Tower Block Fire ladbroke grove

[newjez]

5 hours ago, simmo said:

I  like TM but she is hopeless with the media  Look how Mogg deals with them.  He's the right man for the job.

 

Right being the operative word. I think Murdoch has chosen a center candidate for you.

[newjez]

3 hours ago, simmo said:

Terrorism and poverty go hand in hand. Much easier to recruit poor people.

[newjez]

48 minutes ago, simmo said:

The rise of the far left. 

I really don't think it is. In a nutshell, we had the GFC, then we bailed out the bankers by taking money from poor people, and we made the rich people even richer, by taking more money from the poor, and we let the rich pay no tax. Then the poor got pissed, some rich people said it was the EU fault, so they vented their anger. Now they have burnt alot of the poor people because the rich people needed just a little bit more money. So, now the poor people are justifiably pissed, and they are doing the only thing they can. Rioting. Well, not yet, but it's the next step.

[Johndoe]

47 minutes ago, newjez said:

I really don't think it is. In a nutshell, we had the GFC, then we bailed out the bankers by taking money from poor people, and we made the rich people even richer, by taking more money from the poor, and we let the rich pay no tax. Then the poor got pissed, some rich people said it was the EU fault, so they vented their anger. Now they have burnt alot of the poor people because the rich people needed just a little bit more money. So, now the poor people are justifiably pissed, and they are doing the only thing they can. Rioting. Well, not yet, but it's the next step.

A simplification................perhaps not................but then again?....................It's been well covered here, and surprisingly, some of the Aussie coverage has shown things that the BBC and even Al Jazeera has not.

Hopefully you know my political leanings, but,............."The poor people"? This is what I have seen in the coverage. Raised fists with iphones in one hand and multiple gold rings bracelets/watches  on the other. Poor? The same woman in a hijab in several different locations filmed by different stations "arousing" the crowd".....................hate to say it but in colonial times such as Aden or Kenya, this woman would have been recognised and singled out immediately by the OC in charge of the riot squad, and if the crowd didn't disperse after warning, she would have been shot...............the crowd would  immediately feck off when the agitator was out of the equation, not to put too fine a point on it. We've moved on since then hopefully, and we can remove agitators by less drastic means, or can we?

My heart goes out to the two Syrian brothers who got separated from their other brother, presumed dead. They, and other (obviously recent immigrants, Muslims included) were much more measured, peaceful, and conciliatory in their responses to the press. ............hard to describe what I mean other than I felt for them, whereas those "gobbing off" hardly seemed to be "in mourning." Despite their recent sufferings and horrors of their homelands, they seemed more "accepting" and without anger at what has happened. I would have thought that they would be more angry having only (relatively) recently escaped the horrors of war only to be deprived of their loved ones when they thought that they had reached safety?

What has been clearly illustrated from all that I've seen is that those that "shout loudest" are those with Brit/cockney accents, despite the fact that they display hijabs/turbans/dreadlocks and the odd white face. Yes, they may think that they have the right to shout louder because they've been in the UK longer, or because they think of themselves as Brits (rightfully so as far as residence goes) but quite frankly, I wonder if they really do, despite being perhaps 2nd and 3rd generation? Is that because of the poverty/inequality that they see within the UK as defining who they are or do they just simply aspire to things that are yet beyond the reach of any working class family, irrespective of ethnicity? Not one of the protesters that I have seen could (rightfully) be described as "in poverty" by mere virtue of the fact that they had a roof over their heads. Do they/should they blame successive Gov'ts for their poverty/inequality when some from similar backgrounds have risen above that poverty and achieved? If they have, why have those complaining not achieved?..............................Parents too busy whingeing/protesting/complaining/ simply not trying, (due to agitation from activists) to find time to motivate their kids to do better?

 

[newjez]

1 hour ago, Johndoe said:

A simplification................perhaps not................but then again?....................It's been well covered here, and surprisingly, some of the Aussie coverage has shown things that the BBC and even Al Jazeera has not.

Hopefully you know my political leanings, but,............."The poor people"? This is what I have seen in the coverage. Raised fists with iphones in one hand and multiple gold rings bracelets/watches  on the other. Poor? The same woman in a hijab in several different locations filmed by different stations "arousing" the crowd".....................hate to say it but in colonial times such as Aden or Kenya, this woman would have been recognised and singled out immediately by the OC in charge of the riot squad, and if the crowd didn't disperse after warning, she would have been shot...............the crowd would  immediately feck off when the agitator was out of the equation, not to put too fine a point on it. We've moved on since then hopefully, and we can remove agitators by less drastic means, or can we?

