Tower block fire - london

The government has agreed that two experts will now sit with the judge investigating the Grenfell Tower fire, following pressure from campaigners.

They had called for a diverse panel to oversee proceedings, saying the inquiry risked being a "whitewash".

Theresa May said those appointed will have the "breadth of skills and diversity of expertise" to examine the reasons behind the disaster.
...
More than 156,000 people signed a petition calling for individuals from a range of backgrounds to sit alongside Sir Martin.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44085044
Click to expand...
Translation:

"We want people from our tribe because they'll be more likely to give us what we want."
 
I have said it before and I will say it again... Please just let the victims of the incident write the findings of the public enquiry as there will be absolutely no let off until they have got what they want. Unless you still want this to be rumbling on in 10-20 years time.
 
What so they mean by diverse here and range if backgrounds?

Is this a race thing or are they saying they want an engineer or builder not just a judge?
 
It's 2018, diversity now means less whitey.

A lawyer representing survivors of the Grenfell Tower fire has questioned whether justice will be delivered if the public inquiry into the tragedy fails to pass a diversity “smell test”.
...
Thomas made reference to the largely white, male lawyers who appeared before inquiry chief Sir Martin Moore-Bick at the start of a two-day procedural hearing on Monday.

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/grenfell-lawyer-smell-test_uk_5a2ec91ae4b06e3bccf3068d
Click to expand...

I am getting so sick of that word.

EDIT: This inquiry would have been over by now as several highly qualified judges have been rejected for being white. Diversity is more important than merit.
 
Oh it is a race thing.

Why does it matter? Isn' the sole objective of this inquiry to find where the blame lies for choosing an installing that cladding?

Manufacturer, contractor or council?

How does somones skin colour or having lived in a block of flats change thier ability so sift through masses of paper worknand statements to find liability?
 
So not sure I understand the purpose of the two weeks of victim statements at the start of the enquiy, this seems a president (eg. vs rail or air crashes)
Maybe the victims families see it as cathartic by publically sharing their initmate/painful memories, last phone calls; but I don't think I would share that sentiment.
could another more noble forum not have been provided, like the opening of the intended memorial they will apparently create at the site.

I don't see how this will impact the objective outcome of the enquiry too.

So R4 news at 1pm, we inevitably have David Lammy, taking political capital, protesting about the inability of the council to have permanantly re-housed people, but as discussed by council leader, many do not see it as urgency and are prepared to wait until an appropriate propert is available.
 
I noticed on the news this week a complaint from a residents group that the contractors weren't engaging and the media were happily obliging this narrative with no semblance of a balancing point.

The problem is these companies are certainly looking at criminal and civil cases against them. They have had only limited access to the information the police and other investigatory bodies have developed. If they admit liability at this stage the directors would not be doing their duty to act in the best interests of the shareholders whilst obeying the law. They are doing the correct thing and waiting for the evidence to be developed, presented and tested, if they then admit liability it will be appropriate but in the media reporting no legal or business voice was put up to suggest that this the right and normal way to go about things. The business I work for has been found guilty and pleaded guilty in a court of law on numerous occasions, it is very hard for large heavy industries to avoid accidents or other breaches of the law even with best intentions but they don't admit liability until the charges put against them, the evidence and their own actions are clearly understood.
 
PlacidCasual said:
I noticed on the news this week a complaint from a residents group that the contractors weren't engaging and the media were happily obliging this narrative with no semblance of a balancing point.

The problem is these companies are certainly looking at criminal and civil cases against them. They have had only limited access to the information the police and other investigatory bodies have developed. If they admit liability at this stage the directors would not be doing their duty to act in the best interests of the shareholders whilst obeying the law. They are doing the correct thing and waiting for the evidence to be developed, presented and tested, if they then admit liability it will be appropriate but in the media reporting no legal or business voice was put up to suggest that this the right and normal way to go about things. The business I work for has been found guilty and pleaded guilty in a court of law on numerous occasions, it is very hard for large heavy industries to avoid accidents or other breaches of the law even with best intentions but they don't admit liability until the charges put against them, the evidence and their own actions are clearly understood.
Click to expand...


More to the point, as I read it, it wasn't the residents group as such. it was the residents groups Lawyer.

Lawyers know perfectly well what the situation is, for a lawyer to attempt to make capital out of this just shows the sort of scum some Lawyers really are. :(
 
The grenfell thing is redicoulous now. They are still putting people up in hotels at more than 1k a week when they didn't even live there.

There's 1 student who lives 4 miles away and was just visiting he's now living in a council paid for hotel after they refused to pay his rent in his shared flat

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.da...enfell-survivors-DIDNT-live-tower-hotels.html

‘I didn’t live there but I’m affected like everybody else,’ he said. ‘I went to the council support centre and told them how I am affected and asked whether they could pay the rent or get me a room. I said I needed urgent help. I need to be in a safe environment. They wouldn’t listen to anything because I came from a different borough. They kept pushing me away.’
Click to expand...


The council has offered him permanent accommodation in a studio apartment, but the offer has not been accepted and he is holding out for a one-bedroom flat.

He said: ‘I don’t like being in the hotel. I need to be rehoused in a one-bedroom flat. The hotel is unsuitable.’
Click to expand...
 
If they were living in similar high-rise and visiting Grenfell on that night it happened then I can sort of see that - though they need professional help as Jokester said, otherwise it is just ridiculous.
 
It sounds insane at first, but reading the whole story, it's because they was staying with friends because they was homeless and their friends at the tower was providing them somewhere to sleep.

So, it's kinda reasonable that they are also given a place but at £1000 per week, that's just silly.

With all the money they are spending and time, they could had built these people new homes or even a tower could be almost built, but as always, the UK is slow, slow at everything we do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom