Grenfell Tower Fire | 14th June 2017

Its really not helping that the councils leader keeps travelling to news studios to do interviews.
 
Silva said:
10x is probably a bit high, a inhabited block of flats worth a million probably brings between £45-65K a year, you can't charge it £35K in such fees.
Click to expand...
Properties that are commercially let at market rates to third parties are exempt.
 
Silva said:
10x is probably a bit high, a inhabited block of flats worth a million probably brings between £45-65K a year, you can't charge it £35K in such fees.
Click to expand...
I mean for uninhabited flats/houses owned offshore.
 
montpelier said:
That's good. and quite well thought out as well.

Fair play to Theresa on that one.
Click to expand...


thats true had they released that on Thursday or friday.
its still good today but looks like they wouldnt have done it without the protests friday and saturday
 
starman said:
Does anyone know what Sadiq Khans powers are? All he does is come on TV blaming everyone else.

According to this he has a say in fire saftey and housing so am not sure he keeps blaming everyone else
https://www.london.gov.uk/about-us/mayor-london/mayor-and-his-team/role-mayor-london
Click to expand...

During Johnson's time as Mayor:



And proposal to build sprinkers was turned down in 2013: https://www.london.gov.uk/moderngov/documents/s22397/Appendix 5 - Labour Group Budget Amendment.pdf

So I think the Mayor does get to contribute to allocating budgets and stuff. Depends when the budget is made and what is proposed. Khan became Mayor in May last year. Anyone know how to navigate the london.gov.uk site to find more recent documents about proposals and budgets?
 
fishfingers15 said:
Not really sure but even the fire marshalls and everyone associated with that dept kept going back to cuts by the conservative govt. It seems that he has very little say
Click to expand...

I thought whole point of a Mayor of London was the devolution of powers. Budget are set out by the Government and Mayor does what they wants with it. That's my understanding, otherwise i dont see the point of one, other than being a figurehead, as useful as the royal family
 
Jippy said:
Yep. If I was a generalist or construction-focused journalist I'd be sending freedom of information requests to every Greater London council and the relevant government departments. I'd also see if that US company that made the cladding reveals how much of that shit they sell to the UK and elsewhere.
Click to expand...
I was just thinking about this again... there are supposedly 4,000 tower blocks... if we conservatively assume that just 1% have this deadly cladding, that'd mean 40 buildings and something like 20,000 people living in deathtraps. It's going to be a massive job to fix this.
 
Damien said:
During Johnson's time as Mayor:



And proposal to build sprinkers was turned down in 2013: https://www.london.gov.uk/moderngov/documents/s22397/Appendix 5 - Labour Group Budget Amendment.pdf

So I think the Mayor does get to contribute to allocating budgets and stuff. Depends when the budget is made and what is proposed. Khan became Mayor in May last year. Anyone know how to navigate the london.gov.uk site to find more recent documents about proposals and budgets?
Click to expand...


I am sure Johnson should be blamed as well, but Khan just blames everyone and cant take any blame himself. The proposal were Labours. If Johnson can reject them, then Khan surley could have reinstated them, which he didn't

This is interesting
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/mayo...is-safe-after-fire-service-cuts-a3250986.html

Then after his review
https://www.london.gov.uk/press-releases/mayoral/overall-the-service-has-coped-well-with-cuts
 
Last edited:
Kentonio said:
Of course they could, the idea that the government of the United Kingdom couldn't find decent housing in London for a few hundred people is fecking laughable.
Click to expand...
There are 81, 2-5 bedrooms properties available for £1.5k to £3k PCM within half a mile of Grenfell Tower, according to Rightmove.

Just put them up in that.
 
starman said:
This is interesting
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/mayo...is-safe-after-fire-service-cuts-a3250986.html

Then after his review
https://www.london.gov.uk/press-releases/mayoral/overall-the-service-has-coped-well-with-cuts
Click to expand...
Thanks. So no further cuts it seems but the fire brigade service response time wasn't the issue with this anyway. Issue (beside the cladding) was the lack of sprinklers and other fire safety related stuff being retrofitted to social housing built decades ago that would be voted for in the commons.
 
Does fitting the sprinklers on the staircases mean you are doing away with the 'stay put' policy?

That argument in reverse btw = ''we don't need sprinklers because the flats are safe compartments & the stay put to be safe idea''
 
Red Defence said:
Does that mean that they are empty properties for sale or still occupied properties for sale?
Click to expand...
They are properties for rent.

I'm sure most are still occupied but there will be some that empty and ready for someone to move in.
 
hobbers said:
At a huge expense and a CPO process that takes over a month to do legally.

I don't think anyone displaced is going to feel more comfortable temporarily living in a big empty flat than they would a hotel, or in a rented ready furnished flat, which would also be considerably cheaper.

The home requisitioning "idea" is just typical socialist populism that has zero practicality in this situation. Corbyn no doubt realises himself it wouldn't work and is only saying it to impress his fandom.
Click to expand...

I think he wants them to be given the homes on a permanent basis.
 
