilst the others are in maintenance, refurbishment, sea trials etc. during the course of the lifetime of the system) makes much difference on top of the USA's thousands of nukes.

And in both scenarios assume that the UK will have full control and authority to fire it's nukes at whoever it wants and whenever it wants whilst bearing in mind that the missiles themselves (apart from the warheads) are manufactured, maintained, refurbished and stored in the USA, and thus are very likely to have failsafes under the control of the USA built into them (eg to make sure they are not accidentally, or deliberately, fired against the USA itself!!)

The reality is that Britain having a few nukes does not make a jot of difference since Britain will not/cannot fire them against someone that isn't already being fired upon by the USA anyway from it's arsenal of thousands.

1. The USA leaves NATO and goes isolationist again. Tensions increase in the Baltic and Putin invades Latvia. The European forces send a fleet into the Baltic Sea. Putin fires a nuclear missile into the Baltic and destroys the fleet. The European forces respond with one nuclear missile, perhaps destroying Kaliningrad. Putin knows that the British and French SSBNs on CASD can devastate Russia without American help. He does not escalate and withdraws from part of Latvia.

2. See 1. Have a read on the sheer killing power of this system. Greater than all munitions used in WW1 and WW2 combined.

3. I wonder where this myth came from? It is quite recent. Nobody said this about Polaris, or Trident in the procurement phase. Why would HM Gov buy a system it does not have full control over? Makes no sense to me.
 
1. The USA leaves NATO and goes isolationist again. Tensions increase in the Baltic and Putin invades Latvia. The European forces send a fleet into the Baltic Sea. Putin fires a nuclear missile into the Baltic and destroys the fleet. The European forces respond with one nuclear missile, perhaps destroying Kaliningrad. Putin knows that the British and French SSBNs on CASD can devastate Russia without American help. He does not escalate and withdraws from part of Latvia.
:))) Now that's funny.
You think the USA is just going to get a ringside seat and watch whilst all this goes on?

Besides, Russia is going to be afraid of the few dozen or so British and French missiles, but the UK & France have no such fears about the thousands of Russian missiles, especial after, based upon your scenario, one of their major cities gets wiped out by a French/British strike?

2. See 1. Have a read on the sheer killing power of this system. Greater than all munitions used in WW1 and WW2 combined.

3. I wonder where this myth came from? It is quite recent. Nobody said this about Polaris, or Trident in the procurement phase. Why would HM Gov buy a system it does not have full control over? Makes no sense to me.
How can Britain be having 'full control' when the missiles are manufactured, maintained, refurbished and stored in the USA? Is the UK going to say "Please sir, can I have the rest of the missiles stored at your place so that I can fire them at the Russians whilst you sit and watch? This of course will cause such repercussions around the world that most world economies, including yours Uncle Sam, will go into a nose dive. And oh, the political upheavals caused will propably also cause a few major wars around the globe to ignite."

On a serious note: The worst thing about your scenario is that supposedly highly intelligent individuals like yourself actually think along these lines. :facepalm:
 
:))) Now that's funny.
You think the USA is just going to get a ringside seat and watch whilst all this goes on?

Besides, Russia is going to be afraid of the few dozen or so British and French missiles, but the UK & France have no such fears about the thousands of Russian missiles, especial after, based upon your scenario, one of their major cities gets wiped out by a French/British strike?

How can Britain be having 'full control' when the missiles are manufactured, maintained, refurbished and stored in the USA? Is the UK going to say "Please sir, can I have the rest of the missiles stored at your place so that I can fire them at the Russians whilst you sit and watch? This of course will cause such repercussions around the world that most world economies, including yours Uncle Sam, will go into a nose dive. And oh, the political upheavals caused will propably also cause a few major wars around the globe to ignite."

On a serious note: The worst thing about your scenario is that supposedly highly intelligent individuals like yourself actually think along these lines. :facepalm:

The Americans were happy to sit in ringside seats for much of WW1 and WW2.

Of course Russia is afraid. Of course Britain and France are afraid. That is why deterrence works.

All the missiles needed for British deterrence are on the RN SSBN boats right now. I suggest you do a bit more reading on this as you don't seem to know how it works.

I own a Mercedes-Benz. It was built in Germany. The parts are too. According to your line of thinking I am not able to drive it to places that do not suit Frau Merkel. Perhaps the software will malfunction if I try to put Munich into the satnav. According to your line of thinking, I knew this before I bought it.

This myth about lack of independence is recent. I think it originated in one of these Russian Troll Houses. It would fit their agenda for people in the West to believe that myth, wouldn't it?

On a serious note: as soon as you reach for the ad hominem attacks it means your reasoning has been exposed and you have lost the argument.
 
The Americans were happy to sit in ringside seats for much of WW1 and WW2.

Of course Russia is afraid. Of course Britain and France are afraid. That is why deterrence works.

All the missiles needed for British deterrence are on the RN SSBN boats right now. I suggest you do a bit more reading on this as you don't seem to know how it works.

I own a Mercedes-Benz. It was built in Germany. The parts are too. According to your line of thinking I am not able to drive it to places that do not suit Frau Merkel. Perhaps the software will malfunction if I try to put Munich into the satnav. According to your line of thinking, I knew this before I bought it.

This myth about lack of independence is recent. I think it originated in one of these Russian Troll Houses. It would fit their agenda for people in the West to believe that myth, wouldn't it?

On a serious note: as soon as you reach for the ad hominem attacks it means your reasoning has been exposed and you have lost the argument.
I take back the 'ad hominem attack'. It didn't come out the way I intended.

As for the example of the Mercedes-Benz, poor analogy. Not even worth explaining why.

If, in a nuclear war scenario, you believe that the USA may decide to sit back and let Britain/France wipe out a few Russian cities (at most, considering the vastness of Russia) whilst the Russians annihilate Britain/France (and most of the rest of Western Europe with the fallout) with a few of their own nukes out of the thousands they posses, then surely in such a scenario the USA would want to make sure as far as possible that none of the missiles/nukes, from either side, accidentally or deliberately, hit the United States itself? And that includes the British missiles that the USA build and maintained for the British. What better way to do it than to build some safeguards into them?

And no, I don't obtain my information from Russian Troll Houses. I use my common sense based upon logical analysis of what a weapons manufacturer of such highly sophisticated and devastating weapons would do to ensure that weapons he manufactured and supplied to a 3rd party were not then, accidentally or deliberately, used against himself.
 
Anyone remember the TV series House of Cards from 1993? This scene has strong parallels with this tragedy even mention 4th floor and 70 dead.

 
Uncanny. That was of course written by a Thatcher insider who wrote this with her in mind. Thus the leading character has the initials F.U. Francis Urquhart (and the US version is also F.U. Frank Underwood)
 
These fasting Young Men & Boys served Hot food to those affected.


This is what Islam has taught Us. Humanity.


Your anti Islam Rants cannot and will not stop Us.

DCURFjcXsAQVN84.jpg

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Last night, volunteers from <a href="https://twitter.com/UKMuslimYouth">@UKMuslimYouth</a> working with HF were providing hot <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/meals?src=hash">#meals</a> to people affected by the <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/GrenfellTowerFire?src=hash">#GrenfellTowerFire</a> in <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/London?src=hash">#London</a> <a href="https://t.co/M1F5ImqxeP">pic.twitter.com/M1F5ImqxeP</a></p>— Humanity First Int'l (@humanityfirstuk) <a href="https://twitter.com/humanityfirstuk/status/875196445145538560">June 15, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
<blockquote class="twitter-video" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">National Outreach Direct of <a href="https://twitter.com/UKMuslimYouth">@UKMuslimYouth</a>, Usman Ahmad <a href="https://twitter.com/U5manA">@U5manA</a>, speaking about <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/GrenfellTower?src=hash">#GrenfellTower</a> relief efforts on <a href="https://twitter.com/BBCBreakfast">@BBCBreakfast</a>. <a href="https://t.co/DuVWAifm3r">pic.twitter.com/DuVWAifm3r</a></p>— AMYA UK (@UKMuslimYouth) <a href="https://twitter.com/UKMuslimYouth/status/875308456403718145">June 15, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 

London fire: Expert says he tried to warn officials


<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/fleKRZy_9cM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 
Lowkey Interview With Grenfell Tower Inferno Survivor and Friend Cristos

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/1qxSon8vDFs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 
Guys, please only share tweets from verified accounts (i.e. those with blue ticks indicating verification).
 
Not seen this before. Real truth bombs from Ismahil Blahgrove at 6:24

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/-AX8DYTPJKc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 
I am LIVID at this. Utterly flabbergasted to read how callous people can be.

Check this out [MENTION=107620]s28[/MENTION] [MENTION=865]Big Mac[/MENTION] [MENTION=4930]Yossarian[/MENTION] [MENTION=46929]shaz619[/MENTION] [MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...families-in-luxury-block-meets-mixed-response

Two miles south of the charred skeleton of Grenfell Tower is a large complex of sleek new apartments that some of those displaced by last week’s inferno will soon be able to call home.

Kensington Row’s manicured lawns, clipped trees and burbling fountains are a haven from the rumbling traffic of two busy London thoroughfares, and its spacious, air-conditioned foyers a relief from June’s oppressive heatwave.

Four unfinished blocks house the 68 flats purchased by the Corporation of London for families who lost their homes in Grenfell Tower.
Workmen had been instructed not to talk to the media, but one said there was now a rush to complete the building work. “It’s a brilliant idea,” he said of the resettlement plan.

Among those exercising dogs and small children, the views were more mixed. “It’s so unfair,” said Maria, who was reading the news in the Evening Standard with two neighbours.

She bought her flat two years ago for a sum she was unwilling to disclose. “We paid a lot of money to live here, and we worked hard for it. Now these people are going to come along, and they won’t even be paying the service charge.”

Nick, who pays £2,500 a month rent for a one-bedroom flat in the complex, also expressed doubts about the plan. “Who are the real tenants of Grenfell Tower?” he asked. “It seems as though a lot of flats there were sublet. Now the people whose names are on the tenancies will get rehoused here, and then they’ll rent the flats out on the private market. And the people who were actually living unofficially in the tower at the time of the fire won’t get rehoused.

“I’m very sad that people have lost their homes, but there are a lot of people here who have bought flats and will now see the values drop. It will degrade things. And it opens up a can of worms in the housing market.”

To HELL with your property prices. 79 people have been burnt to death in their own homes and you pompous arses can only think about your precious house prices.

Everything that is wrong about London summed up in a nutshell.
 
I am LIVID at this. Utterly flabbergasted to read how callous people can be.

Check this out [MENTION=107620]s28[/MENTION] [MENTION=865]Big Mac[/MENTION] [MENTION=4930]Yossarian[/MENTION] [MENTION=46929]shaz619[/MENTION] [MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...families-in-luxury-block-meets-mixed-response



To HELL with your property prices. 79 people have been burnt to death in their own homes and you pompous arses can only think about your precious house prices.

Everything that is wrong about London summed up in a nutshell.

Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't a condition on these apartments getting planning permission that a third of them be used for social housing?

I'm pretty sure it was one of the reasons Sadiq Khan was elected as most Ethnic minorities are on Housing benefits.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't a condition on these apartments getting planning permission that a third of them be used for social housing?

I'm pretty sure it was one of the reasons Sadiq Khan was elected as most Ethnic minorities are on Housing benefits.

Yes ! They were going to be affordable social housing units in that place anyway !
 
Yes ! They were going to be affordable social housing units in that place anyway !

So the reality is they were just bumped up the priority list quite rightly.
The only problem is subletting as apparently a lot of the flats in Grenfell Tower's were being sublet. This is a huge problem in London. I hope the authorities pay attention to this.
 
I am LIVID at this. Utterly flabbergasted to read how callous people can be.

Check this out [MENTION=107620]s28[/MENTION] [MENTION=865]Big Mac[/MENTION] [MENTION=4930]Yossarian[/MENTION] [MENTION=46929]shaz619[/MENTION] [MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...families-in-luxury-block-meets-mixed-response



To HELL with your property prices. 79 people have been burnt to death in their own homes and you pompous arses can only think about your precious house prices.

Everything that is wrong about London summed up in a nutshell.

Disgusting attitude from these entitled bigots, with severe levels of inequality and unfairness it is pathetic for them to push the "we worked hard" rhetoric, it is the duty of society to help those in need and give them the adequate support required to ensure their basic necessities at the very least.

I am concerned about this though:

"Who are the real tenants of Grenfell Tower?” he asked. “It seems as though a lot of flats there were sublet. Now the people whose names are on the tenancies will get rehoused here, and then they’ll rent the flats out on the private market. And the people who were actually living unofficially in the tower at the time of the fire won’t get rehoused.

I don't want the evil landlords to benefit from this tragedy :/ ? [MENTION=53290]Markhor[/MENTION] [MENTION=396]mani1[/MENTION]
 
I am LIVID at this. Utterly flabbergasted to read how callous people can be.

Check this out [MENTION=107620]s28[/MENTION] [MENTION=865]Big Mac[/MENTION] [MENTION=4930]Yossarian[/MENTION] [MENTION=46929]shaz619[/MENTION] [MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...families-in-luxury-block-meets-mixed-response



To HELL with your property prices. 79 people have been burnt to death in their own homes and you pompous arses can only think about your precious house prices.

Everything that is wrong about London summed up in a nutshell.


Bhaee this has got nothing to do with London.


This is materialism. Materialistic World.


They are Jealous and Yes some amongst them would have earned it surely but those who got burnt weren't there blood so the sad incidence did not affect them much.


What should the government have done ?


1. Those who were living there on Rent should have been compensated for their belongings incase there was No Insurance.

2. While those who suffered burn and other injuries should be given best treatment and compensation.


That's it.


The Filthy Rich people who are materialistic to the highest levels do not care much for Humanity instead they are more concerned about the Elite, Rich people being their neighbours in a high rise state of the art modern apartments.