My heart goes out to the two Syrian brothers who got separated from their other brother, presumed dead. They, and other (obviously recent immigrants, Muslims included) were much more measured, peaceful, and conciliatory in their responses to the press. ............hard to describe what I mean other than I felt for them, whereas those "gobbing off" hardly seemed to be "in mourning." Despite their recent sufferings and horrors of their homelands, they seemed more "accepting" and without anger at what has happened. I would have thought that they would be more angry having only (relatively) recently escaped the horrors of war only to be deprived of their loved ones when they thought that they had reached safety?

What has been clearly illustrated from all that I've seen is that those that "shout loudest" are those with Brit/cockney accents, despite the fact that they display hijabs/turbans/dreadlocks and the odd white face. Yes, they may think that they have the right to shout louder because they've been in the UK longer, or because they think of themselves as Brits (rightfully so as far as residence goes) but quite frankly, I wonder if they really do, despite being perhaps 2nd and 3rd generation? Is that because of the poverty/inequality that they see within the UK as defining who they are or do they just simply aspire to things that are yet beyond the reach of any working class family, irrespective of ethnicity? Not one of the protesters that I have seen could (rightfully) be described as "in poverty" by mere virtue of the fact that they had a roof over their heads. Do they/should they blame successive Gov'ts for their poverty/inequality when some from similar backgrounds have risen above that poverty and achieved? If they have, why have those complaining not achieved?..............................Parents too busy whingeing/protesting/complaining/ simply not trying, (due to agitation from activists) to find time to motivate their kids to do better?

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_mobility

 

 

Edited June 17, 2017 by newjez

[newjez]

Mobiles don't have to be expensive. They can be a very cheap option these days. Jewellery, fake? Often is.

Are these people poor? Are there agitators? Probably. Are the right wing press using this as an opportunity to dispose of Theresa may? Yes.

But you can't get away from the fact that they spent a lot of money making an ugly building look nicer from the poshest parts of London, and in so doing, by cutting costs, they turned it into a death trap, and didn't spend adequate money on installing suitable safety measures.

This stinks of privatisation gone wrong, with no control. And I can understand people feeling a bit angry about that. Not necessarily those who are mourning, but those who may mourn tomorrow.

[BacktoDemocracy]

Having worked in social housing for 20 odd years with membership of 2 professional bodies and a degree specialising in it these are some of the component parts of what I think contributed to where it is now,

Since 1990 approx, funding for social housing has been declining and in the last 12 years has been tied to adopting management by organisations  other than councils.

There has been a haemorrhaging of qualified staff out of housing and the percentage who have proper training and technical knowledge now is very low.

Housing is now run by and large by money orientated managers whose answer to any technical issues is to outsource all of the technical work to contractors who by and large organise the repairs, maintenance and renovation work to maximise profit for themselves with very little oversight by the housing organisations themselves as they either don't see the need for it or don't want to spend the money on it . This was to an extent always the case but whilst councils ran social housing the service had to achieve a certain standard because councillors relied on tenants votes but now the organisations running housing are accountable to virtually no one.

Legal aid for tenants to pursue poor social landlords thro the courts for failings is no longer, effectively, available.

The Building Research Station which included the Fire Research Establishment was privatised in 1997 and now relies on charitable donations and money from industry and effectively works for the industry whereas before it did independent testing of products , procedures and types of construction and its results formed the basis for govt and local govt regulations.

The Governments from the early 1990 have been trying to reduce the costs of social housing and make it self funding and this Tory govt has been trying to eradicate it as it does not fit with their ideas of a "property owning democracy".

As the  social housing as a sector has shrunk into a provider of last resort it now houses those who have no other option but to accept whatever  dwelling they are offered, whether it is in a poorly maintained tower block or anything else and they have no means of influencing their landlord.

The outbursts of anger that are being seen are the result of people being ignored and treated as second class citizens for 20 years, it is no "leftie" plot it is simply people living in poor quality housing cheek by jowl with the richest in the city and now they have seen their neighbours burnt alive by incompetent renovations sanctioned by an incompetent social landlord backed by a council which for more then 25 years has treated its tenants as worse than second class citizens.

Edited June 17, 2017 by BacktoDemocracy

[Rallyman]

Just been reading up on the 2005 fire and rescue bill, interesting reading and how the vote went 

 

 

---

That this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Fire and Rescue Services Bill because the Bill is granting to the Secretary of State too many powers to intervene which is against the thrust of the Government's stated approach to modernisation of the Fire and Rescue Service and will undermine local accountability; because the approach to introducing new regional structures for the fire service is based on the boundaries of the Government Offices for the Regions, most of which are inappropriate for this purpose and are not sufficiently accountable in the absence of elected regional assemblies; and because some key measures to promote fire prevention, particularly requirements for greater use of sprinklers, are not strong enough or are absent in the Bill.




