Grenfell Tower Fire | 14th June 2017

[RedTillI'mDead]

It's par for the course in Britain these days. If you ain't rich you don't matter. I moved into a brand new housing association apartment two years ago next month, the list of shoddy problems includes, repeated flooding toilet and waste coming up the plug hole, sewage eventually seeping up through the living room floor, mould in three rooms, poor ventilation unless you want a window open with a big enough gap for an adult to climb through, flooding, uneven floors, poorly fitted doors, poorly laid car park, poorly fitted kitchen, exterior doors so poorly fitted there wasn't even enough clearance to lay thin vinyl flooring. The front main fire door couldn't be closed for six months as it wouldn't open again! When I demanded an answer about if they just picked the cheapest firm regardless of quality and reputation or if their backhander was simply too big to ignore I was ignored. These days we just don't matter unless it's to line the pockets of the wealthy further. Sadly in this case it's lead to the wholesale destruction of innocent families, rip

This is definitely not the right place for this debate, but when you say line of the pockets of the wealthy further do you mean the owners of the housing association properties? My understanding was these had to be not for profit? And even if they were taking backhanders surely the value of this would be small relative to the opportunity to rent the properties at market rate?

Don't get me wrong safety and care should be a must, but you get what you pay for or what you are given in life. Taking aside those with work restricting disabilities everyone has the opportunity to learn and develop and get better jobs for a better lifestyle. There is surely a level to what can be expected from a freebie of sorts?

 

[Adisa]

Nope, she turned up for a private photo op with the firefighters then buggered off.

Couldn't even muster the courage and dignity to speak to those affected.

Hearing it on the beeb now.
Incredible. If the Tories have any sense, they would get rid now.

 

[DomesticTadpole]

This is definitely not the right place for this debate, but when you say line of the pockets of the wealthy further do you mean the owners of the housing association properties? My understanding was these had to be not for profit? And even if they were taking backhanders surely the value of this would be small relative to the opportunity to rent the properties at market rate?

Don't get me wrong safety and care should be a must, but you get what you pay for or what you are given in life. Taking aside those with work restricting disabilities everyone has the opportunity to learn and develop and get better jobs for a better lifestyle. There is surely a level to what can be expected from a freebie of sorts?

So are you saying because these people were in badly paid jobs they got what they paid for? Losing their lives.

 

[Silva]

A council letter to the action group telling them to STFU. (I don't think this one was in reference to fire safety, but it shows a certain attitude)

 

[montpelier]

This is definitely not the right place for this debate, but when you say line of the pockets of the wealthy further do you mean the owners of the housing association properties? My understanding was these had to be not for profit? And even if they were taking backhanders surely the value of this would be small relative to the opportunity to rent the properties at market rate?

Don't get me wrong safety and care should be a must, but you get what you pay for or what you are given in life. Taking aside those with work restricting disabilities everyone has the opportunity to learn and develop and get better jobs for a better lifestyle. There is surely a level to what can be expected from a freebie of sorts?

edit: OK, I'll just say that is a horrible sentence in this context.

 

[RedTillI'mDead]

So are you saying because these people were in badly paid jobs they got what they paid for? Losing their lives.

Certainly not, I did say safety and care is a must. We still don't know what caused the fire, but a lack of sprinklers, alarms, etc if that was the case is shocking. That has to be minimum standards for a building like that.

But your post could be split into two, some of the standards are a disgrace like the plumbing and mold, but things like the kitchen is probably closer to a question over standards and for which the you get what you pay for element comes in.

No one deserves ill health or threats to life for their circumstances. Its bad enough that the richest hundred people in the world could clear world poverty on their own. But in the UK there should be enough money to ensure everyone at least has a safe roof over their heads.

 

[11101]

This is definitely not the right place for this debate, but when you say line of the pockets of the wealthy further do you mean the owners of the housing association properties? My understanding was these had to be not for profit? And even if they were taking backhanders surely the value of this would be small relative to the opportunity to rent the properties at market rate?

Don't get me wrong safety and care should be a must, but you get what you pay for or what you are given in life. Taking aside those with work restricting disabilities everyone has the opportunity to learn and develop and get better jobs for a better lifestyle. There is surely a level to what can be expected from a freebie of sorts?

They are not for profit. They're what old council house departments became. Any 'profit' goes to building new housing or maintaining existing. It's just easier for most people to blame 'the rich'.

