Huge fire in Grenfell Tower - West London

[Bromley boy]

I'd be very careful with quotes in newspapers from unnamed sources.

Breaking down the ES missive on the protest:

Community groups (which ones? The article only names one group) working closely with the victims of the Grenfell Tower tragedy have condemned activists for trying to “hijack” (It's in quotes - so who said this?) the grief of survivors of the fire.

Volunteers (which ones? Who?) at the Clement James Centre, who are providing aid to survivors, said they “cannot emphasise enough” how much Grenfell residents are against the demo. (why are the quote marks only against "cannot emphasise enough" with nothing added - hmm?)

Others (who are they? why not name them or say who they are or represent?) have claimed the hard-Left protestors are “despicably” using the tragedy to pedal their own agenda.

You make a good point. We certainly have to be very careful with all newspaper articles which are inevitably biased. However there seems to be a general consensus amongst the mainstream media that today's protest is more about bringing down the government than anything to do with Grenfell tower.

The below article quotes directly "from the horses mouth", citing a Facebook post by the organisers (I haven't seen the post myself but I would hope the Telegraph has recorded it accurately given the quotation marks).

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.te...-tower-protest-london-fire-queens-speech/amp/

In an incendiary Facebook post, the MFJ declared there was a "class war" being waged by the Government on the working class, concluding: "There will be no peace until this Government is brought down."

EDIT: the Clement James centre's statement is repeated in full in the Telegraph article. I think the Standard have misplaced their quotation marks rather than deliberately selectively quoting.

But the Clement James Centre, which has been helping those displaced by the fire, shunned the movement as opportunistic.

"We cannot emphasise enough how against this many of the affected residents we've spoken to are and they do not want their grief hijacked for any violent or destructive means," a spokesman said.

 

[AlterEgo]

You make a good point. We certainly have to be very careful with all newspaper articles which are inevitably biased. However there seems to be a general consensus amongst the mainstream media that today's protest is more about bringing down the government than anything to do with Grenfell tower.

The below article quotes directly "from the horses mouth", citing a Facebook post by the organisers (I haven't seen the post myself but I would hope the Telegraph has recorded it accurately given the quotation marks).

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.te...-tower-protest-london-fire-queens-speech/amp/

Absolutely, I am sure the protest is mostly about other issues than Grenfell - was only pointing out the care needed when referencing unsourced quotes!

I was going to pop down and have a look at their protest but I am the wrong side of very heavy security and don't much fancy risking getting caught in trouble.

 

[PHILIPE]

Haven't all these protesters got a job to go to ?

 

[BestWestern]

Haven't all these protesters got a job to go to ?

That would surely get in the way of trying to change the world?!

 

[AlterEgo]

The Government have announced that 68 apartments have been acquired in a "luxury block" near the site of Grenfell Tower to house some of the survivors.

 

[Railops]

I presume Tony Blair has allowed the use of at least one of his many properties from his vast multimillion portfolio,

 

[Railops]

The Government have announced that 68 apartments have been acquired in a "luxury block" near the site of Grenfell Tower to house some of the survivors.

They should have done that within a couple of days but still it's progress.

 

[Dai Corner]

They should have done that within a couple of days but still it's progress.

I'd say a week is pretty quick to negotiate such a large deal. It took me months to sell/buy last time I moved.

Here's the story

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40357280

Survivors of the Grenfell Tower fire are to be rehomed in a luxury housing development in the heart of Kensington, the government has said.
Sixty-eight one and two-bedroom flats have been acquired at the Kensington Row development, it added.
The apartments are "newly-built social housing" in a complex where the price of private homes starts at £1.5m.
At least 79 people died and many more were left homeless after fire engulfed the west London tower block a week ago.

 

[BestWestern]

I'd say a week is pretty quick to negotiate such a large deal. It took me months to sell/buy last time I moved.

Here's the story

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40357280

I'm slightly baffled as to how "newly-built social housing" can also be "a luxury housing development"?!

 

[AlterEgo]

I'm slightly baffled as to how "newly-built social housing" can also be "a luxury housing development"?!

All developments over a certain size now must include a certain percentage of social/affordable housing.

 

[Dave1987]

Ow that's the best news I've heard all week! I can imagine the toffs will be doing their nut in!

So long as the people being rehoused there respect what they have been given then it's good that they have something like that considering the anguish they have gone through.

 

[Dai Corner]

I'm slightly baffled as to how "newly-built social housing" can also be "a luxury housing development"?!

Reading between the lines, it may be social housing the developers were required to include in the development as a condition of planning permission?

So, no additional social housing stock, but at least it's available quickly.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Ow that's the best news I've heard all week! I can imagine the toffs will be doing their nut in!

Nah, it'll be the "affordable housing" that all developers have to put in, the government are just trying to spin it as something more than it is.

