Grenfell Tower Fire | 14th June 2017

I suspect the governments stepped in to demand these resignations.

First the CEO of the Tenant management organisation, then the council leader and now the deputy council leader have announced they're stepping down in a matter of hours.
 
Fergies Gum said:
I suspect the governments stepped in to demand these resignations.

First the CEO of the Tenant management organisation, then the council leader and now the deputy council leader have announced they're stepping down in a matter of hours.
Click to expand...

Hopefully there is no deals in place.
 
“We are extremely concerned that a group which we know nothing about, and which was not established by the survivors, or with their support, is trying to become their voice,” said Pilgrim Tucker, a housing campaigner who has worked with Grenfell residents for several years. “At best, this is a serious breach of trust, at worst something far more disturbing.”

Authorities running the relief effort confirmed that they had sent out letters to survivors, but said they had been provided for delivery by the council. A council spokeswoman said she could not immediately provide further details of the group, or why the letter had been delivered to survivors.
Click to expand...

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jul/01/grenfell-tower-residents-support-group
 
11101 said:
Why are we straight to acting like this is some big establishment cover up? The inquiry hasnt even started yet. Let it do it's job before they start accusing people of social cleansing and other such nonsense. The default position now always seems to be outrage and anger.
Click to expand...
From what I read the inquiry will be based on the events on what happened that day and what followed. The residents want the events leading up to the fire to be included especially as they have been complaining about fire hazards months before this happened.
 
11101 said:
Why are we straight to acting like this is some big establishment cover up? The inquiry hasnt even started yet. Let it do it's job before they start accusing people of social cleansing and other such nonsense. The default position now always seems to be outrage and anger.
Click to expand...
Because Lilly Allen said so
 
11101 said:
Why are we straight to acting like this is some big establishment cover up? The inquiry hasn't even started yet. Let it do it's job before they start accusing people of social cleansing and other such nonsense. The default position now always seems to be outrage and anger.
Click to expand...

Group who weren't listened to find they continue not to be listened to after scores died despite their warnings and protestations. 11101 would like to know why their default position is to be outraged and angry.
 
QuackQuack said:
From what I read the inquiry will be based on the events on what happened that day and what followed. The residents want the events leading up to the fire to be included especially as they have been complaining about fire hazards months before this happened.
Click to expand...

That's got nothing to do with them complaining the inquiry is led by an old white bloke though.
 
11101 said:
That's got nothing to do with them complaining the inquiry is led by an old white bloke though.
Click to expand...

The crazy thing is this isn't about race but race is allowed to be brought into it. This is about corporate greed and race is being highlighted. It's irrelevant but will be used. It's a disgrace in my opinion for this to even be a consideration in the media and then into the public domain. The reality is this is about corporate greed and when they turn it towards a race issue then people tend to loose focus on those cnuts responsible. They are masters at deflection.
 
11101 said:
That's got nothing to do with them complaining the inquiry is led by an old white bloke though.
Click to expand...

Of course nothing in the Telegraph article says that "they" are complaining because he's old and white though. You are co-opting the opinion of Lammy and presenting it here as the opinion of this group. It may be, but nothing in the article suggests it. Rather the spokeswoman for the Grenfell victims is reported as advocating his removal because the group believes he has the wrong specialism and a less than stellar record given the previous accusation of social cleansing.
 
Grenfell survivors issue 12 demands to PM to overhaul response to tragedy

The demands include:
  • Ensuring a properly diverse expert panel sits alongside the inquiry judge to advise on a variety of issues, including housing need, fire and safety construction.
  • Response team to be available to survivors 24 hours a day.
  • Withdraw Sir Martin Moore-Bick from heading up the inquiry.
  • Centralise all donations into one charity and produce a full record of monies collected.
  • The home secretary to confirm in writing within 28 days that undocumented survivors are given full UK citizenship forthwith.
  • Guarantee that the interim findings will be made public within four months
Click to expand...

BMELawyers4Grenfell say that if the terms of reference do not change, they will consider a judicial review against the government for failing to consult sufficiently with those affected by the fire.

“The inquiry must be capable of guaranteeing answers that honour the memory of all those who have lost their lives and those that remain,” said Peter Herbert, the chair of the Society of Black Lawyers.

Justice4Grenfell, another group supporting survivors and bereaved relatives, has called for Moore-Bick to step down.

“We urge the government to reconsider this appointment and to appoint a judge that residents are comfortable with,” said Herbert.
Click to expand...

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...demands-to-pm-to-overhaul-response-to-tragedy


The one consolation is that these lawyers are supposedly offering their services for free, otherwise they'd be snacking upon the emotions of the Grenfell residents for the purposes of immediate profit as well as exposure. Half of the above demands are either inconsistent or unreasonable.
 
Last edited:
Ekkie Thump said:
Of course nothing in the Telegraph article says that "they" are complaining because he's old and white though. You are co-opting the opinion of Lammy and presenting it here as the opinion of this group. It may be, but nothing in the article suggests it. Rather the spokeswoman for the Grenfell victims is reported as advocating his removal because the group believes he has the wrong specialism and a less than stellar record given the previous accusation of social cleansing.
Click to expand...

The link above rather conveniently does say that.

The advice they are getting seems pretty poor and to be aimed at serving interests other than the survivors'.
 
As soon as it was an inquiry instead of an inquest you knew there would be controversy.
 
