London tower block inferno

[Chippy_Tea]

There are a selection of photos here.

So some unnamed group or person prints a few fliers and a rag paper is all over it, the title says protester not rioters when in this country did people exercising their right of freedom of speech become rioters? also note not a single quote from the "organiser" I hope they have their say and it is a peaceful demonstration.

 

[terrym]

Why was my post in this thread from late last night apparently deleted by the Mods. It certainly didn't break any of the house rules, of which I am well aware.
It merely challenged the bickering that has very recently been ongoing in this thread.
To me this represents unfair and biased censorship.

 

[Dutto]

Why was my post in this thread from late last night apparently deleted by the Mods. It certainly didn't break any of the house rules, of which I am well aware.
It merely challenged the bickering that has very recently been ongoing in this thread.
To me this represents unfair and biased censorship.

Ha! Don't let it bother you.

There is plenty of unfair and biased censorship around if you actually present alternative arguments.

I have had a Post removed when all I was trying to do was highlight the ignorance and bigotry that seems to be emerging on this Thread.

Just remember that if it has been printed in the Daily Express AND The Daily Mail it MUST be true and you won't go far wrong. :whistle:

 

[shepp]

Ha! Don't let it bother you.

There is plenty of unfair and biased censorship around if you actually present alternative arguments.

I have had a Post removed when all I was trying to do was highlight the ignorance and bigotry that seems to be emerging on this Thread.

Just remember that if it has been printed in the Daily Express AND The Daily Mail it MUST be true and you won't go far wrong. :whistle:

I just had a quick flick through this thread and can't find any posts that I would consider ignorant or bigoted?
It could just be me though.
Can you point one or two out so I can take this into consideration.

 

[Chippy_Tea]

Why was my post in this thread from late last night apparently deleted by the Mods. It certainly didn't break any of the house rules, of which I am well aware.
It merely challenged the bickering that has very recently been ongoing in this thread.
To me this represents unfair and biased censorship.

PM sent......

 

[Vambrace]

A point that doesn't seem to have been made anywhere (on here or anywhere in general) and relates to responsibility in issues of planning:

Anyone who has worked in planning or been involved in the process will understand that the elected members of a council have a very limited input into the process. They are not planners; they are not expected to have anything other than a rudimentary understanding of the relevant legislation (primary or secondary). Their role is to act on the advice of the council officers, who are there to serve as the experts. In the case of Greenfell, the council (or a devolved arm of the council) would have been applying for permission from itself. This sounds like a conflict of interest but it normal practise and it's not generally seen as an issue.

So, the work in the tower refurbishment would have been designed and specified by architects etc (who may have been employees of the council but were much more likely to from a private company), then officers would have gone through the plans to assess compliance on every issue from ecology to amenity, including of course fire safety. This would all have gone into a report to the planning committee with a simple reccomendation at the end - grant or refuse. Members can then scrutinse the report and ask questions at committee but it's not their job to specify components.

Ultimately of course the members are the council, and the buck stops with them but they cannot reasonably be expected to have knowledge at a professional level of all the matters that arise in a major project such as a tower block refurbishment.

 

[BeerisGOD]

Why was my post in this thread from late last night apparently deleted by the Mods. It certainly didn't break any of the house rules, of which I am well aware.
It merely challenged the bickering that has very recently been ongoing in this thread.
To me this represents unfair and biased censorship.

Your the last person I thought would have a post removed. And I say this in a light hearted manner (think 'Noels house party')

 

[terrym]

A point that doesn't seem to have been made anywhere (on here or anywhere in general) and relates to responsibility in issues of planning:

Anyone who has worked in planning or been involved in the process will understand that the elected members of a council have a very limited input into the process. They are not planners; they are not expected to have anything other than a rudimentary understanding of the relevant legislation (primary or secondary). Their role is to act on the advice of the council officers, who are there to serve as the experts. In the case of Greenfell, the council (or a devolved arm of the council) would have been applying for permission from itself. This sounds like a conflict of interest but it normal practise and it's not generally seen as an issue.

So, the work in the tower refurbishment would have been designed and specified by architects etc (who may have been employees of the council but were much more likely to from a private company), then officers would have gone through the plans to assess compliance on every issue from ecology to amenity, including of course fire safety. This would all have gone into a report to the planning committee with a simple reccomendation at the end - grant or refuse. Members can then scrutinse the report and ask questions at committee but it's not their job to specify components.

Ultimately of course the members are the council, and the buck stops with them but they cannot reasonably be expected to have knowledge at a professional level of all the matters that arise in a major project such as a tower block refurbishment.

Spot on :thumb:
When the owner (my understanding of this being the council) decided to refurb they would have most likely had the detailed design carried out by outside expert agencies perhaps against an outline design brief prepared by the council's professionals. This detailed design would have noted any current and potential future legislation concerning all relevant requirements and would have been signed off by council experts and then approved by the planning committee who have the right to pass it or not.
The construction phase should have then been carried out by a competent contractor appointed by the council but probably managed by an independant consultant.
So the issue really becomes was anything installed that was not to spec (perhaps to cut costs) in which case the installation contractor is liable. But if the design was outside allowable legislation or industry design norms then the design contractor is culpable.
But the back stop against all of this is that if everything was designed and built as it should be against an allowable set of conditions and a disaster ensues then the defining conditions must be re-evaluated. And there are agencies who will be doing this like the HSE or the British Standards committee or EU equivalent.
Those old enough will remember the explosion at Flixborough in 1974. The outcome of this was that a whole bundle of legislation ensued and changed forever (and to the good) the way industrial installations are designed and built and operated. It is possible that the Grenfell fire may trigger the same response

 

[pms67]

I have founds the Mods to be very fair imo without sounding like a sook.
But I don't know what's being removed?

 

[terrym]

I have founds the Mods to be very fair imo without sounding like a sook.
But I don't know what's being removed?

I could repost my removed item to demonstrate how innocuous it was, but then perhaps it would get removed again.

 

[BeerisGOD]

I could repost my removed item to demonstrate how innocuous it was, but then perhaps it would get removed again.

You could send it at a certain time and ask all mods out of the kindness of they're hearts to turn a blind eye for five mins. Sure they would.

 

[Linalmeemow]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/1…

I believe he said it on Peston's show, but uses the terms 'occupy' and 'requisition'. Hugely irresponsible given the current climate.

And now the government have "acquired" (or maybe "requisitioned" would be a better term... :lol:) a load of luxury homes for the people made homeless in the fire. Good idea that, I wonder who came up with it?

 

[Vambrace]

And now the government have "acquired" (or maybe "requisitioned" would be a better term... :lol:) a load of luxury homes for the people made homeless in the fire. Good idea that, I wonder who came up with it?

Obviously it's fantastic that homes have been found but my understanding is that they were built as affordable homes in a luxury development. They won't have been requisitioned as that would have required legislation and they've all been busy today :lol:

Most likely the relevant housing association was compensated and is delaying (possibly permanently) their release to the wider population.

 

[Chippy_Tea]

And now the government have "acquired" (or maybe "requisitioned" would be a better term... :lol:) a load of luxury homes for the people made homeless in the fire. Good idea that, I wonder who came up with it?

Great news.

London fire: Flats acquired for Grenfell Tower survivors

Sixty-eight social housing flats in Kensington, London, are to be made available to survivors of the Grenfell Tower fire, the government has said.

The one, two and three-bedroom flats are located in two blocks that stand alongside a large luxury development, where private homes go for up to £8.5m.

At least 79 people died and many more were left homeless after fire engulfed the North Kensington tower a week ago.

PM Theresa May has apologised for "State" failures after the blaze.

"People were left without belongings, without roofs over their heads, without even basic information about what had happened, what they should do and where they could seek help," she told MPs in the Commons.

"That was a failure of the State - local and national - to help people when they needed it most.

"As prime minister, I apologise for that failure."

There has been widespread anger from Grenfell Tower residents at the slow and chaotic response from authorities after last Wednesday's devastating blaze.

On Wednesday, protesters demanding "justice for Grenfell" marched with anti-government protesters through London.

But Justice4Grenfell, a group which supports Grenfell residents, stressed it had not organised any of the events and urged protesters to have the victims and bereaved "foremost in their minds".

Meanwhile, the funeral of 23-year-old Syrian refugee Mohammed Alhajali, who was among the first victims of the fire to be named, has taken place.