If it's like other similar developments, the toffs won't be affected in the slightest: most of these developments have a separate entrance around the back for the plebs in the affordable housing. They won't be using the communal gym, either.

 

[DarloRich]

I presume Tony Blair has allowed the use of at least one of his many properties from his vast multimillion portfolio,

perhaps one of the many Tory property speculators who voted against making housing fit for human habitation could offer properties from their own multimillion pound portfolios at the same time.

 

[Dave1987]

Nah, it'll be the "affordable housing" that all developers have to put in, the government are just trying to spin it as something more than it is.

If it's like other similar developments, the toffs won't be affected in the slightest: most of these developments have a separate entrance around the back for the plebs in the affordable housing. They won't be using the communal gym, either.

Ah so the spin machine is in full flow then. The Government reaction was that lacklustre that I'm sure they are desperate for some good headlines for once.

 

[AlterEgo]

Ah so the spin machine is in full flow then. The Government reaction was that lacklustre that I'm sure they are desperate for some good headlines for once.

They may have secured this a day or two ago and are spinning it out today to compensate for a derisory Queen's Speech.

 

[Tetchytyke]

They may have secured this a day or two ago and are spinning it out today to compensate for a derisory Queen's Speech.

They're also in full spin mode in case people stop and realise that this means there is no new or extra accommodation for Grenfell Tower tenants. It's just that some other poor sod has been bumped down the waiting list to make room for them.

I also note Sajid Javid says these people will be "permanently rehoused". But most housing associations now only offer assured shorthold agreements, where you can be booted out at any time for any reason once the fixed term is over. So I can't wait to find out just how permanent "permanent" is.

 

[Bromley boy]

I also note Sajid Javid says these people will be "permanently rehoused". But most housing associations now only offer assured shorthold agreements, where you can be booted out at any time for any reason once the fixed term is over. So I can't wait to find out just how permanent "permanent" is.

Presumably, as these are social-housing tenants, the relevant local authority has a continuing obligation to house them if any particular tenancy agreement is terminated?

 

[Tetchytyke]

Presumably, as these are social-housing tenants, the relevant local authority has a continuing obligation to house them if any particular tenancy agreement is terminated?

The answer is...it depends. The obligation to rehouse them doesn't mean they have to be rehoused in the borough- RBKC own property as far away as Peterborough- and nor does it mean they have to be rehoused in similar accommodation.

If they're granted assured tenancies then their rights are better protected. But Government policy is to force Housing Asssociations to issue starter tenancies then convert them after 12 months into assured shorthold.

The statement is long on spin, talking about luxury facililites (that housing association tenants do not have access to) and very short on content.

 

[Bromley boy]

If they're granted assured tenancies then their rights are better protected. But Government policy is to force Housing Asssociations to issue starter tenancies then convert them after 12 months into assured shorthold.

Is this to incentivise private landlords to provide accommodation to LA tenants, because of the shortage of traditional council housing stock?

People should certainly be given a reasonable expectation of accommodation in the same area. Otherwise how are they supposed to hold down jobs etc.

The system is a complete mess.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Is this to incentivise private landlords to provide accommodation to LA tenants, because of the shortage of traditional council housing stock?

That's different, and that's the reason why Assured Shorthold tenancies were first brought in for private tenants in the late 80s. Assured Shorthold was designed specifically to make it easy to get people out.

People should certainly be given a reasonable expectation of accommodation in the same area. Otherwise how are they supposed to hold down jobs etc.

Older council tenants will be on a secure tenancy, but newer council tenants are likely to be on an assured tenancy. This gives more rights than assured shorthold, but fewer than secure. But some housing associations are moving towards assured shorthold (although, in fairness, with a fixed term of at least five years). But to get either of these agreements, you normally need to pass a 12-month "probation", known as a starter tenancy.

I'm hoping the tenants will simply have their existing terms moved to the new flat, which is what normally happens when you have a "mutual swap" to a new housing association property. But the statement is short on details. Will they keep the same terms? Will they have to pay more rent? Will they have to pay more service charges?

My point was more than the government are trying to blindside people with tales of luxury (that the housing association tenants won't have access to), so I can't help but wonder what devilry is in the detail.

 

[BestWestern]

All developments over a certain size now must include a certain percentage of social/affordable housing.

Indeed. I was just jabbing at another silly headline, which first implied that the "luxury housing" was for the Grenfell tenants, and then went on to contradict itself. Nothing new there, of course.

 

[w0033944]

Nah, it'll be the "affordable housing" that all developers have to put in, the government are just trying to spin it as something more than it is.

If it's like other similar developments, the toffs won't be affected in the slightest: most of these developments have a separate entrance around the back for the plebs in the affordable housing. They won't be using the communal gym, either.

