Huge fire in Grenfell Tower - West London

[DarloRich]

On the surface it would seem so.

However, my experience of such demands for 'diversity' leads me to the conclusion that this lobby group means nothing if the sort: they want a panel of their people in place to report their pre-determined conclusions. Note that this group refers to itself as 'BMElawyers4Grenfell', which makes plain that there is a racial (and, I would say, racialist) element. This should also be read in the context of Lammy's comments on Moore-Bick LJ.

The last thing this group wants is an independent expert inquiry: what if it found that the government, the corporation, the social housing provider and the developers were not at fault? Simply doesn't fit the narrative.

and yet we seem to have learnt nothing from the Hillsbrough inquiry. The victims and families need to be involved and need to feel listened to and their concerns taken seriously.
The inquiry needs to find out whether or not the government, the corporation, the social housing provider and the developers were at fault or not AND for those results to be taken seriously.

It is clear you see that as pandering to horrible BME types. I see it as ensuring the inquiry AND its findings are taken seriously especially if there is proved to be no conspiracy and no act or omission by any public or private body or person that led to this disaster. The alternative is for the inquiry to be seen as a whitewash, lack legitimacy and not be taken seriously and thus fuel the "agenda" you seem most repulsed by.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I see it as ensuring the inquiry AND its findings are taken seriously especially if there is proved to be no conspiracy and no act or omission by any public or private body or person that led to this disaster. The alterntive is for the inquiry to be seen as a whitewash, lack legitimacy and not be taken seriously.

Certainly. However, it would be grossly unfair for special consideration to be given, such as British citizenship, to the victims, when such consideration is not given to other victims of not-at-fault fires in Council properties which do not make the news due to their smaller scale.

The enquiry needs to establish (a) what happened, (b) why, (c) whose fault it was, and (d) how it will be prevented in future.

Surprisingly little victim involvement is needed in that. How people feel about it is fairly minor in the scheme of things when it comes to the enquiry. It's about matters of fact, not matters of emotion. Really, all that needs to be established with regard to the victims is (a) what complaints had been made previously and potentially wrongly disregarded, and (b) if, and to what level, financial compensation is due.

IOW, the enquiry must be ABSOLUTELY impartial, and its outcome influenced by nothing other than matters of provable fact.

 

[DarloRich]

Certainly. However, it would be grossly unfair for special consideration to be given, such as British citizenship, to the victims, when such consideration is not given to other victims of not-at-fault fires in Council properties which do not make the news due to their smaller scale.

I am not suggesting that at all. However the victims ( if they are here "under the radar") need to be made to feel secure somehow to ensure they cooperate and give their evidence - the point of legitimacy once again.

 

[DarloRich]

Certainly. However, it would be grossly unfair for special consideration to be given, such as British citizenship, to the victims, when such consideration is not given to other victims of not-at-fault fires in Council properties which do not make the news due to their smaller scale.

The enquiry needs to establish (a) what happened, (b) why, (c) whose fault it was, and (d) how it will be prevented in future.

Surprisingly little victim involvement is needed in that. How people feel about it is fairly minor in the scheme of things when it comes to the enquiry. It's about matters of fact, not matters of emotion. Really, all that needs to be established with regard to the victims is (a) what complaints had been made previously and potentially wrongly disregarded, and (b) if, and to what level, financial compensation is due.

IOW, the enquiry must be ABSOLUTELY impartial, and its outcome influenced by nothing other than matters of provable fact.

eh? The survivours are crucial to this inquiry. Only they can answer questions about how they got out, whether the alarms worked, at what time the fire reached their flat, what were conditions like, were the fire doors open, how many people lived in number 45 etc.

lets have an inquiry into how your family died in a vast conflagration but your views and experiences are irrelevant to us. That should confer on the inquiry an immediate legitimacy. Shall we just re run the first Hillsbourgh inquiry? :roll:

 

[Bletchleyite]

I am not suggesting that at all.

One of the pressure groups (I'm not sure if it's the one quoted above) actually is, believe it or not.

However the victims ( if they are here "under the radar") need to be made to feel secure somehow to ensure they cooperate and give their evidence - the point of legitimacy once again.

Yes, I think it would be sensible that they are assisted in pursuing an application for indefinite leave to remain, though not with absolute guaranteed success depending on the reasons (e.g. anyone who would fail on terrorism offences must still leave). Certainly not citizenship.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The survivours are crucial to this inquiry. Only they can answer questions about how they got out, whether the alarms worked, at what time the fire reached their flat, what were conditions like, were the fire doors open, how many people lived in number 45 etc.