MikeUpNorth said:
I was just thinking about this again... there are supposedly 4,000 tower blocks... if we conservatively assume that just 1% have this deadly cladding, that'd mean 40 buildings and something like 20,000 people living in deathtraps. It's going to be a massive job to fix this.
Click to expand...
Someone will do the FOI and we'll probably find out soon- they normally take four to six weeks (Or at least they do with the FCA, HMRC and HM Treasury, never tried local government, given my mag's remit).

It's a scary number though, even at 1%. Fine, some may have fitted it differently, ie without the gap that seemed to make it worse, or the buildings have better fire doors, sprinklers etc...presumably some won't though. Do you try and temporarily rehome these people while the work to remove the cladding is done, or just hope for your best. Crikey, this is a whole can of worms.
 
montpelier said:
That's good. and quite well thought out as well.

Fair play to Theresa on that one.
Click to expand...
It does sound pretty comprehensive tbf. I would imagine that if you're in social housing and on the bread line, there is a serious risk that you're under-insured at a time when you've just lost everything, so the upfront payment must be massive for them.
Now just need to find them somewhere to live...
 
The power exists right now.

What we don't know is how many need rehousing and how many need funerals.
 
Silva said:
https://whoownsengland.org/2017/06/18/where-are-the-empty-homes-in-kensington/
Click to expand...

Kennington is renowned for year round Holiday lets, they dont enforce the 90 rule as stringent as Westminster. Some of these "empty" houses are also owned by foreign owners, that buy houses solely to have their children stay there during university term time. Its not really clear, or as easy as it seems to just rehouse people in "empty" homes, as they are deemed empty as the owner has never actually lived, but does mean they are never used.

As to regards for people being re housed in the area, it will be done on case by case basis, for example, if someone is unemployed and receiving housing benefits, they are not going to be as higher priority as someone who has a job and is essential they stay in the local area to keep it. It would be nice if they could all stay in the area, but if there are no houses avaiable to the council, then there is nothing that could really be done, unfortunately until new ones are built
 
Last edited:
Classical Mechanic said:
There was a documentary on recently about the housing department somewhere in East London, Dagenham I think. They didn't have anywhere near the number of properties to meet demand and they followed a few individuals that were homeless, one young couple with a child had been homeless for something like two years!

That is council stock mind.
Click to expand...

Did that documentary happen to talk about the homes they sold off prior to the Olympics to other councils like Hackney and Tower Hamlets, so they could make east London look more appealing to the world? Or the fact that it's a culture, in that very town, of it's not what you are entitled to but who you know? I could go on, it's a subject in that particular area I know about very well.

They are swamped, yes. But the reasons why and the way they handle it are just unpalatable in this day and age.
 
Redlambs said:
Did that documentary happen to talk about the homes they sold off prior to the Olympics to other councils like Hackney and Tower Hamlets, so they could make east London look more appealing to the world? Or the fact that it's a culture, in that very town, of it's not what you are entitled to but who you know? I could go on, it's a subject in that particular area I know about very well.

They are swamped, yes. But the reasons why and the way they handle it are just unpalatable in this day and age.
Click to expand...

It more focused on the bods in the front line and the procedures to house people, that and the lives of some affected. It didn't really have a political slant.
 
starman said:
Kennington is renowned for year round Holiday lets, they dont enforce the 90 rule as stringent as Westminster. Some of these "empty" houses are also owned by foreign owners, that buy houses solely to have their children stay there during university term time. Its not really clear, or as easy as it seems to just rehouse people in "empty" homes, as they are deemed empty as the owner has never actually lived, but does mean they are never used.

As to regards for people being re housed in the area, it will be done on case by case basis, for example, if someone is unemployed and receiving housing benefits, they are not going to be as higher priority as someone who has a job and is essential they stay in the local area to keep it. It would be nice if they could all stay in the area, but if there are no houses avaiable to the council, then there is nothing that could really be done, unfortunately until new ones are built
Click to expand...
I believe quite a few of those empty properties will be sinks for money-laundering shits - and a lot of those criminal owners will be very shy about coming forward or even expired, as in dead. Sieze them all now. House victims in them temporarily. Relinquish those that are legitimately owned when the owners come forward.
 
Kentonio said:
Of course they could, the idea that the government of the United Kingdom couldn't find decent housing in London for a few hundred people is fecking laughable.
Click to expand...

It's like people actually believe that this is in any way hard for the council/government to sort out immediately, at least in the short term. There's a feck ton of empty B&B rooms, hotels, fit for purpose properties around the area ready to go, it's just sick these people aren't people helped and even more so there are some who want to make excuses for it.


Mind you, I don't for one second think Corbyn's answer to it is doing anybody any favours. feck the attacks on the rich, just sort these people and then worry about the aftermath.
 
DenisIrwin said:
I believe quite a few of those empty properties will be sinks for money-laundering shits - and a lot of those criminal owners will be very shy about coming forward or even expired, as in dead. Sieze them all now. House victims in them temporarily. Relinquish those that are legitimately owned when the owners come forward.
Click to expand...