Majority (No) Minority (Aye) Both Turnout 
Con 0 129 (+2 tell) 0 80.4% 
DUP 0. 2. 0 33.3% 
Independent 0 1 0 50.0% 
Ind Conservative 0 1 0 100.0% 
Lab. 337 (+2 tell) 0. 0 83.1% 
LDem 0 29. 0. 53.7% 
PC 4. 0. 0. 100.0% 
SNP 3. 0 0 60.0% 
UUP 0 2 0 40.0% 
Total: 344 164. 0 79.0% 

Notice the voting looking for an amendment to the bill, the fire service no longer have any say on fire regulations thanks to Labour. 

Fire and Rescue Services Bill — 26 Jan 2004 at 21:45 — The Public Whip

[Parley]

8 hours ago, newjez said:

I said a similar thing on page one. If you remember, there were a couple of multiple death tragedies involving trucks driving into people after the drivers passed out. Then suddenly Isis started doing this. A couple of drums of petrol during the small hours of the morning and they could take out a tower block. Probably wouldn't even worry them that they are full of Asian muslims.

Yes. A lot easier to manage than creating a suicide bomb too.

Any idiot can just splash some petrol around.

[newjez]

6 hours ago, Rallyman said:

Just been reading up on the 2005 fire and rescue bill, interesting reading and how the vote went 

 

 

---

That this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Fire and Rescue Services Bill because the Bill is granting to the Secretary of State too many powers to intervene which is against the thrust of the Government's stated approach to modernisation of the Fire and Rescue Service and will undermine local accountability; because the approach to introducing new regional structures for the fire service is based on the boundaries of the Government Offices for the Regions, most of which are inappropriate for this purpose and are not sufficiently accountable in the absence of elected regional assemblies; and because some key measures to promote fire prevention, particularly requirements for greater use of sprinklers, are not strong enough or are absent in the Bill.




Majority (No) Minority (Aye) Both Turnout 
Con 0 129 (+2 tell) 0 80.4% 
DUP 0. 2. 0 33.3% 
Independent 0 1 0 50.0% 
Ind Conservative 0 1 0 100.0% 
Lab. 337 (+2 tell) 0. 0 83.1% 
LDem 0 29. 0. 53.7% 
PC 4. 0. 0. 100.0% 
SNP 3. 0 0 60.0% 
UUP 0 2 0 40.0% 
Total: 344 164. 0 79.0% 

Notice the voting looking for an amendment to the bill, the fire service no longer have any say on fire regulations thanks to Labour. 

Fire and Rescue Services Bill — 26 Jan 2004 at 21:45 — The Public Whip

Sorry, but I think you will need to expand on that. Was there an criticism of Labours decision at the time by fire services?

This seems to be is a bill to redefine the control and direction of the fire services. It is a little difficult to understand the impact of the voting.

Can you explain please.

[Rallyman]

14 minutes ago, newjez said:

Sorry, but I think you will need to expand on that. Was there an criticism of Labours decision at the time by fire services?

This seems to be is a bill to redefine the control and direction of the fire services. It is a little difficult to understand the impact of the voting.

Can you explain please.

The Tories opposed the new fire safety rules Labour wanted back in 2005, due to one of many reason's, it not including the widespread use of sprinklers. Phillip Hammond was the party spokesperson who stood up and told parliament that day the bill didn't go far enough on fire prevention and wanted it amending

 

At the time labour voted not to have a 2nd reading of the Bill , this was the first time it had been updated since 1947.  

[Rallyman]

Philp Hammond quote about the bill :

 

"the approach to introducing new regional structures for the fire service is based on the boundaries of the Government Offices for the Regions, most of which are inappropriate for this purpose and are not sufficiently accountable in the absence of elected regional assemblies; and because some key measures to promote fire prevention, particularly requirements for greater use of sprinklers, are not strong enough or are absent in the Bill"

He also asked and was against the fire service charging for extraction and wanted it addressed. He was also concerned the fire service weren't getting a proper say on the bill.

 

 

[VERYSTORMY]

16 hours ago, newjez said:

Terrorism and poverty go hand in hand. Much easier to recruit poor people.