The problem they have is the more 'profit' the more developments they can build to meet government targets and the bigger subsidies they can get.

 

[villain]

This is definitely not the right place for this debate, but when you say line of the pockets of the wealthy further do you mean the owners of the housing association properties? My understanding was these had to be not for profit? And even if they were taking backhanders surely the value of this would be small relative to the opportunity to rent the properties at market rate?

Don't get me wrong safety and care should be a must, but you get what you pay for or what you are given in life. Taking aside those with work restricting disabilities everyone has the opportunity to learn and develop and get better jobs for a better lifestyle. There is surely a level to what can be expected from a freebie of sorts?

What a terrible post.

This 'pull yourself up by the bootstraps' logic has been found to be incorrect many, many, many times. Yet people still insist on believing those who are in poverty, low income jobs, poor education etc are there by choice because they didn't work hard enough to get themselves out.

I could get into the dozens of situations, economic factors, social factors, monetary, geographic all of these factors which have been calculated over many years which proves this to be incorrect but i'll just derail the thread.

And even then, just because you're poor doesn't mean you aren't deserving of a safe home to sleep in.

 

[Neutral]

Politicians have it tough...get the optics wrong and people will say it's a PR stunt...alternatively, a messy scene with angry families is not a good look.

BUT - it's what a leader has to do - so, you put up with a few working class families with dead or missing children/brothers/sisters/parents etc etc - haranguing you. It's what a leader does in 'crisis' - LEAD.

Instead, she (or her team) have handled this quite poorly.

 

[Sparky_Hughes]

This is definitely not the right place for this debate, but when you say line of the pockets of the wealthy further do you mean the owners of the housing association properties? My understanding was these had to be not for profit? And even if they were taking backhanders surely the value of this would be small relative to the opportunity to rent the properties at market rate?

Don't get me wrong safety and care should be a must, but you get what you pay for or what you are given in life. Taking aside those with work restricting disabilities everyone has the opportunity to learn and develop and get better jobs for a better lifestyle. There is surely a level to what can be expected from a freebie of sorts?

Social housing is not a freebie, I pay my rent in full, and whilst housing associations may well be "non profit" the salaries paid to the executives and management are very high, including bonuses. As for your comments about everyone being able to work and improve their skills etc etc, Thats exactly what I have done/am doing, I am a single parent with a full time job, also studying to improve my skill set, but there is no way I can buy a property because saving up for a ten % deposit in an area where the average house price is over £200000 whist paying for all of lifes other demands is an impossibility and the fact that many elderly people retire here combined with the buy to let crowd hiking up the private rents means there is a very small pool of properties that are affordable, and Im not on a bad wage for around here. Also if everyone decides to move on up the career ladder who is going to serve you in the shop/empty your bins/deliver your take away etc? These people need homes too that are affordable, clean and safe.

 

[Manny]

 

[RedTillI'mDead]

What a terrible post.

This 'pull yourself up by the bootstraps' logic has been found to be incorrect many, many, many times. Yet people still insist on believing those who are in poverty, low income jobs, poor education etc are there by choice because they didn't work hard enough to get themselves out.

I could get into the dozens of situations, economic factors, social factors, monetary, geographic all of these factors which have been calculated over many years which proves this to be incorrect but i'll just derail the thread.

And even then, just because you're poor doesn't mean you aren't deserving of a safe home to sleep in.

Read my subsequent post. Agreed about the housing and i would go a step further. I think the top 100 richest need to be held to account. Even if they are great businessman and hard workers, no one needs their level of wealth, its come about by chance and opportunity not by being super human. They should solve global poverty and its disgusting that they don't and many of them instead have gold cars and multiple million pound home vanity projects

http://www.poverty.ac.uk/report-dev.../super-rich-could-end-poverty-four-times-over

 

[QuackQuack]

This is definitely not the right place for this debate, but when you say line of the pockets of the wealthy further do you mean the owners of the housing association properties? My understanding was these had to be not for profit? And even if they were taking backhanders surely the value of this would be small relative to the opportunity to rent the properties at market rate?

Don't get me wrong safety and care should be a must, but you get what you pay for or what you are given in life. Taking aside those with work restricting disabilities everyone has the opportunity to learn and develop and get better jobs for a better lifestyle. There is surely a level to what can be expected from a freebie of sorts?

