Tower Block Fire

1…89111314…18

Comments

  • cycleclinic
    cycleclinic Posts: 6,865
    For quite some time I have felt the way our democracy works is a bit broken. Certain groups can get themsleves heard but not all. The residents of the tower block where just one of the groups that were ignored. Add to that over the last 30 years the state has been rolled back to become an organiser of private enterprise to get stuff done so when disaster strikes we find the government and the council unable to do much. It's not funding it is the lack of capability of the state. How can you feel proud of the state and be happy to be part of it when it seems it can do jack all for its citizens.

    I think the lesson we can draw from this the state needs the capasity to do stuff like build housing. For example new homes for the survivors are not going to be built instead many are in hotel rooms, where they will be placed long term is uncertain. There is no spare capasity in social housing anywhere in the country which says alot about the states ability to do stuff. Also the way we elect MP's and the powers we give councilers need to be looked at. Councils do alot of things but so few vote for them that they seem pointless (they are not). Part of the problem is councils dont raise all the money they spend so we are voting more for administrators, no one gets excited about voting for an administrator - that needs to be fixed and MP's only in a hung parliament have a real voice. that needs to be fixed too.

    The whole affair could have been avoided but it happened but the responce is even more lamentable and how would the government cope if a bigger disaster happened.

    The council are also daft to hold a closed cabinet meeting. It's not about the media or how they report, it is about how open they appear to be. They have messed up in the aftermath and a closed session just looks bad. Look open and accountable and they would start build bridges. If they look like they are in a bunker and under seige they they will fall.

    If you are in a hole stop digging, find a ladder and climb out. the government and council seems to be at the same time, digging, while looking at mud they are standing in and trying to look up and tell the onlookers they have a plan if only they knew how to make a ladder.
    http://www.thecycleclinic.co.uk -wheel building and other stuff.
  • cycleclinic
    cycleclinic Posts: 6,865
    I do wonder as well how many private buildings or PFI building have this cladding. I did think the goverment said cladding from all building should be tested (for free I hope but probably not which would again be the government failing to do it job of governing) but then again a social worker was meant to allocated to every survivor by now and that as of last night is not even close to happening. Not enough social workers I suppose.
    http://www.thecycleclinic.co.uk -wheel building and other stuff.
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,387
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Are you for real?

    Local Government (Access to Information Act 1985) law says, quite clearly, the press is entitled to attend all council meetings. It's proper bread & butter journalism stuff. Have a couple friends who are local journos and this is literally the first thing you learn - always have someone at every council meeting. It's quite fundamental to a working democracy.

    K&C are trying to flout the law here.

    If sunlight is the best disinfectant, then the press need to attend. Else you get stuff occurring in the dark and corruption can become even more endemic.

    That's why the court, unsurprisingly, said "of course journalists can attend".

    There are exmptions to the access though, we used to get committee minutes when I worked for a Council and there were often items where the press and public were required to leave although generally when discussing things such as tenders.
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,387
    Guy on the news today stating he's turned down two offers of new accommodation and is staying in his hotel as they are in the wrong area. One was in Westminster and one in Earls Court. My London geography isn't great but I thought both of those are pretty close to Kensington? His argument is that the government are looking to rehouse them anywhere to meet their promise of rehousing people but I would have thought offering a place within a couple of miles of your previous home is pretty reasonable.
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 27,156
    Pross wrote:
    ...but I would have thought offering a place within a couple of miles of your previous home is pretty reasonable.
    Agreed.
    Sounds like he simply prefers the hotel.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    What's your point pross?
    _
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 27,972
    PBlakeney wrote:
    Pross wrote:
    ...but I would have thought offering a place within a couple of miles of your previous home is pretty reasonable.
    Agreed.
    Sounds like he simply prefers the hotel.