Yes, good point. Though those are of course all matters of fact.

 

[DarloRich]

I guess the victims might have an issue with seeing a rich, posh, old white man appointed to lead an inquiry into the rich, posh, old, white men they feel let them down so badly.

Yes, good point. Though those are of course all matters of fact.

agreed - they have to be part of the process to ensure those facts are ascertained. They cant comment on the council process or the funding process just as the council contracts director cant comment on what it was like inside that fire.

 

[AlterEgo]

I think there is some confusion about what the inquiry is principally there to do.

Comparisons with Hillsborough are a little wide of the mark. At Hillsborough, not only was there a horrendous mass death incident, the victims were blamed by police, some politicians and some media for their own demise. Grotesque lies were told about the victims and survivors. It was an appalling injustice on top of an appalling injustice. It was therefore right and proper for the families to drive forward their agenda.

Grenfell is different. There is no cover-up. There is no conspiracy; what we have is a mass deaths incident, almost certainly avoidable, badly handled, mismanaged, and so on. But at least the immediate political fallout hasn't been for wide sections of the media, emergency services, politicians, etc to demonise the victims.

It is urgent and proper for there to be an in-depth investigation because thousands of lives may be at stake in the near future. What we do not need is special interest groups trying to hijack and politicise the immediate issue.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I guess the victims might have an issue with seeing a rich, posh, old white man appointed to lead an inquiry into the rich, posh, old, white men they feel let them down so badly.

Which is as much a racist view as a white person's view that a black person should not lead the enquiry.

The enquiry must be impartial. If it is felt it is not, then it needs changes to be made.

However, the race and age of the leader of the enquiry is of no relevance. My personal view is that the selection of the cladding for these buildings was a serious, criminal misjudgement that has cost lives[1]. And I'm a white, middle class, middle aged bloke. The above seems to suggest I should think it was perfectly OK and the people who made the choice should get away with it - of course I don't.

If there is any suggestion of corruption that MUST be taken seriously, but racism, whether against the majority or against the minority, is absolutely unacceptable and MUST NOT be tolerated under any circumstances.

Edit: Essentially, if it is felt it is an inside job, i.e. the leader has personal involvement of some kind, and there is evidence of that, a new leader should be appointed, but his/her race, age etc is of no importance.

[1] Probably in a similar bracket to something like the Herald of Free Enterprise, which I've mentioned upthread. I would certainly expect manslaughter or corporate manslaughter charges to arise at some point.

 

[Senex]

The victims and families need to be involved and need to feel listened to and their concerns taken seriously.
The inquiry needs to find out whether or not the government, the corporation, the social housing provider and the developers were at fault or not AND for those results to be taken seriously.

Absolutely they need to be involved, listened to, and have their concerns taken seriously. But they should not have any veto on who is appointed to the chair and it should not be a over-riding requirement that that person should be empathetic. (S)he needs to be someone who knows what they're doing in the relevant fields, will conduct a fearless examination, and will produce an honest and independent report -- all of that trumps empathy all the time (though it does no harm if that's there too, in the character of the otherwise best person)
And yes, the enquiry needs to look at government, local authority, social housing provider, developers, contractors, suppliers, etc, but it must also look at whether there were any failures on the part of the occupants. Like it or not, they were one of the parties involved, albeit as far as we know so far a totally innocent one.
And of course the results of the enquiry have to be taken seriously, as finally was achieved after that fantastic battle in the Hillsborough case.

 

[DarloRich]

Which is as much a racist view as a white person's view that a black person should not lead the enquiry.

The enquiry must be impartial. If it is felt it is not, then it needs changes to be made.

However, the race and age of the leader of the enquiry is of no relevance. My personal view is that the selection of the cladding for these buildings was a serious, criminal misjudgement that has cost lives[1]. And I'm a white, middle class, middle aged bloke. The above seems to suggest I should think it was perfectly OK and the people who made the choice should get away with it - of course I don't.

If there is any suggestion of corruption that MUST be taken seriously, but racism, whether against the majority or against the minority, is absolutely unacceptable and MUST NOT be tolerated under any circumstances.

Edit: Essentially, if it is felt it is an inside job, i.e. the leader has personal involvement of some kind, and there is evidence of that, a new leader should be appointed, but his/her race, age etc is of no importance.

