Tower Block Fire

mamba80

By coming out with things like we ll rehouse in x time scale and reports by the Summer (promises TM knew very well she couldnt possibly keep) TM and others politicised this situation but i think as Rick said when at least 80 people die in an avoidable fire, it is political.

surrey_commuter

mamba80 wrote:

By coming out with things like we ll rehouse in x time scale and reports by the Summer (promises TM knew very well she couldnt possibly keep) TM and others politicised this situation but i think as Rick said when at least 80 people die in an avoidable fire, it is political.

But they have turned down the offers of rehousing.

If you wound the clock back two weeks most people would not have anticipated a refusal to be rehoused.

Pross

So the Inquiry has started and before it has really got going there's people suggesting it should be held by a panel that includes local residents. I fully understand their desire to be heard and get their questions answered but isn't the point that it should be an independent inquiry trying to establish the facts? Surely anyone who feels they have valid points to contribute is best off looking to give evidence? From what I've seen and heard from the Chair he seems like he's going to be thorough and I'm sure he'll listen to all parties so it seems a bit soon to already be criticising.

It's also going to be a struggle to keep focussed on the specifics rather than going off on tangents with wider, linked issues which will probably need further investigations once this Inquiry is concluded.

john80

He has rightly refused to allow victims on the panel. I find it quite naive of the survivors that they should wish to place a person on this predicament on the panel. Next it will be murder trials where the victims family can be the jury. There is also the hysteria aspect of this. A large number of people died in a housing fire due to lax laws or standards on fire spread and evacuation routes. It really is that simple. We have contractors saying that they met all applicable building control standards. The reality is that a lot of building control is based around the doer proving that what they are installing is adequate in a loose framework and this is where they will likely fall foul.

Lookyhere

john80 wrote:

He has rightly refused to allow victims on the panel. I find it quite naive of the survivors that they should wish to place a person on this predicament on the panel. Next it will be murder trials where the victims family can be the jury. There is also the hysteria aspect of this. A large number of people died in a housing fire due to lax laws or standards on fire spread and evacuation routes. It really is that simple. We have contractors saying that they met all applicable building control standards. The reality is that a lot of building control is based around the doer proving that what they are installing is adequate in a loose framework and this is where they will likely fall foul.

Not really, for starters, its not a criminal investigation and had the residents been listened to when they made their complaints and concerns known, this fire wouldn't have happened, the panel is basically the establishment investigating the actions (or lack of) the establishment, an ex judge and government appointed civil servants, all white.

Why couldn't a member from another housing residents association be on the panel?

Previous recommendations totally ignored despite deaths in similar fires, had these fires and deaths been in a Council Office, do you think the inquires recommendations would have been ignored or acted on?

rick_chasey

Loses 4 members of his family in a fire the residents had predicted, makes considered statement in the press about how he feels about it, gets called hysterical.

Jeez.

john80

Lookyhere wrote:

john80 wrote:

He has rightly refused to allow victims on the panel. I find it quite naive of the survivors that they should wish to place a person on this predicament on the panel. Next it will be murder trials where the victims family can be the jury. There is also the hysteria aspect of this. A large number of people died in a housing fire due to lax laws or standards on fire spread and evacuation routes. It really is that simple. We have contractors saying that they met all applicable building control standards. The reality is that a lot of building control is based around the doer proving that what they are installing is adequate in a loose framework and this is where they will likely fall foul.

Not really, for starters, its not a criminal investigation and had the residents been listened to when they made their complaints and concerns known, this fire wouldn't have happened, the panel is basically the establishment investigating the actions (or lack of) the establishment, an ex judge and government appointed civil servants, all white.

Why couldn't a member from another housing residents association be on the panel?

Previous recommendations totally ignored despite deaths in similar fires, had these fires and deaths been in a Council Office, do you think the inquires recommendations would have been ignored or acted on?

It is not really relevant whether or not it is a criminal trial. I don't know of any investigation that would deliberately put highly biased individuals on a panel assessing evidence. Apologies if this sounds harsh but you don't need to have lost loved ones to make the right calls in a public enquiry. To do so would actually increase the likelihood of subsequent criminal trials being biased and myself and my lawyers would be loving this if I felt I had something to do with the disaster from a technical point of view.

veronese68

Lookyhere wrote:

Why couldn't a member from another housing residents association be on the panel?