    If he was not offered something that he thinks is suitable to him, then in the circumstances that's probably fine don't you think?
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,336
    The chap mentioned above was interviewed at some length on Newsnight. I think the former residents are aware that there is a limited supply of alternatives, but I think that once out of short term temporary accommodation like hotels, there is a concern that the longer term temporary accommodation will become permanent. In that scenario it is reasonable for people to not just take the first flat thrown their way, regardless of quality. Although the distances are fairly small, they are enough to move people up to an hour further away from work, family, etc.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • coopster_the_1st
    coopster_the_1st Posts: 5,158
    rjsterry wrote:
    The chap mentioned above was interviewed at some length on Newsnight. I think the former residents are aware that there is a limited supply of alternatives, but I think that once out of short term temporary accommodation like hotels, there is a concern that the longer term temporary accommodation will become permanent. In that scenario it is reasonable for people to not just take the first flat thrown their way, regardless of quality. Although the distances are fairly small, they are enough to move people up to an hour further away from work, family, etc.

    Welcome to London.

    This is the situation that the majority of people have. It's one of the realities of living there. They have a choice...
  • Lookyhere
    Lookyhere Posts: 987
    Coopster the 1st wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    The chap mentioned above was interviewed at some length on Newsnight. I think the former residents are aware that there is a limited supply of alternatives, but I think that once out of short term temporary accommodation like hotels, there is a concern that the longer term temporary accommodation will become permanent. In that scenario it is reasonable for people to not just take the first flat thrown their way, regardless of quality. Although the distances are fairly small, they are enough to move people up to an hour further away from work, family, etc.

    Welcome to London.

    This is the situation that the majority of people have. It's one of the realities of living there. They have a choice...

    They ve been put in this situation through no fault of their own, indeed it almost certain the fire was totally preventable, most had long term tenancy's, ALL have lost everything and many, friends and/or family members.
    I suspect you d like to see them sent back to where they belong?
  • Ben6899
    Ben6899 Posts: 9,686
    Lookyhere wrote:
    Coopster the 1st wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    The chap mentioned above was interviewed at some length on Newsnight. I think the former residents are aware that there is a limited supply of alternatives, but I think that once out of short term temporary accommodation like hotels, there is a concern that the longer term temporary accommodation will become permanent. In that scenario it is reasonable for people to not just take the first flat thrown their way, regardless of quality. Although the distances are fairly small, they are enough to move people up to an hour further away from work, family, etc.

    Welcome to London.

    This is the situation that the majority of people have. It's one of the realities of living there. They have a choice...

    I suspect you d like to see them sent back to where they belong?

    I suspect you're right, Lookyhere.

    He doesn't say as much, but he has thrown similar narrative in Rick's direction, on the Brexit thread. I had a warning once, for swearing (I think at Coopster), yet all these subtle - yet much more vile - comments fly under the radar.
    Ben

    Bikes: Donhou DSS4 Custom | Condor Italia RC | Gios Megalite | Dolan Preffisio | Giant Bowery '76
    Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ben_h_ppcc/
    Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/143173475@N05/
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 27,972
    Coopster the 1st wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    The chap mentioned above was interviewed at some length on Newsnight. I think the former residents are aware that there is a limited supply of alternatives, but I think that once out of short term temporary accommodation like hotels, there is a concern that the longer term temporary accommodation will become permanent. In that scenario it is reasonable for people to not just take the first flat thrown their way, regardless of quality. Although the distances are fairly small, they are enough to move people up to an hour further away from work, family, etc.

    Welcome to London.

    This is the situation that the majority of people have. It's one of the realities of living there. They have a choice...

    Glad you support them having a choice. They have a choice, and have chosen to stay in a hotel until suitable housing is offered to them. Good to see you support this compassionate view at this difficult time for them.
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    What's your point pross?

    Rick - please read the below in the context that you know I have a very liberal attitude towards immigration

    I missed the start of the interview but believe he was about 20 and his family had been here about 10 years. His sense of entitlement for what he thought the "rich" UK govt should be providing him will not win him any sympathy.
  • coopster_the_1st
    coopster_the_1st Posts: 5,158
    KingstonGraham wrote:
    Coopster the 1st wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    The chap mentioned above was interviewed at some length on Newsnight. I think the former residents are aware that there is a limited supply of alternatives, but I think that once out of short term temporary accommodation like hotels, there is a concern that the longer term temporary accommodation will become permanent. In that scenario it is reasonable for people to not just take the first flat thrown their way, regardless of quality. Although the distances are fairly small, they are enough to move people up to an hour further away from work, family, etc.