So do you know the circumstances of all the victims? There will be children, young people counted in the death toll and for all we know they could have been taking their opportunity to learn and develop to get a better job so they could have a better lifestyle.

It almost sounds like you are victim blaming.

 

[villain]

Read my subsequent post. Agreed about the housing and i would go a step further. I think the top 100 richest need to be held to account. Even if they are great businessman and hard workers, no one needs their level of wealth, its come about by chance and opportunity not by being super human. They should solve global poverty and its disgusting that they don't and many of them instead have gold cars and multiple million pound home vanity projects

http://www.poverty.ac.uk/report-dev.../super-rich-could-end-poverty-four-times-over

It's not just about wealth though, unfortunately life is unfair and that means that for most of society we fall within the median average range. A small minority are lucky enough to be rich, yes.
But equally a large amount are going to be poor also, and as an economy we need those who are on low-incomes and most likely in social housing - and they deserve to know that the place where they sleep at night is safe regardless of lifestyle.
It's not about 'you get what you pay for' health & safety is necessity for everyone.

 

[RedTillI'mDead]

Social housing is not a freebie, I pay my rent in full, and whilst housing associations may well be "non profit" the salaries paid to the executives and management are very high, including bonuses. As for your comments about everyone being able to work and improve their skills etc etc, Thats exactly what I have done/am doing, I am a single parent with a full time job, also studying to improve my skill set, but there is no way I can buy a property because saving up for a ten % deposit in an area where the average house price is over £200000 whist paying for all of lifes other demands is an impossibility and the fact that many elderly people retire here combined with the buy to let crowd hiking up the private rents means there is a very small pool of properties that are affordable, and Im not on a bad wage for around here. Also if everyone decides to move on up the career ladder who is going to serve you in the shop/empty your bins/deliver your take away etc? These people need homes too that are affordable, clean and safe.

Mate you make plenty of good and fair points. I hadn't considered the salaries and its a good challenge if regulations aren't in place to protect exploitation through that route.

The house pricing point is also very important. Foreign investment needs to be massively cracked down. And the new rules on 2nd homes are a great step to reducing the problem, but still fall short of doing anywhere near enough to account for cash buyers and I have no idea why those owning greater than 10 properties should be given special exemptions

 

[RedTillI'mDead]

So do you know the circumstances of all the victims? There will be children, young people counted in the death toll and for all we know they could have been taking their opportunity to learn and develop to get a better job so they could have a better lifestyle.

It almost sounds like you are victim blaming.

Im sorry I should have been clearer on my post. There is a clear differential between health and safety and quality. Health and safety is a must, quality comes down to the part about getting what you pay for.

 

[SteveJ]

Given the absolute state of the developed world's leadership as shown by recent events alone, the idea that talent will inevitably rise to the top stands revealed as the comforting nonsense it always was.

 

[RedTillI'mDead]

Given the absolute state of the developed world's leadership as shown by recent events alone, the idea that talent will inevitably rise to the top stands revealed as the comforting nonsense it always was.

There is def truth to this. But what is probably true in most careers is those who try hardest or work smartest get furthest and in most cases there is fairness to this. Too many people don't put in the graft and complain later about not getting what they deserve.

That being said some people are just unlucky in life. Like those who put in a thousand applications and don't get a job, its crazy!

 

[DomesticTadpole]

Im sorry I should have been clearer on my post. There is a clear differential between health and safety and quality. Health and safety is a must, quality comes down to the part about getting what you pay for.

Do you mean that because they pay lower rents there isn't as much money available to be spent on health and safety or the top quality it should be? What annoys me is that these tower blocks weren't all knocked down years ago. They would not be built like this now. There should always be two staircases and two lifts. There should always be proper safety lighting and sprinkler systems. They have just tarted them up a bit without spending anything on safety issued.

 

[Wibble]

Given the absolute state of the developed world's leadership as shown by recent events alone, the idea that talent will inevitably rise to the top stands revealed as the comforting nonsense it always was.

Agreed. Why I become more and more left wing as I grow older despite it being against my individual best interest.

 

[Sparky_Hughes]

Mate you make plenty of good and fair points. I hadn't considered the salaries and its a good challenge if regulations aren't in place to protect exploitation through that route.

