Tower block fire - london

kedge said:
Are all those affected been rehoused yet?
Click to expand...

A better question is have they been offered housing yet, as there is a distinction between not being offered housing and declining an offer because you want something different to what is offered.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40496029

Finding 158 permanent homes, in a borough (or surrounding boroughs) with housing shortages is never going to be quick. Even if the council went to the housing market to buy properties, it would take a lot longer than 3 weeks.

The agitation of the survivors by some political segments is probably making their situation worse as well, due to the constant pushing of the idea that logistics and delays are political, not reality based.
 
nkata said:
Yes, it appears that one or more people either confuse a Judge led public enquiry with a criminal court or just want to create chaos or delay.

Expecting arrests to follow the former is wrong whereas expecting criminal proceedings to follow the ongoing police enquiry is proper.

We have a system of law in this country that separates the judiciary from the investigative role of the police. Judges do not initiate warrants for arrest or trial.
Click to expand...

It's like the historic sexual abuse enquiry, the survivors don't seem to want an indepedent, impartial investigation capable of ensuring the problems don't reoccur. They want a witch hunt led by their advocate, which is not how the legal system in this country works, and the politicians encouraging this attitude know this,but are determined to take advantage of the victims to further an agenda, even if it makes the job of preventing this occurring again or helping the victims move forward harder.
 
Dolph said:
It's like the historic sexual abuse enquiry, the survivors don't seem to want an indepedent, impartial investigation capable of ensuring the problems don't reoccur. They want a witch hunt led by their advocate, which is not how the legal system in this country works, and the politicians encouraging this attitude know this,but are determined to take advantage of the victims to further an agenda, even if it makes the job of preventing this occurring again or helping the victims move forward harder.
Click to expand...

Maybe because there have been investigations in the past, that have been summarily ignored by the very people deciding right now. That fire report from 2011 is still in someones desk. Or the fact that the government/police/secret service protected Cyril Smith while he raped boys?

How can people trust leadership in the country after constant contempt for it's citizens? After all the residents were constantly ignored over concerns about the building itself, so maybe they have a particular scorn available for the council?
 
Last edited:
It’s a shame Brexit didn’t happen sooner - may have saved some lives.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...re-would-not-have-happened-without-eu-global/

“Had the Grenfell installation been properly tested under BS 8414 it would not have met the standard, and thus the fire could not have happened. The ultimate irony is that China and Dubai are now adopting mandatory systems based on BS 8414. They can do this because they are not in the EU. But, because Britain is still in the EU, it cannot legally enforce the very standard which would have prevented that disaster.”
 
Utter dribble!

Last time I checked Germany were in the EU and that didn't stop them from banning the cladding used in the Grenfell disaster.
But hey don't let reality and facts get in the way of a good old anti EU rant :rolleyes:
 
n111ck said:
It’s a shame Brexit didn’t happen sooner - may have saved some lives.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...re-would-not-have-happened-without-eu-global/

“Had the Grenfell installation been properly tested under BS 8414 it would not have met the standard, and thus the fire could not have happened. The ultimate irony is that China and Dubai are now adopting mandatory systems based on BS 8414. They can do this because they are not in the EU. But, because Britain is still in the EU, it cannot legally enforce the very standard which would have prevented that disaster.”
Click to expand...
It's almost a certaintiy that the BS specification could have been used in addition to the EU one if the council had wished to.

The EU standard is (usually) the minimum that all the countries have to abide by , individual countries can and do go higher, it's the same for a lot of things the EU may set down the minimum but individual countries can go beyond that, and there is absolutely nothing to stop someone who is specifying what to use in a building from requiring it to be built to a higher standard.
For example if the EU calls for a minimum of 30 minutes protection for a fire door in a specific installation type, there is nothing to stop the contract for installation from specifying a 60 minute door.

At the end of the day the person or persons taking out the contract for works decide which standard they go for that is consistent with what is legally required.
Obviously some people will go with the bare minimum, some will go with the higher standard (in the same way some people are happy to have their car serviced to the minimum needed to pass the MOT, others will spend the extra do keep it running and looking better).
 
n111ck said:
Post brexit the safer BS spec will be mandatory.
Click to expand...
Don't bet on it.

There will be a lot of things where there isn't a specific BS specification, and IIRC the government has said that it'll enshrine a lot of the legislation into UK law as one big lump because they can't do it indivodually.