    Welcome to London.

    This is the situation that the majority of people have. It's one of the realities of living there. They have a choice...

    Glad you support them having a choice. They have a choice, and have chosen to stay in a hotel until suitable housing is offered to them. Good to see you support this compassionate view at this difficult time for them.

    I don't support an 'entitlement' attitude that some people seem to be displaying towards the UK state.

    Considering the size of the K&C council area, and that there is no slack in the system there are going to few, if any, properties that will be suitable. If there were before the fire occurred, they would already have been allocated to people on the housing list.

    The reality is that people will have to be housed outside the K&C area and the sooner this is accepted, the quicker people will be able to get on with their lives rather than live in their current limbo.
  • veronese68
    veronese68 Posts: 27,765
    Coopster the 1st wrote:
    I don't support an 'entitlement' attitude that some people seem to be displaying towards the UK state.
    Really, that is a surprise. Have you ever heard of sarcasm?
    Kinesis Pro6
    Marin Nail Trail
    Cotic Solaris
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 27,156
    KingstonGraham wrote:
    PBlakeney wrote:
    Pross wrote:
    ...but I would have thought offering a place within a couple of miles of your previous home is pretty reasonable.
    Agreed.
    Sounds like he simply prefers the hotel.

    If he was not offered something that he thinks is suitable to him, then in the circumstances that's probably fine don't you think?
    I think he has been offered a damn sight more than the next person burned out of their house without insurance will get. It is emergency cover until he finds himself somewhere else to live and should be treated as such.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,336
    PBlakeney wrote:
    KingstonGraham wrote:
    PBlakeney wrote:
    Pross wrote:
    ...but I would have thought offering a place within a couple of miles of your previous home is pretty reasonable.
    Agreed.
    Sounds like he simply prefers the hotel.

    If he was not offered something that he thinks is suitable to him, then in the circumstances that's probably fine don't you think?
    I think he has been offered a damn sight more than the next person burned out of their house without insurance will get. It is emergency cover until he finds himself somewhere else to live and should be treated as such.
    If you are a tenant, your landlord takes out the buildings insurance (it's his building), so you wouldn't expect the Grenfell tenants to have buildings insurance.

    There is political pressure to get these people housed, and it's not difficult to see that an anything that gets them off the front page attitude might take over. From the tenant's point of view many will have previous experience of substandard 'temporary' accommodation that was not all that temporary. Not difficult to see why they would be nervous of being dumped somewhere and when Grenfell is eventually rebuilt, not being allowed to return.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 27,156
    rjsterry wrote:
    PBlakeney wrote:
    KingstonGraham wrote:
    PBlakeney wrote:
    Pross wrote:
    ...but I would have thought offering a place within a couple of miles of your previous home is pretty reasonable.
    Agreed.
    Sounds like he simply prefers the hotel.

    If he was not offered something that he thinks is suitable to him, then in the circumstances that's probably fine don't you think?
    I think he has been offered a damn sight more than the next person burned out of their house without insurance will get. It is emergency cover until he finds himself somewhere else to live and should be treated as such.
    If you are a tenant, your landlord takes out the buildings insurance (it's his building), so you wouldn't expect the Grenfell tenants to have buildings insurance.

    There is political pressure to get these people housed, and it's not difficult to see that an anything that gets them off the front page attitude might take over. From the tenant's point of view many will have previous experience of substandard 'temporary' accommodation that was not all that temporary. Not difficult to see why they would be nervous of being dumped somewhere and when Grenfell is eventually rebuilt, not being allowed to return.
    Progress to my enlightenment.
    Who are the landlords? Why isn't their insurance taking care of it?
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,387
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    What's your point pross?