The house pricing point is also very important. Foreign investment needs to be massively cracked down. And the new rules on 2nd homes are a great step to reducing the problem, but still fall short of doing anywhere near enough to account for cash buyers and I have no idea why those owning greater than 10 properties should be given special exemptions

I think the pendulum is beginning to swing, as we are such a geographically small nation, I think a limit on the amount of private properties any one individual can own would be wise also. If people have made a success of themselves and want to buy a few properties to rent out all the best of luck to them, but a limit of say 5 as a random figure would be fair. Housing is a finite resource here and reducing the availability of them to buy is only going to drive the prices higher still taking them out of the reach of many people. Like I say, I work hard and am very driven to towards self improvement, but not everyone is inclined to high paying careers or able to achieve that.

 

[Silva]

There is def truth to this. But what is probably true in most careers is those who try hardest or work smartest get furthest and in most cases there is fairness to this. Too many people don't put in the graft and complain later about not getting what they deserve.

That being said some people are just unlucky in life. Like those who put in a thousand applications and don't get a job, its crazy!

You sure you got enough cliches in there?

 

[RedSky]

Mate you make plenty of good and fair points. I hadn't considered the salaries and its a good challenge if regulations aren't in place to protect exploitation through that route.

The house pricing point is also very important. Foreign investment needs to be massively cracked down. And the new rules on 2nd homes are a great step to reducing the problem, but still fall short of doing anywhere near enough to account for cash buyers and I have no idea why those owning greater than 10 properties should be given special exemptions

The bolded point is something that has crippled the housing market in some areas. Brighton is a great example of the damage done by Foreign Investment, it's got so expensive that most people can't afford a 1 bedroom flat let alone a house. This had been made worse under the Tories but was still an issue under Labour.

Given the absolute state of the developed world's leadership as shown by recent events alone, the idea that talent will inevitably rise to the top stands revealed as the comforting nonsense it always was.

Agreed. It's a load of waffle to provide hope when the reality is that they have far too many hurdles to get across to reach the top nowadays. I couldn't care less what the older generations try and preach, the world they grew up in has long gone.

 

[Sparky_Hughes]

Agreed. Why I become more and more left wing as I grow older despite it being against my individual best interest.

Many people become more right wing as they get older, but Im like you, getting progressively more left wing year on year.

 

[Wibble]

Social housing is not a freebie, I pay my rent in full, and whilst housing associations may well be "non profit" the salaries paid to the executives and management are very high, including bonuses. As for your comments about everyone being able to work and improve their skills etc etc, Thats exactly what I have done/am doing, I am a single parent with a full time job, also studying to improve my skill set, but there is no way I can buy a property because saving up for a ten % deposit in an area where the average house price is over £200000 whist paying for all of lifes other demands is an impossibility and the fact that many elderly people retire here combined with the buy to let crowd hiking up the private rents means there is a very small pool of properties that are affordable, and Im not on a bad wage for around here. Also if everyone decides to move on up the career ladder who is going to serve you in the shop/empty your bins/deliver your take away etc? These people need homes too that are affordable, clean and safe.

It is the dishonest narrative of the right wing that dismisses the efforts of the many as being lesser than the privileged of the very few. It sickens me.

 

[Wibble]

The Tories have learnt nothing. Probably like hoping your dog will learn to juggle eventually.

 

[Fergies Gum]

One thing that needs to be guaranteed is the tenants of the building are allowed to move back once the building is demolished and rebuilt.

They better ensure they dont sell the land, so that luxury flats can get built instead.

 

[DomesticTadpole]

One thing that needs to be guaranteed is the tenants of the building are allowed to move back once the building is demolished and rebuilt.

They better ensure they dont sell the land, so that luxury flats can get built instead.

Wouldn't put it past them.

 

[Badunk]

One thing that needs to be guaranteed is the tenants of the building are allowed to move back once the building is demolished and rebuilt.

They better ensure they dont sell the land, so that luxury flats can get built instead.

Jon Snow asked this very question to the council leader yesterday and he was evasive.

 

[Neutral]

One thing that needs to be guaranteed is the tenants of the building are allowed to move back once the building is demolished and rebuilt.

They better ensure they dont sell the land, so that luxury flats can get built instead.

Absolutely no chance of that happening - vague statements will be made, but one thing you can be sure of is...what will rise up from the ashes there won't be 'social housing'

 

[DomesticTadpole]

Absolutely no chance of that happening - vague statements will be made, but one thing you can be sure of is...what will rise up from the ashes there won't be 'social housing'

They will make sure they are all housed elsewhere. Then do whatever they want with the land.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

One thing that needs to be guaranteed is the tenants of the building are allowed to move back once the building is demolished and rebuilt.