Which completely ignores (once again) that Germany (an EU member) was able to specify something stronger than the EU standard, which puts a complete lie on the idea that we could not have done the same "Because EU".
 
Once it’s UK law it’s ours to change... sovereignty and all that.

Presumably it was assumed safe because it passed the relevant EU standard - what circumstances led to Germany banning it?
 
n111ck said:
what circumstances led to Germany banning it?
Click to expand...
One media reports said ..Chancellor Philip Hammond has said that the controversial non fire-resistant cladding fitted to Grenfell Tower is in fact banned in the UK. Asked about this by the BBC’s Andrew Marr, the Chancellor said: “My understanding is the cladding in question, this flammable cladding which is banned in Europe and the US, is also banned here. “So there are two separate questions. One, are our regulations correct; do they permit the right kind of materials and ban the wrong kind of materials? The second question is were they correctly complied with?

“That will be a subject that the inquiry will look at. It will also be a subject that the criminal investigation will be looking at.”
 
Werewolf said:
At the end of the day the person or persons taking out the contract for works decide which standard they go for that is consistent with what is legally required.
Obviously some people will go with the bare minimum, some will go with the higher standard (in the same way some people are happy to have their car serviced to the minimum needed to pass the MOT, others will spend the extra do keep it running and looking better).
Click to expand...

Only you're looking after yourself mostly when you cheap out on your car, a Councillors literal job is to serve their constituents... not "their" pocket.

RBKC residents should really stop paying council tax until they realise what they've done.
 
pioneer2000 said:
Christ. They were living there illegally, it's their own problem, apply the law!
Click to expand...

Authorities do implement amnesty on laws from time to time with the emphasis on protecting the public. For example, there has been amnesties on knives as they give the perpetrators the chance to hand in their weapons for the sake of safety for everyone else. The authorities need to learn the lessons from the Grenfell disaster and they won't do that until all the barriers are removed so that the victims can have they say without fears of reprisal. If we don't learn the lessons from the Grenfell Fire then it could be a relation or someone you know die in a preventable fire. Surely, that is more important than your irrational fears on a few illegal immigrants, if any.
 
Cheap shot from Sadiq Khan, just because the BBC happened (well I suppose they brainstormed compromising questions)
to determine Elizabeth Campbell had not been in a tower block
he then repeats that and presents it as a valid reason for rejection. .... os she should have anticipated that ? (has he been in one?)
 
Top_gun said:
Authorities do implement amnesty on laws from time to time with the emphasis on protecting the public. For example, there has been amnesties on knives as they give the perpetrators the chance to hand in their weapons for the sake of safety for everyone else. The authorities need to learn the lessons from the Grenfell disaster and they won't do that until all the barriers are removed so that the victims can have they say without fears of reprisal. If we don't learn the lessons from the Grenfell Fire then it could be a relation or someone you know die in a preventable fire. Surely, that is more important than your irrational fears on a few illegal immigrants, if any.
Click to expand...
Nope, nothing irrational considering about the way these people choose to live.

My relations wouldn't break the law.

Deport the one's that shouldn't be here, arrest / fine the ones that were subletting illegally.
 

Pioneer2000, was this you on LBC?

pioneer2000 said:
Nope, nothing irrational considering about the way these people choose to live.

My relations wouldn't break the law.

Deport the one's that shouldn't be here, arrest / fine the ones that were subletting illegally.
Click to expand...

It seems my previous points were lost on you. What I said it's important for the authorities to learn from the lessons from this disaster so that you relations or someone you know won't die from a preventable fire. Yet you come up with a totally irrational argument that your relations wouldn't break the law. Now contrast your remark in context that the authorities have a responsibility to keep everyone safe regardless of whether someone is breaking the law or not unless they pose a serious risk to other people's safety then you can see why I labelled your arguments as irrational and now out of touch with the law of the land.
 
Last edited:
pioneer2000 said:
Nope, nothing irrational considering about the way these people choose to live.

My relations wouldn't break the law.

Deport the one's that shouldn't be here, arrest / fine the ones that were subletting illegally.
Click to expand...

Wow!
What a disgustingly cold, inhuman and primitive/un-evolved view!
I'd get my doctor to check for a pulse next time if I was you :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom