The Great Tower Block Fire Tragedy of London

[PaulC]

 

51 minutes ago, peterms said:

It is not the case that you can do anything that is not expressly forbidden.  If someone knowingly creates a risk, or knows of a risk and does nothing about it, then they face possible prosecution.

In this case, if a building material is known by the manufacturer and by the industry to be dangerous in some applications or in some situations and is used anyway, then the fact of regulations not having kept up with recent developments and the introduction of new materials won't be an adequate defence.  Yes, anyone facing investigation will start by saying that regulations did not prohibit the use of such material.  Obviously the questioning will not stop there, and will quickly get into the area of what the manufacturers say about where it can be used and how it should be fitted, and what the contractors knew or should have known about all that.

If it was known in the industry that such material was a fire risk (and the things I linked earlier seem to show that), then using it on the basis that regulations have not yet forbidden it will be an extremely weak defence. 

There must be a number of other old tower blocks with the same problems. So what is going to happen? Are they going to have to evacuate all the people living in these blocks until they are made safe?

[villa4europe]

4 hours ago, TrentVilla said:

Yes I get they don't know but since when has that stopped the press speculating? 

On your last line, I don't really understand what you mean.

A high number wouldn't shock me, a low one would

unfortunately I can see it going well over 100

[Genie]

On 5Live this morning they said the BBC has obtained a list of around 60 names of people who have relatives trying to locate them currently...

[peterms]

8 minutes ago, PaulC said:

 

There must be a number of other old tower blocks with the same problems. So what is going to happen? Are they going to have to evacuate all the people living in these blocks until they are made safe?

That would be extremely difficult.  The first thing will be to assess the risk, and no doubt councils around the country are doing this right now.  What materials were used, what is known about their fire performance, what requirements exist regarding safety (eg for these cladding materials, fitting intumescent strips), were the requirements met, how do we know, can we do inspections to assess whether there are any problems, and so on.

If they find there are questions about safety, then I suppose the first thing will be to review advice to residents (especially whether "stay put" is still appropriate in the circumstances), and then think about removal of the material.

There will be cost issues to deal with, and already people are talking about an equivalent to the Bellwin scheme for funding unforeseen flood prevention works, and needing an equivalent.

Mass evacuations would not be considered unless there is evidence that there is a real and immediate danger that cannot be managed in another way.

However, failing to ask those questions and rigorously examine the answers, in the light of what information has surfaced in the last couple of days, would be equivalent to inviting a prosecution for criminal negligence.  And as I've said above, relying on saying "Well it complied with the regulations" will be no defence.

[darrenm]

1 hour ago, Rugeley Villa said:

Shifting blame or just asking the question?

The way the right wing papers have resumed normal service in attacking Corbyn and anything remotely humanistic using this tragedy is disgusting. 

The Times - owned by Murdoch who is currently trying to take over Sky. Tories will wave through the deal and May is fully subservient, but everyone else will block it

And the Daily Mail, owned by Billionaire Lord Rothermere and Kingmaker Paul Dacre

When you read stuff like what @omariqy said above, about how things like this puts inequality into perspective, it's sickening how these billionaires are still using it to push their own agendas.

[MakemineVanilla]

Requisitioning property seems a bit extreme, is definitely politically opportunistic and not necessary.

A list of people who are ready and willing to house refugees already exists, so why not use that instead.

Yvette Cooper and Ed Balls

Bob Geldof 

Et al.

[peterms]

17 minutes ago, MakemineVanilla said:

Requisitioning property seems a bit extreme, is definitely politically opportunistic and not necessary.

A list of people who are ready and willing to house refugees already exists, so why not use that instead.

Yvette Cooper and Ed Balls

Bob Geldof 

Et al.

Actually, requisitioning those large local properties deliberately left empty by absentee investors is the obvious thing to do.

I don't understand why it would be seen as an extreme thing to do.

Long ago, I was lobbying MPs for legislation to tackle the prevalence of empty property in order to tackle homelessness.  The idea of requisitioning such properties received a sympathetic hearing even from tories, who were quite comfortable with the idea that a crisis means that buildings should be requisitioned.

The alternative, that these speculators can have their empty property lying unused while distraught families who have narrowly escaped death should huddle on the floors of community centres, is repugnant and unacceptable.

[magnkarl]

Requisitioning would be a good idea if it was done fairly. The biggest problem in Kensington isn't empty flats but rather people with houses the size of castles. Rita Ora and Adele did the right thing and helped out and are rumored to have taken people in. Lily Allen being professionally outraged (yet again) from a distance while again taking no one in exemplifies the problem. What is needed is action - not faux outrage. Someone needs to make a decision about what to do with the other high rises cladded with this material - and make it fast. This sort of situation breeds pyromaniacs and they've been given targets that are readily going to combust like grenades if set alight.

Chicago and Detroit has had the same sort of problems in poorer areas where serial arsonists now set buildings alight many times a year.

Edited June 16, 2017 by magnkarl

[TrentVilla]

Requisitioning sounds a little bit like playing to the crowd and playing politics with this, it's not a practical suggestion to help the people affected in the Here an now.

[BOF]

Requisition is a quite ambiguous term too.  There are degrees of it IIUC.  You can either temporarily use something, or you can take it permanently (lay claim).  Both are types of requisition.  You could only really requisition (use) temporarily while arranging a more permanent solution.  The notion of just permanently taking something from someone who owns it, because the majority are in favour of that, is going beyond socialism and into communism.  And creates another equally dangerous second 'wrong' while trying to fix the first one.

[peterms]

Very simply, take over these big empty houses that are to be found in the neighbourhood and house many families there while permanent rehousing is arranged.

The point is to house them locally, where their kids go to school, where their existing networks are located, where their doctor is and so on.

Shipping them out somewhere else while there is empty property within a mile is not on.  They've had quite enough distress and disruption already.

The kleptocrats and hedge funds and speculators can have the properties back when they're not needed any more.

Of course it would be a nice touch if they offered, and more realistic than all this bollocks about "Why doesn't Lily Allen take them in?".  Since that is very unlikely to happen, then just take them.  Hopefully a local squatting group is working on it.

[magnkarl]

4 minutes ago, peterms said:

Very simply, take over these big empty houses that are to be found in the neighbourhood and house many families there while permanent rehousing is arranged.

The point is to house them locally, where their kids go to school, where their existing networks are located, where their doctor is and so on.

Shipping them out somewhere else while there is empty property within a mile is not on.  They've had quite enough distress and disruption already.

The kleptocrats and hedge funds and speculators can have the properties back when they're not needed any more.

Of course it would be a nice touch if they offered, and more realistic than all this bollocks about "Why doesn't Lily Allen take them in?".  Since that is very unlikely to happen, then just take them.  Hopefully a local squatting group is working on it.

Not sure if serious. Have you ever been to Kensington? What you are saying is so coloured by red politics that it's scary. We don't live in 1957 East Berlin, we live in the UK. If anything the people should be relocated to places that are given out voluntarily backed by incentivisation by our government. You can't just go around and label people with "you're a kleptocrat so we're commandeering your property." There is no base in our laws or society for that sort of thinking.

[peterms]

Pathetic.

Quote

Theresa May has been filmed entering the Chelsea and Westminster where nine of the victims are being treated.

An update from NHS England on Thursday said seven victims of the fire were in critical care at the hospital.

May is facing mounting criticism of her response to the tragedy after she failed to meet residents on a visit to the scene on Thursday.

This is not about the victims, it's PR spin and damage limitation, trying to recover from the dreadfully handled visit yesterday.

[peterms]

3 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

Not sure if serious. Have you ever been to Kensington? What you are saying is so coloured by red politics that it's scary. We don't live in 1957 East Berlin, we live in the UK. If anything the people should be relocated to places that are given out voluntarily backed by incentivisation by our government. You can't just go around and label people with "you're a kleptocrat so we're commandeering your property." There is no base in our laws or society for that sort of thinking.