They better ensure they dont sell the land, so that luxury flats can get built instead.

I'm not sure that a) they'd want to and b) that would be the best thing for them. Much better that they find alternative permanent housing for them as soon as possible (and as near as possible). It could take several years to demolish and rebuild the building, so they shouldn't have to live with the threat of having to up sticks and relocate all over again hanging over them.

The sad thing is they'll probably end up being moved miles away to some far distant suburb or town in one of the counties around London. The constant exodus of locals from W10/W11 has been going on for decades, with an influx of bankers and Russian/French investors buying up all their property instead. It's turned Notting Hill into an extension of Knightsbridge, which is as sterile and boring as that sounds. I don't reckon the carnival will be round much longer.

 

[Fergies Gum]

Jon Snow asked this very question to the council leader yesterday and he was evasive.

Absolutely no chance of that happening - vague statements will be made, but one thing you can be sure of is...what will rise up from the ashes there won't be 'social housing'

It would be disgraceful and there should be mass protests if they sell it off.

 

[DomesticTadpole]

I'm not sure that a) they'd want to and b) that would be the best thing for them. Much better that they find alternative permanent housing for them as soon as possible (and as near as possible). It could take several years to demolish and rebuild the building, so they shouldn't have to live with the threat of having to up sticks and relocate all over again hanging over them.

Also would you want to move into a building built where so many people and people they knew actually died?

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Also would you want to move into a building built where so many people and people they knew actually died?

Exactly.

 

[Nick 0208 Ldn]

Member of the public: "We don't want to hear platitudes."

Politician: "We will get to the truth..."

Ultimately, Corbyn and May were both there for PR purposes. The respective minister and shadow minister would have some more practical relevance, if subordinate to City Hall and the council over the near-term.

Don't you dare politicise her political visit.

(resident tories, am I doing it right?)

If my recollection of the earlier part of this thread is accurate, they were mostly Labour voters. So you're doing it all wrong, and playing petty point scoring with fellow posters.

 

[barros]

Read my subsequent post. Agreed about the housing and i would go a step further. I think the top 100 richest need to be held to account. Even if they are great businessman and hard workers, no one needs their level of wealth, its come about by chance and opportunity not by being super human. They should solve global poverty and its disgusting that they don't and many of them instead have gold cars and multiple million pound home vanity projects

http://www.poverty.ac.uk/report-dev.../super-rich-could-end-poverty-four-times-over

Is not the rich who could solve the problem of poverty but honest caring politicians (yes I know they don't exist) people in poverty elect politicians who promise miracles and the only ones who wins with that are the rich and the politicians, but we have a few reasons why people are in poverty in a country like UK - drugs, alcohol, bad decisions, laziness, we have Venezuela as a good example, take from the rich to give to the poor and now they are starving.

 

[Snowjoe]

(they go on talking about firefighting)

Nice, I couldn't be bothered to post lots of parts of it!

It's ridiculous that they foresaw things like this so long ago and yet this still happened. Considering the date of that it seems it's an issue that's crossed both Labour and Conservative governments too and it hasn't been taken seriously enough at all.

 

[SteveJ]

but we have a few reasons why people are in poverty in a country like UK - drugs, alcohol, bad decisions, laziness...

Every one of those things can be sourced to people being obliged to live unfulfilling, thwarted lives courtesy of a rigged system. And that's not even excuse-making; they are the natural consequences of designed injustice.

 

[Fergies Gum]

I'm not sure that a) they'd want to and b) that would be the best thing for them. Much better that they find alternative permanent housing for them as soon as possible (and as near as possible). It could take several years to demolish and rebuild the building, so they shouldn't have to live with the threat of having to up sticks and relocate all over again hanging over them.

The sad thing is they'll probably end up being moved miles away to some far distant suburb or town in one of the counties around London. The constant exodus of locals from W10/W11 has been going on for decades, with an influx of bankers and Russian/French investors buying up all their property instead. It's turned Notting Hill into an extension of Knightsbridge, which is as sterile and boring as that sounds. I don't reckon the carnival will be round much longer.

Agree with that sentiment, but if people want to move back then they must be allowed to. If not then others on the Kensington waiting list should be given those flats.

Its just not acceptable for this tragedy to result in a profiteering exercise for rich developers.