When You believe in No religion, No God than what are your values, ethics & morals ? Only those taught to you by your parents, teachers, friends, seniors & colleagues and here is the example infront of you. Don't forget that for them this World is everything so they do not intend to feel for poor under previlaged people and to help and support them to make Allah happy and to get rewards from HIM in this life or after life because they will be Mean and would say what Worldly benefits I will get from these people's in return ? Rather Oh I have to live with these classless people when I dreamed to have classy filthy rich london elite to be my neighbours.
 
I am LIVID at this. Utterly flabbergasted to read how callous people can be.

Check this out [MENTION=107620]s28[/MENTION] [MENTION=865]Big Mac[/MENTION] [MENTION=4930]Yossarian[/MENTION] [MENTION=46929]shaz619[/MENTION] [MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...families-in-luxury-block-meets-mixed-response



To HELL with your property prices. 79 people have been burnt to death in their own homes and you pompous arses can only think about your precious house prices.

Everything that is wrong about London summed up in a nutshell.

I don't want to sound callous, but property prices affect people's lives as well. It's easy for us to say these people are selfish, but it's not us whose properties could see thousands wiped off their values in a very short space of time. In London people have to work hard to buy property, it would hurt anyone to see that value plummet due to circumstances out of their control.
 
I am LIVID at this. Utterly flabbergasted to read how callous people can be.

Check this out [MENTION=107620]s28[/MENTION] [MENTION=865]Big Mac[/MENTION] [MENTION=4930]Yossarian[/MENTION] [MENTION=46929]shaz619[/MENTION] [MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...families-in-luxury-block-meets-mixed-response



To HELL with your property prices. 79 people have been burnt to death in their own homes and you pompous arses can only think about your precious house prices.

Everything that is wrong about London summed up in a nutshell.
Whilst I agree that it is callous to talk about property prices when people are made homeless after barely escaping with their lives and when their neighbours, friends and families members have died in the fire.

Having said that, he's making a fair point in that many of the flats and/or rooms within the flats would have been (unofficially) sub-let by the real owners, meaning that not only would their names not have been on the list of residents who survived (or died!), but presumably because these (unofficial) tenants who managed to escape the fires would still be left homeless whilst the actual owners would be given these luxury flats, to live in or, again, to unofficially sub-let!

This is where the government needs to be very careful of as to who is given this help and who is not. The (unofficial) sub-tenants must not be forgotten about!
 
Why do they need to be housed in luxury flats in middle of the rich belt... I see no reason for it other than appeasement. Why are the rich having to be made ashamed for the tragedy? The rich residents of Kensington did not cause this tragedy. Whoever owned properties in glenfell will get insurance payouts as well as considerable compensation in due course from government.

With all due respect to the affected, but the response is going OTT.
 
Whilst I agree that it is callous to talk about property prices when people are made homeless after barely escaping with their lives and when their neighbours, friends and families members have died in the fire.

Having said that, he's making a fair point in that many of the flats and/or rooms within the flats would have been (unofficially) sub-let by the real owners, meaning that not only would their names not have been on the list of residents who survived (or died!), but presumably because these (unofficial) tenants who managed to escape the fires would still be left homeless whilst the actual owners would be given these luxury flats, to live in or, again, to unofficially sub-let!

This is where the government needs to be very careful of as to who is given this help and who is not. The (unofficial) sub-tenants must not be forgotten about!




So ?


The Official Owners do not deserve compensation if they aren't being paid by Insurance companies ?
 
So ?


The Official Owners do not deserve compensation if they aren't being paid by Insurance companies ?
Did you actually understand what I wrote?

Here let me explain again.

An unscrupulous owner or non-resident tenant whose name was on the residents list but who did not actually live there because he had (unofficially) sub-let the flat, would have nothing to prevent him from going to the authorities, claiming that he did live there, that he's been made homeless due to the fire and asking to be 'rehoused' in these new luxury flats.

In the meantime the unregistered and unofficial sub-tenant who actually lived there, but had no way of proving it as their name was not on the residents list, would still be left homeless. They are in danger of being forgotten about.

Many of us will know of friends who live and study or work in London and who rent rooms from the official owners/tenants/residents who have a spare room and wish to make some extra money. In some cases these owners or 'official' tenants would rent all the rooms out on an unofficial basis whilst they live somewhere else themselves - perhaps with family/parents. Their sub-tenants would not appear on any tenants list and would have no way of proving they lived there.
 
Why do they need to be housed in luxury flats in middle of the rich belt...... .
Maybe because it was the only large block of residential units that was available within a reasonable distance of their previous homes, their children's schools, their places of work? Plus it would still be cheaper than putting everyone in hotels for an extended period whilst other accommodation could be found. Have you seen the prices of hotel rooms in that part of London?
 
Did you actually understand what I wrote?

Here let me explain again.

An unscrupulous owner or non-resident tenant whose name was on the residents list but who did not actually live there because he had (unofficially) sub-let the flat, would have nothing to prevent him from going to the authorities, claiming that he did live there, that he's been made homeless due to the fire and asking to be 'rehoused' in these new luxury flats.

In the meantime the unregistered and unofficial sub-tenant who actually lived there, but had no way of proving it as their name was not on the residents list, would still be left homeless. They are in danger of being forgotten about.

Many of us will know of friends who live and study or work in London and who rent rooms from the official owners/tenants/residents who have a spare room and wish to make some extra money. In some cases these owners or 'official' tenants would rent all the rooms out on an unofficial basis whilst they live somewhere else themselves - perhaps with family/parents. Their sub-tenants would not appear on any tenants list and would have no way of proving they lived there.


Dear Brother I have got the point now. Thank You.


But see Gov in this case might not be able to identify who the occupant of the flats was at that time unless they cab review CCTV footages of the place of last 6 months. I don't know whether it would be legal or not.


I expect the real owners to be still compensated by insurance companies so they won't be at loss. If there was no insurance than gov should compensate them.


For those who lived there but weren't the owners they should be compensated by gov for their belongings only plus financial help if they are not in physical position to help.


Given the reputation of first world country UK and the systems inplace I don't see those people benefiting from this who do not deserve plus there will be media scrutiny aswell. Still I would side with Markhor brother at the response shown by people. Use of word Callous is justified.
 
I am LIVID at this. Utterly flabbergasted to read how callous people can be.

Check this out [MENTION=107620]s28[/MENTION] [MENTION=865]Big Mac[/MENTION] [MENTION=4930]Yossarian[/MENTION] [MENTION=46929]shaz619[/MENTION] [MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...families-in-luxury-block-meets-mixed-response



To HELL with your property prices. 79 people have been burnt to death in their own homes and you pompous arses can only think about your precious house prices.

Everything that is wrong about London summed up in a nutshell.

There are a lot of selfish people about. I feel sorry for them, lost in their own little dramas. If only they could open up, and love a bit more.

I'm glad that the Council has rehoused the Grenfell residents, though the disaster recovery plan was severely lacking.
 
Cladding on 75 tower blocks from 25 council areas has now failed fire safety tests for cladding.

That is a 100% failure rate; no cladding that's been tested has passed !

So how did these tower blocks pass fire safety tests in the first place ? The state of housing in this country is absolute shambles.
 
.<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/D6iNgV0Q5Dk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 
Suspend Kensington and Chelsea council and send in external commissioners.
 