I assume you know nothing about the ways in which property has been taken over, both temporarily and permanently, in this country, over a very long period.  Check it out, before posting this kind of ill-informed gibberish.

[magnkarl]

4 minutes ago, peterms said:

I assume you know nothing about the ways in which property has been taken over, both temporarily and permanently, in this country, over a very long period.  Check it out, before posting this kind of ill-informed gibberish.

Apart from a few islands and property during war there is no legislation to take property for government purpose without payment or reimbursement. I'd like you to show me where this has been done legally "over a very long period" that isn't for war.

What Corbyn should have said is "It would be greatly appreciated if people with empty houses would come forward to aid in this terrible situation". Instead he threw in a couple of left buzzwords like "rich" "poor" "luxury". Not an extreme politisation of the events, but a politisation nonetheless. 

Edited June 16, 2017 by magnkarl

[Raver50032]

What is quite interesting in the fall out and reaction to this terrible incident is the aftermath coverage being broadcast from the media. Watching Sky News over the last day or so, we have seen some rampant outpourings of rage and anger directed at people like Sadiq Khan and just now, Andrea Leadsom (sod the spelling, it ay' that important). The local outrage and anger and heckling that has gone on, we don't seem to have seen anything like that when News crews have been based on the streets of Manchester or London Bridge after the terror incidents.

 

The warnings about Grenfell Tower were made and known about - hence the anger.

Manchester and London Bridge involved people who were known to authorities for a variety of reasons. Obvious anger, but nothing shown of it by residents etc at the scene from which they were broadcasting in the days that follow? For example, the several night's after siting of News crews at the inevitable bouquets of flowers etc.

Is Grenfell Tower a watershed moment where all of a sudden, media are allowing the unsanitised broadcasting of local reaction?

Personally, I thought it was most inappropriate for a six or seven year old boy, on a relative's shoulders to be effectively poking the Mayor London's chest and demanding answers. That came over live on TV as a bit of a stunt and not really required. The line of questioning from affected members of the public is reactionary and closed, leading the speaker up a cul-de-sac. Mr Khan will not have the answers at hand when he makes an appearance at the scene. All he can do is state fact, show empathy and demand answers of his own. To heckle him and ask such blunt questions that he can't answer is churlish and makes for cringeworthy viewing. Just my view, sorry.

[Amsterdam_Neil_D]

I suppose it could be one of them "Brings down the government" type things in the end.

Manchester then London terror attacks,  very difficult to stop for any government. 

The Fire,  now there is a burnt out shell 20 + floors high that will not go away for May,  like a black smouldering tombstone, it will be on the horizon for a long, long time just to remind her how things are going,

100% preventable,  & on her watch no matter what she claims.  

She is one of the unluckiest PM's I have to admit but it's not going well,  things like this have no respect for time,  there could be something else over the weekend as we all know. 

The claim that she could not meet the victims yesterday becasue of all her security as it would have been a distraction,  the security and safety of ones population I suppose is also distracting to the Government,  so they don't really bother with that.  She looked like a woman who has NEVER even set foot into a building of that type,  let alone understand what it is like to live in one.  It's not just one family per floor love,  let's get that straight.  I have lived in a few in Birmingham and it ain't good living.

 

[bickster]

Even Herr Madge is trolling the Maybot now by meeting the residents

[Amsterdam_Neil_D]

43 minutes ago, Raver50032 said:

Personally, I thought it was most inappropriate for a six or seven year old boy

I am happy to give the nipper the benefit of doubt,  for all we know his best friend(s) are missing and he does not know how to process this.

He's sees people asking an obviously important man who is on camera,  I duuno,  he is only little and he has seen and lived through it.

(This is partly why May won't meet the public unless it's a totally cleansed environment on her terms only) Can't have people (Or children) saying things like "building  regulations,  strong and stable ?" with a smouldering shell in the background can she ? 

Edited June 16, 2017 by Amsterdam_Neil_D

[bickster]

Or "Any chance of your new chief advisor coming down for a look?"