    Just that people need to be realistic and being offered alternative accommodation that seems suitable (2 bed flat for married couple and a child) within about a mile of their previous home would appear to be more than reasonable considering the well documented shortage of social housing.
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 27,972
    rjsterry wrote:
    The chap mentioned above was interviewed at some length on Newsnight. I think the former residents are aware that there is a limited supply of alternatives, but I think that once out of short term temporary accommodation like hotels, there is a concern that the longer term temporary accommodation will become permanent. In that scenario it is reasonable for people to not just take the first flat thrown their way, regardless of quality. Although the distances are fairly small, they are enough to move people up to an hour further away from work, family, etc.

    Just watched Newsnight, and he seemed entirely reasonable. He said that nobody asked them if they insisted on being housed within 3 weeks, and that he understands there is not a great deal of social housing available in the borough. He doesn't want his family to be in a basement flat on a busy road in a different part of town and is willing to wait a bit longer for something more suitable.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    Veronese68 wrote:
    Coopster the 1st wrote:
    I don't support an 'entitlement' attitude that some people seem to be displaying towards the UK state.
    Really, that is a surprise. Have you ever heard of sarcasm?

    He does shirk working harder because he feels he'll pay too much tax, though.
    _
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    Pross wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    What's your point pross?

    Just that people need to be realistic and being offered alternative accommodation that seems suitable (2 bed flat for married couple and a child) within about a mile of their previous home would appear to be more than reasonable considering the well documented shortage of social housing.

    You're a bit short of context to be making that kind of judgement aren't you?

    What if that move would put his kids out of the catchment area of the school they're at?

    What if the flats are not up to standard?

    What if they're worth considerably less than their flat?

    What if they know more options are on the way, given how fast the property market moves? This is a city where you decide on your property on the first viewing, else it'll be snaffled.

    There's way too much missing context for sneering about greedy victims of an awful, avoidable fire.
    _
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,336
    Pross wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    What's your point pross?

    Just that people need to be realistic and being offered alternative accommodation that seems suitable (2 bed flat for married couple and a child) within about a mile of their previous home would appear to be more than reasonable considering the well documented shortage of social housing.

    A bit more than a mile away. Have a look on a map. Not the other side of town for sure, but definitely in a different part of London (at least an hour's walk away).
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,387
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Pross wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    What's your point pross?

    Just that people need to be realistic and being offered alternative accommodation that seems suitable (2 bed flat for married couple and a child) within about a mile of their previous home would appear to be more than reasonable considering the well documented shortage of social housing.

    You're a bit short of context to be making that kind of judgement aren't you? I was using the context of the reasons he expressed himself.

    What if that move would put his kids out of the catchment area of the school they're at? He had one kid, as far as I'm aware once you are in a school you have the right to stay in it even if you move.

    What if the flats are not up to standard? What do you mean by standard? Surely to be available for public sector rental they gave to comply with a certain standard? He also made no comment on it not being a decent standard which you would expect him to had that been the case. His reasons for refusal were distance to school (an extra mile IIRC)

    What if they're worth considerably less than their flat? Why should the value of the flat come into it if he's renting?

    What if they know more options are on the way, given how fast the property market moves? This is a city where you decide on your property on the first viewing, else it'll be snaffled. You're contradicting yourself!

    There's way too much missing context for sneering about greedy victims of an awful, avoidable fire. Not from me, I just find it odd that someone has turned down two offers of housing about as close as they could hope to get in the situation. However, if this was someone on the housing list who hadn't lost their home in the fire would you think it reasonable that they turn down housing offers but stay at the top of the list?

    I've tried to answer your questions but think you're reading far more into my comment. I certainly made no reference to 'greedy victims' I just found it odd that he'd turned down two offers of new housing about as close as he's likely to get to Grenfell, it's not like he was being offered a move to Middlesborough or even East London.
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,387
    rjsterry wrote:
    Pross wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    What's your point pross?

    Just that people need to be realistic and being offered alternative accommodation that seems suitable (2 bed flat for married couple and a child) within about a mile of their previous home would appear to be more than reasonable considering the well documented shortage of social housing.

    A bit more than a mile away. Have a look on a map. Not the other side of town for sure, but definitely in a different part of London (at least an hour's walk away).