11101 said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40453054

Key parts:


and


Seems like it will come down to whether anyone told the councillor in charge it was an additional fire risk above the official safety rating, and who gave it that safety rating.
Click to expand...

GloryHunter07 said:
Seems like the fire regs are at best unclear or at worst downright dangerous.
Click to expand...

What seems to have been completely forgotten about and left unmentioned is that the regulations require there to be fire barriers between the cladding to stop in spreading in the way it did.

The safety rating of the cladding itself is based on how easily and quickly the cladding burns, but what enabled the fire to spread quickly, in theory (I say theory but it's blatantly obvious), was it being able too get into the cavity between the cladding and the buiding, so it was able to spread freely from one panel to another regardless of how quicky the panels themselves were burning. It effectively had a chimney to travel up. The fire regs already state that this isn't allowed for exactly this reason.

So it's not so much about how fire ratings work or why the regs are wrong, as finding out why the regs in place already were ignored. Someone already also let slip that fire doors were not correctly installed within the building...again there are already regulations very clearly saying this isn't allowed. When a person (building owner) carries out this type of work it is their responsibility to ensure they apply for Building Regulations correctly and ensure the work is carried out in accordance with them. It's the Building Control body's responsibility to not sign off or approve the work until they're satisfied this is the case...in this instance both the building owner and building control body are the Kensington Council (i.e. local government)...so there's n escaping that they are the ones to be helld responsible.

So the residents are right to be extremely wary of a public enquiry that is willing to work with the Council. We are aready seeing an attempt by the government to hide blame behind outdated fire regulations or cladding panels having slightly different fire ratings. The simple fact is the regulations in place NOW weren't followed, and somewhere, someone is responsible for that.

All this "we wont let this drag on" stuff is now begining to grate because we're at a stage where this is exactlly what should be getting investigated, and instead the government are still piffing around trying to avoid admitting it is even what happened.

I also know someone who was involved checking the towers in Camden, and they weren't evacuated due to having the same type of cladding, they were evacuated because again, they didn't come close to complying with the CURRENT regulations. To the point they were deemed a danger to live in, under those same current regulations.

This is I suspect part of what is angering the residents. This drive to focus the enquiry on how the regulations can be improved, instead of looking at why it was deemed unecessary to bother meeting the regulationns already in place.
 
^ But is not much of what you are talking about there (failures to abide by known regulations) the purview of an ongoing police investigation? At least in so far as the RBKC is concerned.



Update -

Both the local Labour MP and shadow fire minister are now called for Moore-Bick step down.

3 NHS Trusts have cladding which has failed combustibility tests, the locations being: King's College, London; North Middlesex Teaching Hospital; Sheffield Children's Hospital.
 
Last edited:
Nick 0208 Ldn said:
^ But is not much of what you are talking about there (failures to abide by known regulations) the purview of an ongoing police investigation? At least in so far as the RBKC is concerned.
Click to expand...

Yes but you don't hear a peep about it from any government official. Yet they have kicked up enough of a fuss over the cladding to have people going around the entire country ripping it from every public building it is on. The cladding didn't "fail" as such. It did what you'd expect a flammable material to do when it is set on fire. It had a fire rating on this basis. The fact it was never installed properly in the first place and that the building itself wasn't up to standard is what should be the focus of the issue.

GloryHunter07 said:
@noodlehair how do we know there were not barriers on the cladding?
Click to expand...

Because the speed at which the fire spread up and across the building would have been pretty much impossible if fire stopping was in place. It engulfed an entire side of the entire building in the time the Fire Brigade would have realistically expected it not to have spread even beyond the flat in which the fire was started.

It's also been confirmed in Fire investigations already that the fire was able to spread via the cavity between the cladding and the building, which again should not be possible if fire barriers are in place.

It's speculating yes, but in a similar way to driving your car off a cliff and then speculating that gravity is what caused it to fall to the bottom.
 
11101 said:
The link above rather conveniently does say that.

The advice they are getting seems pretty poor and to be aimed at serving interests other than the survivors'.
Click to expand...

So not the link you responded to. An telling assumption on your part then. As is the fact that the actual letter posted in the further article you now wish to cite makes several objections regarding the appointment of Moor-Bick as chair of the enquiry - none of which directly relate to his whiteness but rather the lack of consultation, his history and his areas of competence.

The fact you wish to categorise their objections as "objecting to a rich white dude" such says far more about you than it does about the quality of their advisers I'm afraid.
 
Last edited:
^ It would be disingenuous to suggest that some of those claiming to represent survivors have not cited his race or or background. Moore-Bick was the recommendation of the Lord Chief Justice apparently, a figure which heads our independent judiciary. Contrastingly, some of the leading voices at Justice4Grenfell appear to be unscrupulous opportunists (not residents).



 
^Point me to the line in either article here posted where race was cited as grounds for Moore-Bick's removal by either group representing the Grenfell victims and then explain why you think that aspect deserves more emphasis than the ones they actually state.
 
The guardian list of answers to the questions wall was really interesting, and sad for the victims..

Seems like its going to take a very, very, very long time to convict anyone (unless an obvious law was broken)

It could take half a decade
 
I appreciate there is a level of mistrust in the authorities but how is arresting people without enough evidence going to help? Who do they want arrested?
 
GloryHunter07 said:
I appreciate there is a level of mistrust in the authorities but how is arresting people without enough evidence going to help? Who do they want arrested?
Click to expand...

I imagine when you've been through that you want someone to blame to start to make sense of the whole situation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.