[1] Probably in a similar bracket to something like the Herald of Free Enterprise, which I've mentioned upthread. I would certainly expect manslaughter or corporate manslaughter charges to arise at some point.

I am not supporting that view, merely expressing it as an issue. IF that is a view then it is a problem for the legitimacy of the enquiry. If the legitimacy of the enquiry is compromised the results will not be accepted, especially if the results confirm there was no shadow conspiracy that led to these death.

The team leading the enquiry need to spend much more time listening to and working with the victims to earn their trust.

I think there is some confusion about what the inquiry is principally there to do.

Comparisons with Hillsborough are a little wide of the mark. At Hillsborough, not only was there a horrendous mass death incident, the victims were blamed by police, some politicians and some media for their own demise. Grotesque lies were told about the victims and survivors. It was an appalling injustice on top of an appalling injustice. It was therefore right and proper for the families to drive forward their agenda.

Grenfell is different. There is no cover-up. There is no conspiracy; what we have is a mass deaths incident, almost certainly avoidable, badly handled, mismanaged, and so on. But at least the immediate political fallout hasn't been for wide sections of the media, emergency services, politicians, etc to demonise the victims.

It is urgent and proper for there to be an in-depth investigation because thousands of lives may be at stake in the near future. What we do not need is special interest groups trying to hijack and politicise the immediate issue.

Whilst i agree we do risk producing a report that lacks legitimacy with the people who matter most - the victims. They have to believe what they are told and accept why their friends and family members died. They have to be told who did what and when and what the material consequence of those actions were.

I also think there is a point to explore ( that the government will never allow) as to whether, or not, the austerity agenda has played a part in the events leading up to this tragedy and whether or not the lack of funding drove bad decisions.

The victims ( or at least their spokesmen) seem to feel they were treated badly and let down because they were poor, disposable and not worth the bother of a council and government more focused on richer people. That will create issues for the enquiry that have to be dealt with.

Absolutely they need to be involved, listened to, and have their concerns taken seriously. But they should not have any veto on who is appointed to the chair and it should not be a over-riding requirement that that person should be empathetic. (S)he needs to be someone who knows what they're doing in the relevant fields, will conduct a fearless examination, and will produce an honest and independent report -- all of that trumps empathy all the time (though it does no harm if that's there too, in the character of the otherwise best person)
And yes, the enquiry needs to look at government, local authority, social housing provider, developers, contractors, suppliers, etc, but it must also look at whether there were any failures on the part of the occupants. Like it or not, they were one of the parties involved, albeit as far as we know so far a totally innocent one.
And of course the results of the enquiry have to be taken seriously, as finally was achieved after that fantastic battle in the Hillsborough case.

Of course not - but the results will be poor and the suggestions of a conspiracy and cover up ( and i can see why people might think that even if it is groundless when you consider Hillsborough/ Orgreave and what is seen by many as a Tory cover up there) will continue.

And you do need someone who has empathy and understanding to lead such an enquiry. They have to make connections with people and earn their trust to extract their evidence in what will be very difficult conversations, made worse by the formal court setting. I don't suggest the judge appointed wont be able to do that but i can understand why people might think that he wont

 

[Senex]

And you do need someone who has empathy and understanding to lead such an enquiry. They have to make connections with people and earn their trust to extract their evidence in what will be very difficult conversations, made worse by the formal court setting. I don't suggest the judge appointed wont be able to do that but i can understand why people might think that he wont

Surely that is the job of Counsel for the Enquiry (earn trust, extract evidence), not of the person in the chair, who has to be seen to be absolutely impartial if the findings are eventually to carry weight all round.

 

[DarloRich]

Surely that is the job of Counsel for the Enquiry (earn trust, extract evidence), not of the person in the chair, who has to be seen to be absolutely impartial if the findings are eventually to carry weight all round.

indeed - but there has to be trust in all parties. If the victims don't trust the chairman problems will follow. I am sure that trust can be established over the course of time, perhaps by the chairman taking some PR and communication advice.

 

[AlterEgo]

I am not supporting that view, merely expressing it as an issue. IF that is a view then it is a problem for the legitimacy of the enquiry.

Let's face facts. They don't want a white old judge. I'm afraid, no matter how "understandable" that is, that remains both racist and ageist.

If the shoe were on the other foot we'd be rightly calling the residents and those demagogues who purport to act for them what they are - racists and ageists.