They've declared amnesty for those who were illegally sub-letting at Grenfell to try to get better handle on numbers. Why wasn't this announced straightaway. Pathetic.

Also needs to be made clear there will be amnesty on so-called 'illegal immigrants' who lived there as well. Just think if you've lost family/friends in the fire to then be terrorised by thought that by seeking help you may incriminate yourself and be deported for your trouble!
 
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en-gb"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Diane Abbott calls for an immigration amnesty for the survivors of the Grenfell Tower fire <a href="https://t.co/mwshWLwVvS">pic.twitter.com/mwshWLwVvS</a></p>— Channel 4 News (@Channel4News) <a href="https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/881902296124338176">3 July 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
Met Police say there are reasonable grounds to suspect corporate manslaughter.
 
Grenfell Tower: 'Twenty suicide attempts' since fire

At least 20 survivors and witnesses of the Grenfell Tower fire have attempted suicide, a support network has said.

Silence of Suicide founder Yvette Greenway told the BBC's Victoria Derbyshire programme the number was based on conversations with residents.

Campaign group Justice4Grenfell said those working with survivors had heard of 20 suicide attempts, but the BBC has been unable to verify the figure.

A network of support is available, Kensington and Chelsea Council said.

Deputy leader Kim Taylor-Smith said the council was "committed to supporting those affected by this tragedy".

He said support included proactive work within the community and schools, a 24-hour NHS helpline and emotional support services provided by local community groups along with the Samaritans.


'Alcohol dependency'

Ms Greenway said many residents were unable to get images of the burning tower "out of their minds".

"There is a lot of alcohol and drug dependency," she said. "People are feeling isolated."

Ms Greenway said there was little confidence in "council-led" mental health services.

"We've been told workers are going around putting leaflets under hotel doors and not actually speaking to people," she said.

"There are going to be many more instances of PTSD [post-traumatic stress disorder], depression, anxiety and self-harming as people reach different stages of trauma.

"Everybody will be affected at different times.

"We need long-term mental health provision for the next three decades at least - maybe longer."


Survivor guilt

Judy Bolton, a nurse for 20 years who is now co-ordinating volunteers for Justice4Grenfell, said mental health support services needed to be rethought.

She said rather than waiting for survivors to actively seek help, services should instead "go to them".

Ms Bolton suggested there were multiple factors in why people were attempting suicide, including depression, survivor guilt and feeling unable to cope with the loss of loved ones.

"There just isn't the proper psychiatric help that people need," she said.

"They need trauma and bereavement counselling urgently.

"People are self-medicating to shut out the trauma.

"We were flooded with drug dealers preying on the traumatised.

"People saw their neighbours falling from a burning building.

"They saw children being dropped from the building.

"There are still ashes still blowing over us when the train goes past.

"We're being covered in the ash of our dead friends and relatives."

In a statement, Kensington Council said more than 800 people had been seen by a local response team and 700 people were spoken to by NHS health professionals at Notting Hill Carnival.

Screening for post-traumatic stress disorder has been provided for 330 people so far, according to council figures, and 66% of those have been referred for treatment.

Dr Alastair Bailey, clinical lead for Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust's Take Time to Talk Service, said: "It's important that people know we are here to listen to anyone struggling with painful feelings, such as despair, guilt or hopelessness, following the trauma of these events.

"People can reach out to many local organisations including faith-based groups as well the Samaritans for emotional help; they are easy to contact and speak to, and will be non-judgemental."

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-41148877
 
The Grenfell residents still living in hotels: ‘This is no normal life’

The cafe outside the Copthorne Tara hotel off Kensington High Street in west London is known informally as Grenfell HQ. Three months since the disaster, around 18 families who escaped from the Grenfell Tower fire are still living in the hotel, and every morning a few of them come to sit here to discuss the increasingly pressing issue of when they will be rehoused.

Only two families who escaped the tower have moved into permanent new homes, despite a firm commitment from Theresa May two days after the fire that everyone would be rehoused within three weeks. Approximately 150 households are still scattered across London in 36 hotels. The hotel bill (excluding meals) already stands at more than £5m.

Grenfell resident Sid-Ali Atmani, who escaped from the 15th floor, is incredulous at the delay. “For three months, people here have been discussing the same subject, every day, every night – housing. It’s making people more and more ill,” he says. The wait has been particularly distressing for his daughter, Hyam, 10, one of about 200 children still in hotels. “She comes back from school to the hotel. She doesn’t have her own kitchen, her own glass. This has been going on for 90 days and 90 nights. She is tired and frustrated.” She found it tough being cooped up in a cramped hotel room throughout the summer holidays. “Some days she sat in the lobby all day. There are a thousand different faces going past. She hasn’t got her toys. This is no normal life.”

The sluggish, chaotic official response to the fire shocked residents in the days after the catastrophe. Kensington MP Emma Dent Coad says things have got worse. She has already dealt with four interim directors of housing seconded to the local council, and says she is so frustrated at the rapidly shifting cast of people meant to be taking charge of the situation that to describe it as “gross incompetence” would be to put a positive spin on things.

“We are constantly being given different people to write to,” says Dent Coad, who was just days into her job as Kensington’s new Labour MP when the fire happened. An emergency Gold Command team was initially in charge, and then a Grenfell Response taskforce, and now the council again. “My head is spinning with all the people who have gone in and are not helping. How can you coordinate things when there’s an ever-changing list of people supposedly in charge, and nobody is in charge of that?”

Sitting in the autumn sunshine outside the Kensington hotel, Atmani says survivors are puzzled by the delay. “Everyone is worried. You feel blind, because you can’t see what is happening inside the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea,” he says, drinking a double espresso to wake himself up; since the fire, he has been unable to sleep well at night.

An older Lebanese woman stops to ask whether he has heard anything new about housing offers. “I don’t know why we’re still here,” she says. “Whenever I see him I ask: ‘When are we going to move from here?’ As if he is the council, and he knows.”

She has not yet been shown any flats to consider. “Every week they say: this week we’ll show you something. This week.” Each family is supposed to have a key worker to help with the process; this woman (who asks not to be named) says her key worker has not been much help. “What can she do for me? Whenever she visits, she asks me: ‘Any news?’ I’m sitting here in the hotel and she is asking me: ‘Any news?’”

As she explains the situation, she tries to stop herself from crying, then gives up. “I’ve no complaint about the hotel; when I leave I’ll write a nice letter to thank them. If I had peace of mind I would stay happily, but we don’t know what’s happening.” She spends most days sitting in the hotel reception, waiting. “Doing nothing. Looking at an iPad, watching cooking programmes, just to keep my mind going.” She minds not being able to open the window in her room or cook her own food, and not having any privacy. But most of all she is troubled by the prolonged uncertainty.

The council and the government both stress the complexity of the process of rehousing the people living in the 151 flats that were lost to the fire. Since many of the Grenfell flats were overcrowded, 196 new homes were needed. Addressing the Commons on 5 September, the communities and local government secretary, Sajid Javid, said he did not “want to see families being forced to move or make snap decisions simply so that I have better numbers to report … What matters to us is not ticking boxes but working at the pace that suits the needs and circumstances of individual residents.”

His position is echoed by the council; a spokesperson emails to say: “We are dealing with severely traumatised people and we do not want to rush anyone to make a decision.”