I am sure there are houses bought for money laundering, but i dont see how they would be shy coming forward, unless there was illegal activity going on inside. You would also have to prove the house was purchased with laundered money to seize it. There is also a housing registry so it not like you cant find out who owns them.
 
Not trolling, but I don't understand why people are making this tragedy political?

I mean, I get why in terms of propaganda.. But is it actually the Conservatives fault a fire started and the building wasn't built using the right materials?

I'm a little out of loop and haven't been following the story...
 
starman said:
I am sure there are houses bought for money laundering, but i dont see how they would be shy coming forward for a legit purchase, unless there was illegal activity going on inside. You would also have to prove the house was purchased with laundered money to seize it. There is also a housing registry so it not like you cant find out who owns them.
Click to expand...
OK. Then, as the power to sieze properties in an emergency (and this is most definitely one) is lawful right now, it makes perfect sense to take the opportunity to identify those owned by criminals right now and do it right now.

Edit: There is no need to prove either that there is illegal activity going on inside (a moot point, given that many have been vacant for over a decade) or that they were purchased with laundered money. There is also nothing to stop siezed properties being relinquished later. I would put the onus on owners that come forward to prove that they were bought legitimately with clean money in order for them to get their property back.
 
Last edited:
With no house or belongings £5500 won't last you very long in London, it probably works as an initial payment but I hope the media keep focus on further support offered by authorities because there will need to be some and they can't be trusted without that scrutiny.

Paget Brown sounds like an absolute fecking vile cnut, more concerned with protecting his job than burning residents.
 
VivaObertan said:
Not trolling, but I don't understand why people are making this tragedy political?

I mean, I get why in terms of propaganda.. But is it actually the Conservatives fault a fire started and the building wasn't built using the right materials?

I'm a little out of loop and haven't been following the story...
Click to expand...

I'll have a go...

Some is that's it's an event inflicted on the have-nots by the haves. Tory Kensington Council vs their disenfranchised immigrant Social Housing population, who some would say they don't want there. Bit of class war in there, if you like. And then it's get party political I suppose, because that's what happens in a democracy.

Or, it starts as party political because the work was being done by a Tory Council & their response has been shit. Then the Tory Government appeared not to care either.
 
DenisIrwin said:
OK. Then, as the power to sieze properties in an emergency (and this is most definitely one) is lawful right now, it makes perfect sense to take the opportunity to identify those owned by criminals right now and do it right now.
Click to expand...

Something like that would take months, if not years. This is a problem i have with Corbyn, he creates this false narrative that is jumped on when being so thinly thought out

The victims could easily be temporarily housed in hotels or even all in student accommodation, since term time is over, as many are open to the public over the summer. I have stayed in one, when not being a student
 
Last edited:
My real fear is that the vast majority of tenants won't need rehousing because they're ash already.
 
montpelier said:
I'll have a go...

Some is that's it's an event inflicted on the have-nots by the haves. Tory Kensington Council vs their disenfranchised immigrant Social Housing population, who some would say they don't want there. Bit of class war in there, if you like. And then it's get party political I suppose, because that's what happens in a democracy.

Or, it starts as party political because the work was being done by a Tory Council & their response has been shit. Then the Tory Government appeared not to care either.
Click to expand...

It's not just Tory though, Labour councils are exactly the same. It's not about the party in charge, the whole system is rotten.


starman said:
Something like that would take months, if not years. This is a problem i have with Corbyn, he creates this false narrative that is jumped on when being so thinly thought out

The victims could easily be temporarily housed in hotels or even all in student accommodation, since term time is over, as many are open to the public over the summer. I have stayed in one, when not being a student
Click to expand...

Indeed.
 
VivaObertan said:
Not trolling, but I don't understand why people are making this tragedy political?

I mean, I get why in terms of propaganda.. But is it actually the Conservatives fault a fire started and the building wasn't built using the right materials?

I'm a little out of loop and haven't been following the story...
Click to expand...

I don't give a shit if you want to rope in the Labour mayor and the lib dems and former Labour government but the politicians have clearly been left wanting and those who have contributed to this disaster and aftermath need to be found and held accountable whoever they are, whateber colour. Hold Khan's feet to the fire by all means.
 
Redlambs said:
It's not just Tory though, Labour councils are exactly the same. It's not about the party in charge, the whole system is rotten.
Click to expand...

I don't mind agreeing with that. Because I also know all the Social Housing has had money for these improvements since 1997. So it isn't quite that either.

These people are right to be angry though. Some other landlords have been shit as well with their improvements but they hadn't managed to kill 100s of people.

This particular one is rather blue vs red - the way our politics works. So that's what it is for people.
 
montpelier said:
I don't mind agreeing with that. Because I also know all the Social Housing has had money for these improvements since 1997. So it isn't quite that either.

These people are right to be angry though. Some other landlords have been shit as well with their improvements but they hadn't managed to kill 100s of people.

This particular one is rather blue vs red - the way our politics works. So that's what it is for people.
Click to expand...

But in reality it's not, at all.

Unless you honestly think Labour councils do anything different? Or would be any better at handling this?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.