The thing that struck me most about this "protest" was how similar in feel it was to those we saw in the 80's organised by militant. Who are now Momentum - Corbyn's support group. Then it turns out, it was organised by someone who was the spokesman for Finnusbury Park mosque, who has, unsurprisingly being investigated for terrorism. This is someone that Corbyn met every week for ten years. 

[newjez]

1 hour ago, Rallyman said:

Philp Hammond quote about the bill :

 

"the approach to introducing new regional structures for the fire service is based on the boundaries of the Government Offices for the Regions, most of which are inappropriate for this purpose and are not sufficiently accountable in the absence of elected regional assemblies; and because some key measures to promote fire prevention, particularly requirements for greater use of sprinklers, are not strong enough or are absent in the Bill"

He also asked and was against the fire service charging for extraction and wanted it addressed. He was also concerned the fire service weren't getting a proper say on the bill.

 

 

You have to be very careful to oversimplify the workings of government. People vote for and against bills for many reasons. It is not always black and white, and doesn't always fit into a newspaper headline. Context is important. I can find much on this fire act, but little of substance. This is indicative of the sort of content there is

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2003-04/Fire_and_Rescue_Services_Bill/03-0_2004-02-12a.9.0

There is empirical evidence that sprinkler systems work. One would hate to think that we could go through a Fire and Rescue Services Bill without highlighting that issue. I am trying to anticipate the Minister's response—I guess he will say that this is a nice idea that could be incorporated into another piece of legislation, perhaps building regulations, and that it does not fit harmoniously or coherently with everything else in the Bill, or at least in this particular clause. That might be a valid concern, but in the past Ministers have not been slow to incorporate into legislation things that they had not initially thought of, and that were not directly implied. One recalls the Local Government Act 2003 going through. Halfway through, the Minister decided that clause 28 was due for repeal. Provisions were added to the Bill. They had nothing to do with the Bill's other provisions but it was thought to be a good idea.

Edited June 18, 2017 by newjez

[newjez]

21 minutes ago, VERYSTORMY said:

The thing that struck me most about this "protest" was how similar in feel it was to those we saw in the 80's organised by militant. Who are now Momentum - Corbyn's support group. Then it turns out, it was organised by someone who was the spokesman for Finnusbury Park mosque, who has, unsurprisingly being investigated for terrorism. This is someone that Corbyn met every week for ten years. 

The right either has a hand in this too. I've never seen the press this hostile to a sitting Tory PM. The right may not be agitating, but they are making hay.

[simmo]

Corbyn is a very dangerous man

 

 

[Rallyman]

5 hours ago, newjez said:

You have to be very careful to oversimplify the workings of government. People vote for and against bills for many reasons. It is not always black and white, and doesn't always fit into a newspaper headline. Context is important. I can find much on this fire act, but little of substance. This is indicative of the sort of content there is

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2003-04/Fire_and_Rescue_Services_Bill/03-0_2004-02-12a.9.0

There is empirical evidence that sprinkler systems work. One would hate to think that we could go through a Fire and Rescue Services Bill without highlighting that issue. I am trying to anticipate the Minister's response—I guess he will say that this is a nice idea that could be incorporated into another piece of legislation, perhaps building regulations, and that it does not fit harmoniously or coherently with everything else in the Bill, or at least in this particular clause. That might be a valid concern, but in the past Ministers have not been slow to incorporate into legislation things that they had not initially thought of, and that were not directly implied. One recalls the Local Government Act 2003 going through. Halfway through, the Minister decided that clause 28 was due for repeal. Provisions were added to the Bill. They had nothing to do with the Bill's other provisions but it was thought to be a good idea.

The reason I looked this up and posted was in response to how the mob reacted , people need to look at the big picture and not jump to conclusions before getting the full facts , to be blaming the current government is a complete joke and the way it is being played out is unreal , this never happened after the Bradford disaster the country pulled together  , there are many factors involved in this tradgic accident and if any good comes from it will be the new legislation that gets put in place that will save lives in the future. 

I doubt many people even new there had be a new bill , did you before I posted it up ? 

 

[newjez]

9 minutes ago, Rallyman said:

The reason I looked this up and posted was in response to how the mob reacted , people need to look at the big picture and not jump to conclusions before getting the full facts , to be blaming the current government is a complete joke and the way it is being played out is unreal , this never happened after the Bradford disaster the country pulled together  , there are many factors involved in this tradgic accident and if any good comes from it will be the new legislation that gets put in place that will save lives in the future. 

I doubt many people even new there had be a new bill , did you before I posted it up ? 

 

No I didn't.

But there are two issues here. One the response of the government to provide for and safeguard the people left homeless by this fire, and secondly, what caused the fire and the implications and responsibilities of this.