This frequently repeated line about the council’s desire to treat people gently because they are traumatised, prompts eye-rolling among residents, many of whom say they are desperate to get out of hotels, and that the delay is entirely on the council’s side. A mother of three, who is waiting for permanent housing and who also asks not to be named, joins Atmani at the hotel cafe. “There isn’t a sense of urgency. Things aren’t happening quickly enough. What’s the excuse for the delay?”

Most families want to be given a permanent home and are wary of getting into the temporary housing system; many have bitter experience of being on waiting lists for permanent accommodation for years. Many families are worried that the rents, future council tax levels and the tenancy status of new properties may be worse than they had in Grenfell and they no longer trust commitments from the council that all will be fine. After a very slow start, the council has this month begun to show families more properties that they can stay in for the long-term.

Some people have finally been shown flats in the Kensington Row development, where the Corporation of London bought 68 flats for Grenfell families (triggering complaints from prospective neighbours, with one worried that the arrival of social tenants would “degrade things”). The luxuriousness of this part of the development (which was always designated as social housing, in accordance with planning regulations) seems to have been somewhat overstated, and flats bear no relation to those pictured in the media earlier this summer. “The flats are fine, but they shouldn’t have shown people what they’re not getting,” Atmani says.

A former restaurant manager and Sainsbury’s employee, he is energetic, articulate and well able to express his anger. In the past few weeks he has made the prime minister aware of his dissatisfaction with the process during a public meeting, and has fixed up several face-to-face meetings with housing minister Alok Sharma, Home Office minister Nick Hurd, and senior council figures – all to little concrete effect.

Dent Coad is much more worried about those people who are less able to demand their rights. “The provision is completely uneven. Not everyone is articulate; some struggle with English,” she says. She relates an upsetting story about a vulnerable disabled person being left in a hotel room bed without any help. “People are being forgotten about.”

She is scathing about upbeat government statements, accentuating the positive. Javid recently trumpeted the “amazing results” received by Grenfell students who took A-levels and GCSEs after the fire, but Dent Coad remains focused on the less inspirational problems experienced by dozens of residents who have sought her help. One family, whose child was also taking GCSEs on the day of the fire, “arrived at school in underwear; had to be dressed, got through the exams, did not achieve fabulous grades; there was little or no consideration from the school about what had happened and [the child] lost their place at sixth form.” She has worked with the family to find a place for the child in another school, but stresses: “Some people are just managing day to day; they don’t have the energy to fight the big fight.”

Dent Coad is despairing at the lack of progress. “It feels like an ****-covering exercise.”

It is certainly very hard to unpick how much progress has been made. It is a minor thing, but the council press officer (who is otherwise extremely helpful) spends some time on the phone explaining that counting the number of people who have moved into permanent flats is not a “metric” they are using. Puzzlingly, they are listing the higher number who have “accepted permanent accommodation” (but who are still in hotels waiting to move) – currently 18 households. The number who have moved into temporary accommodation is also a metric they release (29 households). He does eventually concede, after we have been going around in circles, that the number of households who have moved into permanent new homes is just two.

Dent Coad is most concerned about the large number of children who remain in hotels. Several Grenfell survivors have sent her pictures of themselves, squeezed together on hotel beds eating takeaway meals. “Some are in rooms next to the parents but not adjoining, so if the children need them in the night they have to go out into the public corridor. There is nowhere for them to do their homework, there’s no sitting room where they can sit and watch telly, nowhere for home-cooked meals, all the things that children rely on for normality at the end of school – they have none of that. It is no way for children to live in a hotel, with different strangers around all the time.”

Rehousing is her immediate priority; next is ensuring survivors are getting proper mental health support. In the longer-term, she wants attention focused on housing inequality. She supports a proposal from Grenfell campaigner Edward Daffarn, who yesterday called for privatised assets to be returned to the community, as reparation for the tragedy. She hopes that whatever money is left over from the £18.9m donated by the public will be ploughed back into the area. “We need to get back the things that have been lost in the last few years, the nurseries, the after-school clubs, the council services that have been decimated since 2010 and put them all back to the service of the community,” she says.

Three miles away from the Copthorne Tara, about 20 families are still living at the Radisson Blu Portman Hotel, and Khalid Ahmed, 20, is reaching the end of his tether. Surrounded by silver buckets of white orchids, amid the hubbub of tourists and waistcoated porters pushing polished bronze trolleys piled high with suitcases across the expensively carpeted lobby, he describes living long-term in a hotel as a “nightmare”. “It’s not home,” he says. He is uncomfortable walking past the top-hatted doormen after football training. “They don’t say anything but it’s a four-star hotel. People are in their tuxes and they look at you if you come in in your muddy kit.” He is often surprised by visits from cleaning staff. “It’s one knock, then boom, they come in. It’s a beautiful hotel but I’m not on holiday.”

Although he has a food allowance from the council, he is shocked by the hotel prices (a Red Bull outside costs around £1.19; here a can costs £4.15). He no longer eats at the hotel. Every night, the Grenfell families living here gather in the lobby to talk about housing; their patience is running thin.

“Initially people were angry because of what happened. Now they are getting angry again because it’s all taking so long.” But he is hoping that his time in the hotel will end before he starts his mechanical engineering course in October. His aunt, whom he lives with, has seen a flat she likes, and plans to accept it; they might be able to move within weeks. “It would mean a lot not to be waking up in a business environment every morning. I never thought it would take three months.”

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...still-living-in-hotels-this-is-no-normal-life
 
Grenfell Tower: 'Catastrophic' safety failures outlined

A catalogue of safety problems allowing the Grenfell Tower fire to take hold have been indentified in reports from five experts for the blaze inquiry.

Dr Barbara Lane says a "non-compliance" culture had existed with basic fire measures missing or "inadequate".

She listed issues with ventilation systems, lifts, fire mains and doors.

The reports suggested cladding was incorrectly installed, and the primary cause of the "catastrophic" spread of June's fire, which caused 72 deaths.

The inquiry also heard the fire service advice to residents to "stay put" in their flats had "effectively failed" within around half an hour of the blaze starting.

The reports have been published at the start of the fact-finding stage of the public inquiry.

The hearing was played the audio of the first 999 call made on the night, by the tenant of flat 16 on the fourth floor - where the fire started - Behailu Kebede, who survived.

In it he told the operator: "Quick, quick, quick. It's burning."

A montage of video sent in by the public of fire, showing burning debris falling from the tower was also shown. "Oh my god," says one woman , while another could be heard crying as the fire became out of control.

Dr Lane said: "The building envelope itself was therefore a major hazard on the night of the fire.

"The active and passive fire protection measures within Grenfell Tower were required to mitigate an extraordinary event. As a result, the consequences were catastrophic."

The experts' reports highlighted:

Most of the fire doors at the entrance to the 120 flats had been replaced in 2011 but neither they or the original doors still left in place complied with fire test evidence
The lifts failed to perform effectively, hindering the transportation of firefighting equipment and creating an "unnecessary risk" to residents who could not use it to escape
The stairwell, the only escape route in the tower, became clogged with smoke and then hit by fire
The fire service had to pump its own water into Grenfell Tower - the building's "dry fire main" system was "non-compliant" with guidance at the time of construction and was "non-compliant with current standards"
The smoke control system did not operate correctly, reducing the ability to improve both escape and firefighting conditions
A lack of regulations requiring a central alarm system in residential buildings such as Grenfell Tower
Existing building guidelines and tests allow "obvious dangers" to be incorporated into cladding systems routinely
An "architecture crown" fitting at the top of the tower caught alight and fell down, allowing the fire to move around the tower not just up
When the fire was first reported at 00:54 BST, residents were initially given the advice to "stay put" inside the building.

In her report, Dr Lane said this advice had "effectively failed" by 01:26.

A change in policy recommending residents try to leave was not made until 02:47 BST, one hour and 53 minutes after the first emergency call.

Prof Jose Torero's report said a "stay put" strategy was appropriate while the fire was only in flat 16, but not once the fire started to spread up the building.

He said that after the fire had breached the flat - the "second phase" - it would have been better for residents to have left their flats and exited the building.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-44351567
 
DrQOvjdX0AAPSEC.jpg:large



Police are investigating an "appalling and disturbing" video which shows a model of Grenfell Tower being burned on a bonfire.

The video shows a group of people holding a cardboard effigy of the tower, where dozens of people were killed in a fire last June, before placing it onto a bonfire.

The model includes cut outs of people peering out the windows, and even has one dangling from the top.

In the video, members of the group can be heard laughing and shouting "help me, help me".

As the fire climbs up their effigy, one of the people question whether they should have put the tower on upside down, because the fire started on the 10th floor.

One person shouts "jump out the window" while another offers the original fire brigade advice before the scale of the tragedy was understood, saying "stay in your flats".

Another voice can be heard saying "that's what happens when they don't pay their rent".

The video was shared by SOS magazine editor Kay Oldroyd, who asked the Met Police for guidance on reporting it as a hate crime.

She said she did not know the origin of the video, but it was being shared via messaging service Whatsapp.

Scotland Yard says its Grenfell Tower investigation team is "taking this matter very seriously", adding: "Any offences that have been committed will be fully investigated".

Commander Stuart Cundy said: "I am frankly appalled by the callous nature of the video posted online.

"So many people lost so many loved ones, and many more have been deeply affected. To mock that disaster in such a crude way is vile."

Victims of the Grenfell Tower fire are remembered with 72 seconds of silence

In a statement, the Justice4Grenfell campaign group said: "This was an unnecessary sickening act of hate against those who, through no fault of their own, have experienced the worst since 14 June 2017.

"This is clearly a hate crime and as a society we should never tolerate these types of blatant acts of hatred."

Meanwhile, Home Secretary Sajid Javid condemned the video, calling it "disgusting, shameful, behaviour".

The video comes as families and survivors of the Grenfell tragedy continue to listen to evidence at the inquiry into the fire.

The Grenfell Tower fire on 14 June last year killed 72 people.

https://news.sky.com/story/grenfell-victims-mocked-in-sickening-bonfire-effigy-video-11545614
 
Last edited:
Five men have been arrested on suspicion of a public order offence in connection with a model of Grenfell Tower being burned on a bonfire.

A video shared on social media shows a cardboard model of the tower being set alight by a laughing crowd.

The Metropolitan Police said the men - two aged 49 and the others aged 19, 46 and 55 - handed themselves in at a south London station on Monday night.

Prime Minister Theresa May had called the video "utterly unacceptable".

Grenfell Tower: The fires that foretold the tragedyHow the tragedy unfolded at Grenfell TowerGrenfell Tower was 'unsafe to live in'

The footage shows a large model bearing a Grenfell Tower sign, complete with paper figures at the windows, being set on fire.

Laughter can be heard off camera as the effigy is set alight, with onlookers shouting "Help me! Help me!" and "Jump out the window!" as the blaze takes hold.

At the end of the clip a person can be heard saying: "That's what happens when they don't pay their rent."

A total of 72 people were killed in the devastating blaze at the west London tower block in June 2017.

Image captionFootage shows a large flammable model marked "Grenfell Tower" with paper figures at the windows, being set on fire

The men have been arrested under section 4a of the Public Order Act 1986 , which covers intentional "harassment, alarm or distress" caused via the use of "threatening, abusive or insulting" words or signs.

Offences committed on a private residence where a person "had no reason to believe" it would be "heard or seen by a person outside that or any other dwelling" are protected from prosecution under the act.

Image captionMoyra Samuels, from the Justice For Grenfell campaign group, called the video a "disgusting attack"

Moyra Samuels, part of the Justice For Grenfell campaign group, told the BBC the video was "a disgusting attack on vulnerable people".

She added: "We have no doubt that there are actually decent, generous people across Britain and this actual act doesn't represent ordinary British people.

"But there is a worrying rise of racism in this country at the moment. And that is concerning, because it's now starting to impact on us directly, which means that we actually need to be thinking what we do about this, and how we respond to this as a whole."

Natasha Elcock, from Grenfell United, said: "Not only is it extremely upsetting to survivors and people who lost family, it's hateful and offensive to everyone that has been affected by the tragic events of that night."

Under the Public Order Act, racially or religiously aggravated offences carry a prison sentence of up to two years, a fine or both.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-46106224
 
Five men have been arrested on suspicion of a public order offence in connection with a model of Grenfell Tower being burned on a bonfire.

A video shared on social media shows a cardboard model of the tower being set alight by a laughing crowd.

The Metropolitan Police said the men - two aged 49 and the others aged 19, 46 and 55 - handed themselves in at a south London station on Monday night.

Prime Minister Theresa May had called the video "utterly unacceptable".

Grenfell Tower: The fires that foretold the tragedyHow the tragedy unfolded at Grenfell TowerGrenfell Tower was 'unsafe to live in'

The footage shows a large model bearing a Grenfell Tower sign, complete with paper figures at the windows, being set on fire.

Laughter can be heard off camera as the effigy is set alight, with onlookers shouting "Help me! Help me!" and "Jump out the window!" as the blaze takes hold.

At the end of the clip a person can be heard saying: "That's what happens when they don't pay their rent."

A total of 72 people were killed in the devastating blaze at the west London tower block in June 2017.

Image captionFootage shows a large flammable model marked "Grenfell Tower" with paper figures at the windows, being set on fire

The men have been arrested under section 4a of the Public Order Act 1986 , which covers intentional "harassment, alarm or distress" caused via the use of "threatening, abusive or insulting" words or signs.

Offences committed on a private residence where a person "had no reason to believe" it would be "heard or seen by a person outside that or any other dwelling" are protected from prosecution under the act.

Image captionMoyra Samuels, from the Justice For Grenfell campaign group, called the video a "disgusting attack"

Moyra Samuels, part of the Justice For Grenfell campaign group, told the BBC the video was "a disgusting attack on vulnerable people".

She added: "We have no doubt that there are actually decent, generous people across Britain and this actual act doesn't represent ordinary British people.

"But there is a worrying rise of racism in this country at the moment. And that is concerning, because it's now starting to impact on us directly, which means that we actually need to be thinking what we do about this, and how we respond to this as a whole."

Natasha Elcock, from Grenfell United, said: "Not only is it extremely upsetting to survivors and people who lost family, it's hateful and offensive to everyone that has been affected by the tragic events of that night."

Under the Public Order Act, racially or religiously aggravated offences carry a prison sentence of up to two years, a fine or both.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-46106224

Appalling, the guilty should be hanged. Bring back capital punishment so we can deal with such moronic behaviour but what can you when the government has been equally bad in this tragedy.
 
Appalling, the guilty should be hanged. Bring back capital punishment so we can deal with such moronic behaviour but what can you when the government has been equally bad in this tragedy.

why waste good tax payers money, release their identities and set them free.
 
Grenfell Tower fire: 'Systemic failures' in fire brigade's response

The London Fire Brigade (LFB) has been condemned for "serious shortcomings" and systemic failures in its response to the Grenfell Tower fire, in a report into the 2017 blaze.

Fewer people would have died in the fire if the LFB had taken certain actions earlier, the report by inquiry chairman Sir Martin Moore-Bick said.

He also said some evidence given by the LFB at the inquiry was "insensitive".

The BBC has seen sections of the report ahead of Wednesday's publication.

The head of the Fire Brigades Union said the inquiry was "back to front" and the focus should be on why the building was dangerous in the first place.

Matt Wrack told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that decisions were made on the night "in the context of a building that [had] completely failed".

Referring to the flammable cladding, he said: "People will be baffled [as to] why people haven't already been prosecuted for doing that to a building, which led to the deaths of 72 people, and yet the actions of individual firefighters on the night of a fire are being subject to such scrutiny."

The 1,000-page document follows the first phase of the inquiry, which looked at what happened on the night that 72 people died in the tower block fire on 14 June 2017.

The council, the tower's tenant management organisation, the police and the fire service were all quizzed during the inquiry's first phase.

The inquiry has criticised the Daily Telegraph, which first published leaked details of the report, and other media which followed suit. A spokeswoman said publication had deprived "those most affected by the fire - the bereaved, survivors and residents - of the opportunity to read the report at their own pace".

Sir Martin's report praised the courage of firefighters on the night.

But it found many "institutional" failures that meant the LFB's planning and preparation for the incident was "gravely inadequate".

For example, Sir Martin said control room staff who fielded 999 calls "undoubtedly saved lives" but "a close examination" of operations revealed "shortcomings in practice, policy and training".

He said staff that night were in an "invidious" position when they were outnumbered by 999 calls.

"Supervisors were under the most enormous pressure, but the LFB had not provided its senior control room staff with appropriate training on how to manage a large-scale incident with a large number of FSG [Fire Survival Guidance] calls," he said.

"Mistakes made in responding to the Lakanal House fire were repeated," he added - referring to a fire in Camberwell, south London, in 2009, which killed three women and three children.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-50216606
 
A survivors' group has welcomed a report on the Grenfell Tower fire, calling for the government to treat its response as "a national emergency".

The report, published on Wednesday, followed the first phase of an inquiry, looking at what happened on the night of 14 June 2017, when 72 people died.

It was critical of the London Fire Brigade's response and said the tower did not meet building regulations.

The LFB said it was "disappointed" by some of the criticism of individuals.

Campaign group Grenfell United said the report showed "the immediate and real dangers" of "highly combustible cladding and insulation".

"Lives are at risk and the government need to treat this as a national emergency," the group said.

The report condemned the LFB for "serious shortcomings" and systemic failures in its response to the fire.

Inquiry chairman Sir Martin Moore-Bick said the absence of a plan to evacuate the tower was a "major omission" by the LFB and more lives could have been saved had the "stay-put" policy been abandoned sooner.

Grenfell United responded: "It is heartbreaking to read that more of our loved ones could have been saved that night if the building was evacuated earlier."

The report said evidence from London Fire Brigade Commissioner Dany Cotton that she would not have changed anything about the brigade's response was "insensitive".

Ms Cotton said many of the recommendations were welcome and would be "carefully considered".

She expressed her "deepest sorrow at not being able to save all those who died in the Grenfell Tower fire".

She added: "We welcome the chairman's recognition of the courage, commitment and bravery of firefighters on the night, but we are disappointed at some of the criticism of individual staff members who were placed in completely unprecedented circumstances and faced the most unimaginable conditions while trying to save the lives of others."

However, Natasha Elcock, chairwoman of Grenfell United who was rescued with her six-year-old daughter from the 11th floor, said Dany Cotton's statement was "too little too late".

"She stood up in the inquiry, in a room full of bereaved and survivors and said there's nothing she would do to change that night," she told the BBC.

"If she'd expressed that sorrow that day in that room, that potentially would have washed with us today."

Grenfell United expressed concern at the report's finding that the LFB were "at risk of not learning the lessons from Grenfell", adding that firefighters were "let down by their training, procedures, equipment and leadership".

The senior leadership of the LFB "must face consequences for these failings if there is to be change", it said.

Other issues highlighted in the report included:

A lack of training in how to "recognise the need for an evacuation or how to organise one"
Incident commanders "of relatively junior rank" being unable to change strategy
Control room officers lacking training on when to advise callers to evacuate
An assumption that crews would reach callers, resulting in "assurances which were not well founded"
Communication between the control room and those on the ground being "improvised, uncertain and prone to error"
A lack of an organised way to share information within the control room, meaning officers had "no overall picture of the speed or pattern of fire spread"
The second phase of the inquiry will focus on wider circumstances of the fire, including the design of the building.

While this was not the focus of the first phase, the report found there was "compelling evidence" external walls of the building failed to comply with building regulations and "actively promoted" the spread of fire.

It said the principal reason the flames shot up the building so fiercely was the combustible aluminium composite material (ACM) cladding with polyethylene cores which acted as a "source of fuel".

Grenfell United said the second phase of the inquiry "must now focus on where responsibility for the devastating refurbishment [of the building] lies", with the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, the tenant management organisation and the companies involved facing "serious questions".

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-50230188
 
The first report into the Grenfell Tower fire in which 72 people died has been published and says fewer people would have been killed if the London Fire Brigade had rescinded its "stay-put" strategy sooner
 
Grenfell report: Victims' relatives say London Fire Brigade chiefs should be sacked

The London Fire Brigade was "inadequately" prepared for such a disaster and the lack of an evacuation plan was a "major omission".

Relatives of people who died in the Grenfell disaster say London fire chiefs should be sacked and face prosecution following a damning report.

The report hit out at the London Fire Brigade (LFB) for its emergency response to the blaze, particularly over its "stay put" strategy.

The policy meant residents were told to stay in their flats by firefighters and 999 operators for nearly two hours after the blaze began just before 1am.

The report, which praised the bravery of individual firefighters, concluded fewer people would have died if residents had been evacuated while it was still possible - within an hour of the fire starting.

The LFB breached national guidelines by failing to adequately prepare for the west London fire in June 2017 which killed 72 people.

Inquiry chairman Sir Martin Moore-Bick said the LFB's preparations for an incident such as Grenfell were "gravely inadequate", and the absence of a plan to evacuate the tower was a "major omission".