That would seem reasonable.

Pross

I see that arrests have been made for that sick video of a Grenfell effigy being burnt and whilst I'm glad these people are being brought to task for their actions what offence have they actually been arrested for? Extreme bad taste isn't a crime, the only thing I can think of is some form of hate crime. I've only seen a small part of the video but can't see how it could be construed as hate. I suspect they'll get released without charge but hopefully the experience will have shaken them up enough to make sure they think about what they are doing in future.

joe2008

Pross wrote:

I see that arrests have been made for that sick video of a Grenfell effigy being burnt and whilst I'm glad these people are being brought to task for their actions what offence have they actually been arrested for? Extreme bad taste isn't a crime, the only thing I can think of is some form of hate crime. I've only seen a small part of the video but can't see how it could be construed as hate. I suspect they'll get released without charge but hopefully the experience will have shaken them up enough to make sure they think about what they are doing in future.

Public order offence:

4A Intentional harassment, alarm or distress.

(1)A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he—

(a)uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or

(b)displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.

A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or both.

5 Harassment, alarm or distress.

(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—

(a)uses threatening [F5or abusive] words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or

(b)displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening [F5or abusive],

A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or both.

DeVlaeminck

Can't be a public order offence on private property if you reasonably believed your actions were not going to be made public - according to the Guardian anyway. I'd say the police are abusing their power with this one.

Tetragrammaton1

The offended party also has to be physically present, for this to stick.

joe2008

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Can't be a public order offence on private property if you reasonably believed your actions were not going to be made public - according to the Guardian anyway. I'd say the police are abusing their power with this one.

Actually it can, the law goes on to read:

(2)An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the person who is harassed, alarmed or distressed is also inside that or another dwelling.

As the video was shared on social media how can they not have reasonably believed their actions were not going to be made public?

drlodge

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Can't be a public order offence on private property if you reasonably believed your actions were not going to be made public - according to the Guardian anyway. I'd say the police are abusing their power with this one.

I'm somewhat troubled by this news, whilst I believe these actions are deplorable and disgusting, it amounts to freedom of speech and expression. I wonder though, if the issue here is that the actions were made public via a video posted to social media and that's where they fell foul of the law.

In any case, it seems a slippery slope to authoritarianism.

SJH76

I fail to see how it's a hate crime. Poorly judged humour definitely but in an age where you can watch Family Guy and it's many jokes aimed at 9/11 it's easy to see how they can lack the sensitivity to the matter. Its almost become the norm. If Sky News or ITV wish to condemn these people but still happily broadcast a show that is always doing the same sort of thing in the name of entertainment then that's a massive hippocrasy in my opinion.

DeVlaeminck

joe2008 wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Can't be a public order offence on private property if you reasonably believed your actions were not going to be made public - according to the Guardian anyway. I'd say the police are abusing their power with this one.

Actually it can, the law goes on to read:

(2)An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the person who is harassed, alarmed or distressed is also inside that or another dwelling.

As the video was shared on social media how can they not have reasonably believed their actions were not going to be made public?

Because they may claim they didn't know it would be or intend it to be shared on social media to the whole world.

joe2008

DeVlaeminck wrote:

joe2008 wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Can't be a public order offence on private property if you reasonably believed your actions were not going to be made public - according to the Guardian anyway. I'd say the police are abusing their power with this one.

Actually it can, the law goes on to read:

(2)An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the person who is harassed, alarmed or distressed is also inside that or another dwelling.

As the video was shared on social media how can they not have reasonably believed their actions were not going to be made public?

Because they may claim they didn't know it would be or intend it to be shared on social media to the whole world.

So it just sort of fell in to the wrong hands then?

capt_slog

As an aside, I found it odd that police had arrested five(?) men present, but it said on the news that the incident involved a mixed group. Are the women somehow exempt from prosecution?

joe2008

Capt Slog wrote:

As an aside, I found it odd that police had arrested five(?) men present, but it said on the news that the incident involved a mixed group. Are the women somehow exempt from prosecution?

Well the law does say 'he':

4A Intentional harassment, alarm or distress.

(1)A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he—

(a)uses threatening [F5or abusive] words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or

drlodge

All the perpetrators need to do then is identify as women and they get off free.

robert88

Pross wrote:

I see that arrests have been made for that sick video of a Grenfell effigy being burnt and whilst I'm glad these people are being brought to task for their actions what offence have they actually been arrested for? Extreme bad taste isn't a crime, the only thing I can think of is some form of hate crime. I've only seen a small part of the video but can't see how it could be construed as hate. I suspect they'll get released without charge but hopefully the experience will have shaken them up enough to make sure they think about what they are doing in future.

Well, every time we burn Guy Fawkes in effigy we are celebrating the grisly triumph of society over a minority. And they the same religion! We should have moved on really, there must be better things to celebrate.

DeVlaeminck

joe2008 wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

joe2008 wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Can't be a public order offence on private property if you reasonably believed your actions were not going to be made public - according to the Guardian anyway. I'd say the police are abusing their power with this one.

Actually it can, the law goes on to read:

(2)An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the person who is harassed, alarmed or distressed is also inside that or another dwelling.

As the video was shared on social media how can they not have reasonably believed their actions were not going to be made public?

Because they may claim they didn't know it would be or intend it to be shared on social media to the whole world.

So it just sort of fell in to the wrong hands then?

Yes, it seems unlikely they intended it for a national audience.

Pross

drlodge wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Can't be a public order offence on private property if you reasonably believed your actions were not going to be made public - according to the Guardian anyway. I'd say the police are abusing their power with this one.

I'm somewhat troubled by this news, whilst I believe these actions are deplorable and disgusting, it amounts to freedom of speech and expression. I wonder though, if the issue here is that the actions were made public via a video posted to social media and that's where they fell foul of the law.

In any case, it seems a slippery slope to authoritarianism.

That's similar to my thinking. Hopefully the idiots that did it will be identified and vilified by those that know them. It's interesting that this has come about a week or so after Cressida Dick's comments about resources in pursuing hate crimes. It seems that time can be found when there's enough media pressure.

That said, I'd be quite happy to see them jailed if they have broken a law as anyone who thinks that behaviour is funny should be taken off the streets.

slowbike

Pross wrote:

It seems that time can be found when there's enough media pressure.

the men handed themselves in ...

Pross wrote:

That said, I'd be quite happy to see them jailed if they have broken a law as anyone who thinks that behaviour is funny should be taken off the streets.

we need bigger/more jails ...

SJH76

Slowbike wrote:

Pross wrote:

It seems that time can be found when there's enough media pressure.

the men handed themselves in ...

Pross wrote:

That said, I'd be quite happy to see them jailed if they have broken a law as anyone who thinks that behaviour is funny should be taken off the streets.

we need bigger/more jails ...

So then, what are you in jail for?

Freedom of speech!

Got to love a country where not long ago, you went to jail for being gay. Now you can go to jail for not liking anyone who is. Cos it's a 'hate crime'

ballysmate

Jesus wept!
Can't believe the country has come to this where something done in bad taste is being considered a crime or the new buzz word/phrase, "hate crime" and people are considering how the law can be stretched to cover it.

Perhaps these villagers should get ready to get their collars felt?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-221830 ... her-effigy

rick_chasey

So four people were murdered in London the other day but yes at least the police launched a manhunt for someone who burns down models of buildings.


State of this f@cking island.

DeVlaeminck

Ballysmate wrote:

Jesus wept!
Can't believe the country has come to this where something done in bad taste is being considered a crime or the new buzz word/phrase, "hate crime" and people are considering how the law can be stretched to cover it.

Perhaps these villagers should get ready to get their collars felt?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-221830 ... her-effigy

Especially the guy with blackface riding on the wagon !

surrey_commuter

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Jesus wept!
Can't believe the country has come to this where something done in bad taste is being considered a crime or the new buzz word/phrase, "hate crime" and people are considering how the law can be stretched to cover it.

Perhaps these villagers should get ready to get their collars felt?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-221830 ... her-effigy

Especially the guy with blackface riding on the wagon !

am I missing something?

Thatcher seemed to be riding up front

surrey_commuter

Slowbike wrote:

Pross wrote:

It seems that time can be found when there's enough media pressure.

the men handed themselves in ...

Pross wrote:

That said, I'd be quite happy to see them jailed if they have broken a law as anyone who thinks that behaviour is funny should be taken off the streets.

we need bigger/more jails ...

I dislike emojis as much as the next grown-up but as this subject is so polarising can we make an exception as I have no idea if the people above really think these (and others) should be jailed.