Grenfell Tower Fire | 14th June 2017

Redlambs said:
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?
Click to expand...

That would be why I used the words ''this particular one'' y'see?

Anything we say about the admin in Labour areas or more Lefty sympathetic TMOs, ALMOs & H Assocs would be purely speculative, I'm afraid.

So Kensington & present Government get it on political grounds - do they not?

Whether you agree with them 'getting it' - is a different question that I was not attempting to answer.

(I'm sounding like fecking Paget-Brown now, :()

Yes, personally I do think there is some politicking going on but I cannot be bothered to care about it very much, tbh.
 
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...

This is a human tragedy first.

But there is a political context. For me, it's about the survivors and the local community - in effect the relatively powerless - trying to receive a decent and human response from what is one of the richest council's in the country. And also from the national government. Then it's going to be about the relatively powerless seeking answers and justice from those in power about how and why this happened. Good luck to them because, in a country where Hillsborough and Orgreave happened, they will bloody well need it.
 
Kentonio said:
To be fair, if the outside was clad in something flammable then he might be right. It would surely have bought those poor people some extra time to escape though.
Click to expand...

No his point wasn't even about cladding, his exact point was "experts say retro-fitting sprinkler systems in buildings that don't have them doesn't avert fire risk" (paraphrasing)

Where:

expert = paid off fellas
retro-fitting sprinkler systems = billions of investment in the poor
doesn't avert fire risk = who gives a feck anyway
 
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...
Possibly, but what is your assumption based on. @Rado_N will tell you that AML rules are quite stringent, albeit not perfect. Also, you'd advocate seizing legitimately owned property and putting the burden of proof on the owners to prove this?
 
Mozza said:
I think the fire was burning through the fire doors into the communal areas, sprinklers would help keep them clearer
Click to expand...
Fair enough, didnt consider that, although i note most fire doors are designed to last for at least 1 hour.
MannyB said:
Sprinklers would have cleared some of the smoke in the stairways/hallways and cooled them down for people to get out.
Click to expand...
Didnt know sprinklers cleared smoke, stand corrected if that is the case.
 
Jippy said:
Possibly, but what is your assumption based on. @Rado_N will tell you that AML rules are quite stringent, albeit not perfect. Also, you'd advocate seizing legitimately owned property and putting the burden of proof on the owners to prove this?
Click to expand...
I read a good article about the number of London (and UK, more widely) properties owned off-shore when there was talk of Tory plans to privatise the Land Registry. Not kidding. They actually planned to privatise the fecking Land Registry! Can't be bothered trying to find the article now as I think it's fairly widely known. It came up again not so long ago when the 1MDB scandal involved London property purchase. And yes, in an emergency, powers exist now for the government to sieze property. If there are properties in London vacant for years purchased off-shore in order to launder money and there is a family desperate for local housing after being an innocent victim of this Grenfell holocaust then are you seriously going to argue against the government using existing legislation to put that property to good use?
 
GloryHunter07 said:
Fair enough, didnt consider that, although i note most fire doors are only designed to last for up to 1 hour.

Didnt know sprinklers cleared smoke, stand corrected if that is the case.
Click to expand...
Minor point, but I'm pretty sure it's at least 1 hour.
 
Silva said:
There are 1400 empty homes in the area.
Click to expand...
Do you really endorse comandeering private property?

I would much rather see these people put up in decent Hotels or private letting until a permanent local solution is found / built.
 
GloryHunter07 said:
Fair enough, didnt consider that, although i note most fire doors are only designed to last for up to 1 hour.

Didnt know sprinklers cleared smoke, stand corrected if that is the case.
Click to expand...

Sorry mate, I didn't mean to be blunt but this is exactly my point. People make these confident assumptions and use them as an argument and it's not based on any knowledge or expertise.
 