On the first Theresa May has already said the response was inadequate.

On the second, this is particularly interesting.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/18/cladding-on-grenfell-tower-banned-in-uk-says-philip-hammond

This stinks of government outsourcing without proper checks which is a cancer which has been growing. Australia is not immune to this sort of thing, with their insulation installation problems.

 

[newjez]

5 hours ago, simmo said:

Corbyn is a very dangerous man

 

 

Personally I think he should have let the dead be buried before looking for blame. But one thing I will say, at least he met and made contact with these people. That wasn't just a photo shoot. That's more than can be said for many.

[simmo]

14 minutes ago, newjez said:

Personally I think he should have let the dead be buried before looking for blame. But one thing I will say, at least he met and made contact with these people. That wasn't just a photo shoot. That's more than can be said for many.

TM met them privately at number 10 and HRH done what the people requested "show us you care" she did 

[Rallyman]

20 minutes ago, newjez said:

No I didn't.

But there are two issues here. One the response of the government to provide for and safeguard the people left homeless by this fire, and secondly, what caused the fire and the implications and responsibilities of this.

On the first Theresa May has already said the response was inadequate.

On the second, this is particularly interesting.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/18/cladding-on-grenfell-tower-banned-in-uk-says-philip-hammond

This stinks of government outsourcing without proper checks which is a cancer which has been growing. Australia is not immune to this sort of thing, with their insulation installation problems.

 

I agree , first priority is to help family's and people affected first hand ,and then let the inquiry do its job.

I thought the government had put 8 million aside into a fund to help them ? 

 

I have recently worked on fire upgrades here in oz as a subcontractor , after 6 weeks I terminated my contract as the main contractor wanted to cut too many corners , he ordered and fitted access panels that did not comply with current regulations , it was picked up at the final inspection, and cost him more money than to have fitted the correct ones in the first place serves him right. 

unfortunately it's all about the bottom line today and how much people can make and save ,  in construction today 99% of the time it's how quick can you do the job and can you do it cheaper  

 

Edited June 18, 2017 by Rallyman

[newjez]

Politics aside, I think all the fire officers who entered that building must have had 9/11 on there minds. A fire that intense, they must have been thinking the whole thing could come down without warning. They are truly brave souls. And they still do it, day in day out, despite the austerity they have had to put up with. We can't commend them enough.

[newjez]

2 hours ago, simmo said:

TM met them privately at number 10 and HRH done what the people requested "show us you care" she did 

Finally. Hurrah!

http://metro.co.uk/2017/06/17/theresa-may-to-finally-meet-grenfell-tower-residents-at-downing-street-6715547/

[simmo]

2 hours ago, Rallyman said:

 in construction today 99% of the time it's how quick can you do the job and can you do it cheaper  

 

bang on.

Also a can't be arsed attitude by clients.  I do quality and building control throughout a scheme but FRAs need to be done by the HA's or Private landlord's in house inspectors.  They will typically turn up a week before scheduled handover, write a list of requirements and expect us to sign them off.  I worry about some of my younger less experienced colleagues and what they are signing off.  I will always call them back or write "pending FRA's inspection/approval". 

[Johndoe]

7 hours ago, simmo said:

Corbyn is a very dangerous man

 

 

Not really..................but yes........... He's a really a likeable bloke with admirable ideals who (perhaps) has done a few (questionably admirable) things in the sphere of reconciliation between certain factions, has furthered the cause for working class ideals/solidarity and of late, has unified/awakened the young voter, but sadly, despite his intelligence, seems to have ignored the lessons (that should be) learned from the past................... and that is.....................that the average Brit (working class/ lower class/ or otherwise) ain't accepting of (sudden/drastic) change via militancy, especially the elders who remember Scargills legacy and also recently, when that militancy seems to be driven by folk (irrespective of their accents) who are not of anglo saxon heritage.

The folk "gobbing off" on news feeds re "posh area who thought the tower block was an eyesore and that "the insulation was fitted to suit the "posh bastards" and not really for insulation should be ashamed at attempting to make "class warfare" capital out of this, as should anyone who trumpets their call.

It was the wrong insulation.............end of............cost cutting?.................perhaps?................class divide? ................hardly..........you cannot say that the rich would have been better treated because their properties would hardly need insulation anyways. For "gobshite mouthpieces" to say that the cladding was there purely for "cosmetics to suit the rich neighbours" so early in the game, reeks not of injustice/inequality but of making capital out of others' grief.  Mistakes have clearly been made and any politician that turns this into a class warfare issue, irrespective of funding issues from either party,  should be ashamed of themselves.