His family and Mayor of London Sadiq Khan attended the ceremony, called a Janazat, at an east London mosque.

'United by his body'

His family said: "His very last words to us were how much he missed us.

"Ever since he moved away from us, we tried to be united with him and his brothers, and now, instead, we have been united by his body."

Since the fire, some Grenfell Tower families have been staying in hotels and B&Bs, and there were concerns that more permanent housing would be offered in other parts of the country.

But the upmarket Kensington Row complex is just over 1.5 miles from Grenfell Tower.

It includes a 24-hour concierge service and a private cinema, the website of developer St Edward says, but it is thought unlikely the new tenants from Grenfell will have access to such facilities.

Each new home in the two blocks set aside for social housing will be fully furnished and completed to a high-specification, the government said.

The flats are expected to be ready by the end of July.

BBC News.

 

[Dutto]

I just had a quick flick through this thread and can't find any posts that I would consider ignorant or bigoted?
It could just be me though.
Can you point one or two out so I can take this into consideration.

Here goes:

"It's a tinder box. Won't take long for the liberals and lefties to start rabble rousing." "Liberals and lefties? Check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristallnacht if you want to see real rabble rousing by people who were definitely neither Liberals or Lefties!

"They are there already, try to whip people up to riot. Shameful bunch taking advantage for political reasons." Really? Read on.

"Shameful pictures of people trying to storm the council offices, supposedly people who were living in the Tower Block. Na, more likely and i think i am pretty damn sure of my facts, Rent a mob were brought in. Those were not (at least the majority) people from the tower block."

Since when has a friend or relative turning up to help someone become "Rent a Mob"? If any of my relatives had been affected I would have driven the 100+ miles to London to give them my support; and I still wouldn't be "Rent a Mob".

I loved these two:

"Again political manouvering going on behind the scenes, AND the public believe what they see on TV."

"The absolutely worst I read in the paper yesterday was a chap who filmed/took pictures of a unidentified body in a body bag, then proceeded to open it. He was jailed for his dispicable actions."

One uses TV reporting to condemn the general public for believing something and the immediate response is from someone who quotes something vile as a truth on the basis that he has read about in a newspaper. Here's the Metro report on the matter ...

http://metro.co.uk/2017/06/16/man-j...ing-picture-of-grenfell-tower-victim-6714707/

The man was jailed for posting the photographs on Facebook in contravention of Section 127 of the Communications Act. It's worth reading the Act before you post anything on the Internet.
https://www.scl.org/articles/2579-section-127-of-the-communications-act-2003-threat-or-menace

"And now Corbyn is urging people to take over unoccupied homes in the Kensington area and McDonnell is asking for one million people to take to the streets to overthrow the Government. The Marxists are really starting to show their true colours now."

Mr. Corbyn was misquoted as he NEVER "urged people to take over unoccupied homes".

As you will see from the attached article in The Sun, Mr McDonnell "asking for one million people to take to the streets to overthrow the Government." was the words of a complaint made by a Tory Minister. McDonnell was referring to a rally to be held on the 1st July that had nothing to do with the Grenfell Tower fire. Indeed, Mr. McDonnell himself said yesterday "To everyone planning on demonstrating against Theresa May’s government over the next few weeks, it is vital that these protests are peaceful.”

As an aside, I would like to point out that members of the Labour Party are generally "Socialists" and NOT "Marxists".

"Corbyn should shut his gob and all parties should be working together to sort things out and stop all the political gesturing that is going on."

I have three comments;
1. How can all parties work together if the leader of one of them is told to "shut his gob"?
2. The Government requisitioned apartments for use as temporary accommodation after it was suggested by Mr. Corbyn.
3. A key element of the term "Free Speech" is that no-one should be told to "shut his gob" just because he or she says something that you don't agree with.

In view of 2. above why was what Mr. Corbyn actually said be seen as "Hugely irresponsible given the current climate." in another Post, especially as it was a suggestion that was picked up and implemented by the government?

I hope I have managed to give accurate references for some of the elements of this Thread that I see as being ignorant and/or bigoted. :thumb:

I maybe wrong of course ...