At least, if the affordable/social hosing is within the same overall structure, it might be rather safer than these residents' now charred former home, which is probably very welcome for them. I'd imagine that trying to relax sufficiently to get a good night's sleep is very difficult at present. We can only imagine the psychological after-effects of such a frightening and disorientating event. Survivor's guilt might also prove problematic.

 

[Bromley boy]

That's different, and that's the reason why Assured Shorthold tenancies were first brought in for private tenants in the late 80s. Assured Shorthold was designed specifically to make it easy to get people out.



Older council tenants will be on a secure tenancy, but newer council tenants are likely to be on an assured tenancy. This gives more rights than assured shorthold, but fewer than secure. But some housing associations are moving towards assured shorthold (although, in fairness, with a fixed term of at least five years). But to get either of these agreements, you normally need to pass a 12-month "probation", known as a starter tenancy.

I'm hoping the tenants will simply have their existing terms moved to the new flat, which is what normally happens when you have a "mutual swap" to a new housing association property. But the statement is short on details. Will they keep the same terms? Will they have to pay more rent? Will they have to pay more service charges?

My point was more than the government are trying to blindside people with tales of luxury (that the housing association tenants won't have access to), so I can't help but wonder what devilry is in the detail.

That's informative, thanks.

I've been both tenant and landlord under assured shorthold tenancies over the last few years. Your comments certainly accord with my observation that these agreements provide very little protection for tenants.

As you say, the guff about "luxury accommodation" is clearly spin from what is now an incredibly weak government.

 

[Dai Corner]

That's informative, thanks.

I've been both tenant and landlord under assured shorthold tenancies over the last few years. Your comments certainly accord with my observation that these agreements provide very little protection for tenants.

As you say, the guff about "luxury accommodation" is clearly spin from what is now an incredibly weak government.

The 'luxury accomodation" spin is by the media. The Government statement goes no further than saying the accomodation is 'high specification'

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/...ed-for-victims-of-the-grenfell-tower-disaster

Communities Secretary Sajid Javid today (21 June 2017) announced that the government has secured the first tranche of permanent new homes to rehouse local residents affected by the fire at Grenfell Tower.

The 68 flats are all newly built social housing and form part of the Kensington Row development in Kensington and Chelsea.

Work is ongoing to identify the needs of those affected who have lost their homes and match them to suitable housing. The expectation is that these new properties will be offered as one of the options to permanently rehouse residents from Grenfell Tower.

The increase to local social housing is a significant step towards meeting the government’s commitment that every family from Grenfell Tower will be rehoused in the local area.

Communities Secretary Sajid Javid said:

The residents of Grenfell Tower have been through some of the most harrowing and traumatic experiences imaginable and it is our duty to support them.

Our priority is to get everyone who has lost their home permanently rehoused locally as soon as possible, so that they can begin to rebuild their lives.

The government will continue to do everything we can as fast as we can to support those affected by this terrible tragedy.

More than 110 housing needs assessments have been completed to date and offers will then be made to families and this process will continue until every family has been housed.

Extra construction staff have been committed by the developer St Edward and working hour restrictions will be relaxed so work can continue around the clock to fast-track completion of the development to meet the increased demand in the area following the fire at Grenfell Tower. The government has also provided additional funding to fit out the flats to ensure they are ready for people to move in to sooner.

The new permanent housing is expected to be completed by the end of July. The Department for Communities and Local Government has also already committed to finding suitable accommodation in the local area for victims who lost their homes within a maximum of 3 weeks.

Each home will be fully furnished and completed to a high specification and St Edward will provide liaison staff for each block so that residents are fully supported in settling in to their new homes. This will be in addition to the ongoing range of support being provided to those affected by the tragedy.

The homes will be a mix of 1,2 and 3 bedroom flats across 2 blocks.

 

[AlterEgo]

The Day of Rage march is going on right now and all the reports I see of it suggest it is small and civil. Which will probably disappoint some people.

 

[Dai Corner]

The Day of Rage march is going on right now and all the reports I see of it suggest it is small and civil. Which will probably disappoint some people.

A couple of hundred people I read. No violence except for a few flares being let off.

 

[Bromley boy]

The Day of Rage march is going on right now and all the reports I see of it suggest it is small and civil. Which will probably disappoint some people.

Let's hope it continues that way.

I'm not sure I like the sound of "flares being let off".

 

[RichmondCommu]

I wouldn't bank on that...

... discussion taking place in my office as I write this, along the lines of "sick and tired of hearing about this now, if my house burns down then I don't expect the PM to turn up and sort everything out for me".

I think the key word here is house. You have a much greater chance of getting out of a house then you do in a flat 20 levels up.

 

[AlterEgo]

Let's hope it continues that way.

I'm not sure I like the sound of "flares being let off".

People were holding flares, not chucking them at property/people/police. It's just a way of drawing attention to the protest.