Nazanin Aghlani, who lost two family members, said some firefighters displayed a "serious lack of common sense" and failed to see "what was so vivid in front of them", calling for them to be prosecuted.

Last month, the LFB confirmed it has been interviewed under caution by the Metropolitan Police over the Grenfell fire.

Ms Aghlani said: "I think it's quite evident that the whole LFB ... is in the hands of people that are incapable of their jobs. They should be discharged of it. They're responsible for a lot of lives and they don't care much.

"They should be prosecuted. I'm not saying individual firemen, they do a hard job... but the seniors at the top get good money to do a very serious job."

Her father Shah Aghlani, whose mother Sakina Afrasehabi and aunt Fatima Afrasehabi died, said he thinks "everyone who has been in charge of the LFB should examine their role" and act to bring about the "change that's so badly needed".

Natasha Elcock, chair of Grenfell United, a group of survivors and bereaved families, told Sky News she was "happy" with the findings of phase one and the report was "strong and fair".

She said it was correct that the leadership of the LFB came in for criticism, as she claimed the institution "believes they can't do nothing wrong".

Ms Elcock said: "The report has been quite damning of the leadership of the LFB and quite rightly so," as she questioned whether the head of the brigade, Dany Cotton, should still be in her job.

She said: "There were issues on the night with the fire brigade, definitely not those on the ground - I was rescued by them so I am eternally grateful that those firefighters risked their life. But it's definitely around the leadership. The higher up the chain.

"It's around the training and it's around this institution that believes that they can't do nothing wrong and it's about time that changes."

The report accuses the brigade's commissioner, Ms Cotton, of "remarkable insensitivity" after she said she would not have done anything differently on the night.

Ms Cotton told the inquiry that preparing for Grenfell would have been akin to preparing for landing a spaceship on the Shard.

But chairman Sir Martin Moore-Bick said her evidence "only serves to demonstrate that the LFB is an institution at risk of not learning the lessons of the Grenfell Tower fire".

And Ms Elcock said "it was disgusting" to hear first-hand those comments in the inquiry room by Ms Cotton "when so many people lost their lives".

"For me, we need to question whether she should still be in that job."

Reacting to the publication of the report, Ms Cotton said: "We welcome the chairman's recognition of the courage, commitment and bravery of firefighters on the night.

"But we are disappointed at some of the criticism of individual staff members who were placed in completely unprecedented circumstances and faced the most unimaginable conditions while trying to save the lives of others."

The fire started as a result of an "electrical fault in a large fridge-freezer" in a fourth-floor flat but the resident of flat 16 was not to blame, the inquiry found.

The principal reason the blaze caused such severe loss of life was the combustible aluminium composite material cladding with polyethylene cores which acted as a "source of fuel", Sir Martin said.

Phase two of the inquiry will examine the circumstances and causes of the disaster.

https://news.sky.com/story/grenfell...ort-into-disaster-as-strong-and-fair-11849074
 
Jacob Rees-Mogg 'profoundly' sorry for Grenfell comments

Jacob Rees-Mogg has said he is "profoundly" sorry after suggesting it would have been "common sense" for Grenfell Tower residents to ignore "stay put" advice and leave the burning building.

The leader of the Commons made the comments in a radio interview while discussing London Fire Brigade's advice to residents.

Speaking to LBC's Nick Ferrari on Monday, Mr Rees-Mogg said: "It seems to me that that is the tragedy of it, that the more one's read of it over the weekend about the report and about the chances of people surviving, if you just ignore what you're told and leave, you are so much safer.

"I think if either of us were in a fire, whatever the fire brigade said, we would leave the burning building.

"It just seems the common sense thing to do and it is such a tragedy that that didn't happen."

Ahmed Chellat, 62, who lost five family members in the Grenfell fire, told the Daily Mirror that the Commons leader should apologize.

"What common sense is [Rees-Mogg] talking about? People died on the stairs trying to leave, they couldn't breathe," he said.

"People needed help and directions, they tried to open doors and there was smoke everywhere. What is he talking about?

"How is he coming to this insensitive conclusion?"

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn called for Mr Rees-Mogg to apologise "immediately" for the "crass and insensitive comments".

This was echoed by shadow housing minister Sarah Jones, who said the comments were "appalling" and "out of touch".

Labour MP David Lammy wrote on Twitter: "How dare you insult and denigrate those who died in Grenfell Tower.

"Your arrogance and condescension is monstrous."

This morning the Conservative MP apologised and said he had been "unclear".

"What I meant to say is that I would have also listened to the fire brigade's advice to stay and wait at the time," he said.

"However, with what we know now and with hindsight I wouldn't and I don't think anyone else would.

"What's so sad is that the advice given overrides common sense because everybody would want to leave a burning building."

He added: "I would hate to upset the people of Grenfell if I was unclear in my comments."

When asked by reporters if he thought Grenfell residents lacked common sense, Mr Rees-Mogg said: "That's not what I said, that's not what I said."

The 2017 tragedy killed 72 people in the west London tower block.

A public inquiry into the blaze found the London Fire Brigade's preparation for a tower block fire was "gravely inadequate".

Inquiry chairman Sir Martin Moore-Bick said that more lives could have been saved if the fire brigade's "stay put" policy had been abandoned sooner.

He said the lack of an evacuation plan was a "major omission".

Family members of victims called for Fire Commissioner Dany Cotton to step down and said the findings of the inquiry were "heartbreaking".

However, some organisations have questioned whether it would have been possible to evacuate the building.

https://news.sky.com/story/jacob-rees-mogg-profoundly-sorry-for-grenfell-comments-11854742
 
The only reason Rees-Mogg has apologized is because of the GE around the corner, otherwise he is 100% spot on.

Our natural instinct in face of fear is to flight or fight. When someone is telling you to stay put in a raging fire, it goes against all your natural instincts.

The reality is that the Fire services are to blame for this poor and costly advice.
 
The only reason Rees-Mogg has apologized is because of the GE around the corner, otherwise he is 100% spot on.

Our natural instinct in face of fear is to flight or fight. When someone is telling you to stay put in a raging fire, it goes against all your natural instincts.

The reality is that the Fire services are to blame for this poor and costly advice.

Staying put would have made sense if that cladding had not been the vector of fire spread. If you are enclosed in a concrete fire-stopped box, the best thing in expected conditions would be to stay there and wait for rescue. But in this case the fire developed very rapidly outside the building, and smoke and heat entered through the flat windows.
 
Corporate Mass Murder

It will be interesting to see if any entity is charged under the Corporate Manslaughter & Homicide Act. In order to do so, the CPS would have to find evidence of gross dereliction in duty of care. Of course nobody would actually go to jail under said Act, but they might under HSWA.
 
Fake apology from Mogg.

I cant undrestand why anyone would want to vote for such a party? Their members, PM and senior cabinet members are the lowest of humans you will find anywhere.
 
Fake apology from Mogg.

I cant undrestand why anyone would want to vote for such a party? Their members, PM and senior cabinet members are the lowest of humans you will find anywhere.

It took me a very long time to realise that the Tory message is one of fear - that some Other is trying to take your slice of the pie. Doubly so in these dark Brexit days.
 
Back
Top