... it has been known! :whistle:

 

[Chippy_Tea]

London fire: Kensington council chief quits



The chief executive of Kensington and Chelsea council has resigned amid criticism over the borough's response to the Grenfell Tower fire.
Nicholas Holgate said Local Government Secretary Sajid Javid had asked for him to go, but Mr Javid has not commented.
Mr Holgate said last week's fire in North Kensington, in which at least 79 people died, was "heart-breaking" but his presence would be a "distraction".
Residents had condemned the initial relief effort as "absolute chaos".
In a statement issued by the council on Wednesday, Mr Holgate, who has been in post since 2014, said it was the "highest priority" of the council to help families affected by the fire.
He said the communities and local government secretary had on Tuesday "required the leader of the council to seek my resignation".
'Grief stricken'
Mr Holgate said: "Despite my wish to have continued, in very challenging circumstances, to lead on the executive responsibilities of the council, I have decided that it is better to step down from my role, once an appropriate successor has been appointed.
"There is a huge amount still to do for the victims of the fire, requiring the full attention of this council and many others. If I stayed in post, my presence would be a distraction."

Read more http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40362317

 

[ElvisIsBeer]

Social media is rife with good, ordinary, common-sense commentary from straightforward, honest, tax-paying beautiful British people. Essentially it is selfish, racist, insular and backward.

I mean rife. Part of the reason for Corbyn's success is because he presented an alternative view for the large numbers of people who don't subscribe to the viewpoint of the ordinary, common-sense, tell it like it is brigade.

Because they're liberal and humanistic in their broad beliefs and thinking. And that's not an insult. It means open to new ideas, tolerant and broad-minded.

The Tories were going to bring back fox-hunting, scrap free school meals, reintroduce selective education, and introduce badly considered welfare reforms. They're not doing these things now, because the tables were turned.

By decent people who said no to that sort of nasty crap.

 

[terrym]

Part of the reason for Corbyn's success is because he presented an alternative view for the large numbers of people who don't subscribe to the viewpoint of the ordinary, common-sense, tell it like it is brigade.

Because they're liberal and humanistic in their broad beliefs and thinking. And that's not an insult. It means open to new ideas, tolerant and broad-minded.

The Tories were going to bring back fox-hunting, scrap free school meals, reintroduce selective education, and introduce badly considered welfare reforms. They're not doing these things now, because the tables were turned.

By decent people who said no to that sort of nasty crap.

If you go back more than two months, Corbyn and his team were not the most popular entity to have graced the Labour Party. They had been put there by the left wing Militant group and the Unions, and that doesn't sit well with many people. And this was demonstrated by Labour's poor showing in the recent Local Elections. Labour's standing with the electorate was rock bottom with a potential to go even lower.
So when the snap general election was announced Labour realised they would have to put in place a process to drag them from the abyss many talked about. People were already discussing about how they were going to depose JC post election presuming a defeat, and Tony Blair, bless, mentioned a new centre left Labour Party.
So the Labour Party policy team that sit behind him would have probably brainstormed what would be populist ideas to win them votes. It's not rocket science. Lets chuck in all the ideas we can think of which sound good, irrespective of the financial consequences should they be implemented, and in the possible belief that they would not be elected. So typically we have no fees or similar to attract the hundreds of thousands of fee paying students, and bash the business and high earners to name but two. Nationalise the railways, lets go for that as well. Most folks respond to sweeties. Trouble is the money would have run out very quickly, and then what.?
Anyway the policy worked, people voted Labour again, helped by the disastrous election campaign run by the Tories.
However in spite of the all the Labour sweeties on offer there was still a distrust of Corbyn and his team, and the bottom line is they got less votes than the Tories and also ended up with less MPs.
And now as far as the Tories are concerned some of the controversial policies they had in their manifesto have been dropped because that's a pragmatic approach to the situation they have in terms of parliamentary support.
However turn the tables and if Labour had formed a goverment because they had more votes and MP seats but still in a hung parliament do you really expect them to have carried through all of their election promises. No, they too would have taken the pragmatic approach and picked their safest policies to make sure they didn't get voted down.

 

[pms67]

People have a fear of equality,it can work, the minimum wage can be raised and the country won't go bust.
The rich are terrified of it.
Same old Tories

 

[Chippy_Tea]

JC may not be popular with some in his party but to say he is only popular now with the general public because of what he offered in this election is ridiculous