Pexbo said:
Sorry mate, I didn't mean to be blunt but this is exactly my point. People make these confident assumptions and use them as an argument and it's not based on any knowledge or expertise.
Click to expand...
No problem. I stand by my original point - sprinklers in hallways wouldnt have stopped the huge fire coming in through peoples windows.

And anyway - if only experts posted on the Caf it would be a cold and lonely place.
 
Last edited:
DenisIrwin said:
I read a good article about the number of London (and UK, more widely) properties owned off-shore when there was talk of Tory plans to privatise the Land Registry. Not kidding. They actually planned to privatise the fecking Land Registry! Can't be bothered trying to find the article now as I think it's fairly widely known. It came up again not so long ago when the 1MDB scandal involved London property purchase. And yes, in an emergency, powers exist now for the government to sieze property. If there are properties in London vacant for years purchased off-shore in order to launder money and there is a family desperate for local housing after being an innocent victim of this Grenfell holocaust then are you seriously going to argue against the government using existing legislation to put that property to good use?
Click to expand...
I obviously have no sympathy with crooks who have their property seized, it's more shifting the burden of proof is in conflict with our 'innocent until proven guilty' legal system. That said, HMRC arguably rides roughshod over that already.
The notion of privatising the Land Registry is obviously dumb- what next, ONS, Companies House...all valued sources of transparent public record.
 
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...

If you look at Corbyn's interview on Peston this morning he said exactly what you have, put the people in hotels until suitable accommodation can be found.
 
Surely the point of any fire alarm system is to prevent as many deaths and as much damage as possible ? If the percentage of people saved 100%, all the better, but if it goes down to 10% or even 1%, it's still done something worthwhile, hasn't it ?

I don't think commandeering people's homes is a good idea and it could set a bad precedent and eventually someone might demand to know - why just these homeless people, why not all, why not squatters ? Pay rents, use student residences or pay hotel fees until a solution is found.
 
DenisIrwin said:
Click to expand...

I think that might be overly simplistic tbh. It's eminently possible that by improving the building's energy efficiency, that ticked some council target's box. Plus, maybe it was also in part to just try and make the whole area look better and the residents could have a bit more pride in their home.
 
jackofalltrades said:
Surely the point of any fire alarm system is to prevent as many deaths and as much damage as possible ? If the percentage of people saved 100%, all the better, but if it goes down to 10% or even 1%, it's still done something worthwhile, hasn't it ?

I don't think commandeering people's homes is a good idea and it could set a bad precedent and eventually someone might demand to know - why just these homeless people, why not all, why not squatters ? Pay rents, use student residences or pay hotel fees until a solution is found.
Click to expand...


I think it would set an excellent precedent.
 
7360.jpg
 
The police have seemingly said they will release a significantly revised figure for the number of presumed dead tomorrow.
 
MikeUpNorth said:
The police have seemingly said they will release a significantly revised figure for the number of presumed dead tomorrow.
Click to expand...

More than it currently is, possibly? Considering the estimates of how many residents lived there, could be a big number sadly.
 
Cheesy said:
More than it currently is, possibly? Considering the estimates of how many residents lived there, could be a big number sadly.
Click to expand...
Yes, they have said it will be higher, but not revealing the latest figure until tomorrow.
 
Cheesy said:
Maybe concerned about the reaction it might cause?
Click to expand...
Well, they are going to release the figures at some point. Grim as it sounds, maybe they are still picking through remains and trying to finalise how many people they are from:(
 
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...

Some people have nothing better to do. That's about as accurate as it's possible to be.

The question is whether the building regs were adhered to and if so why an oversight like this one was made in them. There's nothing political in that and the regs were set years ago under a different government.

The people displaced have every right to question the response but the ones kicking off have nothing to do with them. Just kids looking for a bandwagon.
 


just to give you an idea of how the fire crews were feeling on the way to the scene.
 
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...

To start with they sat on a report adivising all tower blocks were fitted with sprinkler systems and ignored it. One of their party donors built the cladding that led to the massacre of these people was a Tory donor. Let's see if he gets prosecuted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.