    The mile came from the report I heard. One of the housing options was in Earls Court which a quick check suggests is around 1.5 - 2 miles from Grenfell. Maybe it's a different perspective on distance when you've always lived in areas where you have to travel a mile or two to get pretty much anywhere.
  • mamba80
    mamba80 Posts: 5,032
    Pross, i didnt see NN but if you remember the Tories voted down that rented accommodation had to be fit for human habitation, so it certainly is possible the residents have been offered sub standard housing, after all, they were knowing, allowed to live in a death trap for years.
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,336
    Pross wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    Pross wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    What's your point pross?

    Just that people need to be realistic and being offered alternative accommodation that seems suitable (2 bed flat for married couple and a child) within about a mile of their previous home would appear to be more than reasonable considering the well documented shortage of social housing.

    A bit more than a mile away. Have a look on a map. Not the other side of town for sure, but definitely in a different part of London (at least an hour's walk away).

    The mile came from the report I heard. One of the housing options was in Earls Court which a quick check suggests is around 1.5 - 2 miles from Grenfell. Maybe it's a different perspective on distance when you've always lived in areas where you have to travel a mile or two to get pretty much anywhere.
    Inner London is much more dense, which affects travel times - it seems to take about an hour to get anywhere in London - and the perception of the boundaries of each area. I don't think the distance is the primary factor in this case, just one of several.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • mr_goo
    mr_goo Posts: 3,770
    I've just read on Sky News that Corbyn ha's stated that this disaster and loss of life was down to austerity.
    WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! To politicise dozens of deaths is firstly very poor judgement and secondly I would think that the original spec needs to be seen and checked to find out if the contactors changed it to 'similar or approved' so that they could improve to profitability on the contract.
    Always be yourself, unless you can be Aaron Rodgers....Then always be Aaron Rodgers.
  • mamba80
    mamba80 Posts: 5,032
    Mr Goo wrote:
    I've just read on Sky News that Corbyn ha's stated that this disaster and loss of life was down to austerity.
    WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! To politicise dozens of deaths is firstly very poor judgement and secondly I would think that the original spec needs to be seen and checked to find out if the contactors changed it to 'similar or approved' so that they could improve to profitability on the contract.

    I saw the Newsnight report on the fire brigade short comings yesterday, no hi laddars sent or near by, Radios not working, lack of breathing app.. add in the fact of cheaper flammable materials used, some 300k cheaper, we already know this!!!

    given the cuts in the LFB its not unreasonable to draw the conclusion that austerity certainly hasnt helped, it appears to be the opinion of the guys on the ground.. gagged from speaking out publicly.. why would that be ????

    as for politicising ? why not? it already is! these people were put in sub standard housing, the council and others ignored their concerns, May her self has gone out and said that they ll all be rehoused by now and that they d be a report out by the summer, both not happening but a good sound bite non the less!
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    mamba80 wrote:
    Mr Goo wrote:
    I've just read on Sky News that Corbyn ha's stated that this disaster and loss of life was down to austerity.
    WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! To politicise dozens of deaths is firstly very poor judgement and secondly I would think that the original spec needs to be seen and checked to find out if the contactors changed it to 'similar or approved' so that they could improve to profitability on the contract.

    I saw the Newsnight report on the fire brigade short comings yesterday, no hi laddars sent or near by, Radios not working, lack of breathing app.. add in the fact of cheaper flammable materials used, some 300k cheaper, we already know this!!!

    given the cuts in the LFB its not unreasonable to draw the conclusion that austerity certainly hasnt helped, it appears to be the opinion of the guys on the ground.. gagged from speaking out publicly.. why would that be ????

    as for politicising ? why not? it already is! these people were put in sub standard housing, the council and others ignored their concerns, May her self has gone out and said that they ll all be rehoused by now and that they d be a report out by the summer, both not happening but a good sound bite non the less!

    How can you blame TM for people not accepting re-housing offers. Is she guilty for not anticipating that some would reject for being too far and others for being too close.

    Could it be that political agitators are winding these people up for their own purposes?

Categories