Whilst i agree we do risk producing a report that lacks legitimacy with the people who matter most - the victims. They have to believe what they are told and accept why their friends and family members died. They have to be told who did what and when and what the material consequence of those actions were.

I disagree.

The fundamental purpose of the inquiry is to establish cause and learn lessons. The most important people here are current, living residents of other social housing and other tower blocks.

This is not a Bloody Sunday or a Hillsborough, where the inquest/tribunal was set up to correct a deliberate coverup, a conspiracy, or a demonisation of the victims. The facts of both those events were widely known and many lessons learned, long before those inquiries.

Lessons must be learned on Grenfell and we should call our those who seek to steer the course of events for their own prejudices, be they Tories, landlords, or victim groups, no matter how hard that may be.

 

[najaB]

I would certainly expect manslaughter or corporate manslaughter charges to arise at some point.

Only if it can be shown that it was known (or could reasonably have been concluded) that fitting the cladding represented a higher than normal risk of spreading a fire. It's easy to say that it was obvious with the benefit of hindsight.

 

[DarloRich]

Let's face facts. They don't want a white old judge. I'm afraid, no matter how "understandable" that is, that remains both racist and ageist.

If the shoe were on the other foot we'd be rightly calling the residents and those demagogues who purport to act for them what they are - racists and ageists.




I disagree.

The fundamental purpose of the inquiry is to establish cause and learn lessons. The most important people here are current, living residents of other social housing and other tower blocks.

This is not a Bloody Sunday or a Hillsborough, where the inquest/tribunal was set up to correct a deliberate coverup, a conspiracy, or a demonisation of the victims. The facts of both those events were widely known and many lessons learned, long before those inquiries.

Lessons must be learned on Grenfell and we should call our those who seek to steer the course of events for their own prejudices, be they Tories, landlords, or victim groups, no matter how hard that may be.

I am not saying I agree with the statements of the residents, or more accurately their spokesmen, simply that I can quite understand how they are suspicious and think they are being let down by the same type of people who they already think let them down by ignoring their concerns over the tower block.

Listening to them further this evening there is clearly a gap between their perception and desires and what can actually be delivered.

 

[jon0844]

Are they suspicious because a lot of people with agendas have given them cause to be?

And why are we all made to believe the block was full of poor people on benefits, maybe illegally living here and of a background that means everyone is out to get them?

A lot of the time people are told that in order to keep them down.

 

[IanXC]

I think the best way forward now would be for the Government to appoint one or two Deputy Chairs with other perspectives and experiences - more human resources will allow the enquiry to move at a faster pace, allow for keeping the current Chair, and obtain buy in to the process from the victims.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

It was reported on the BBC TV morning news this morning that some residents were expressing anger that no-one had been arrested. Obviously they are not aware of how the British legal system works.

 

[Cantab26]

I think the best way forward now would be for the Government to appoint one or two Deputy Chairs with other perspectives and experiences - more human resources will allow the enquiry to move at a faster pace, allow for keeping the current Chair, and obtain buy in to the process from the victims.

I know of no such power to appoint depute chairmen. There is certainly nothing in the Act that would allow the Minister to do so.

It is in any event somewhat ludicrous to think* that other people will not be involved and bring their experience to bear: other panel members can be appointed by the Minister and the Chairman may also appoint Assessors if appropriate.

I would also suggest that narrower, more focussed terms of reference would be more effective in delivering swift answers on the matters of greatest public concern i.e. whether there is a systemic problem with the building regulations that must be addressed.

*I refer to people in general, rather than IanXC personally.

 

[Cantab26]

Are they suspicious because a lot of people with agendas have given them cause to be?

And why are we all made to believe the block was full of poor people on benefits, maybe illegally living here and of a background that means everyone is out to get them?

A lot of the time people are told that in order to keep them down.

I am given to understand that a number of the flats were privately owned, rather than social housing units.

 

[jon0844]

I am given to understand that a number of the flats were privately owned, rather than social housing units.

I would think many were. Right to buy has been particular popular and there would have been many leaseholders there. Many not the original tenants.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The Metropolitan Police statement that all visibly recognisable human remains have now been removed from the tower block seems to have been the end of one phase of this terrible event.

 

[BestWestern]

The Metropolitan Police statement that all visibly recognisable human remains have now been removed from the tower block seems to have been the end of one phase of this terrible event.

Has there yet been any speculation on how many may have tragically been unable to be located?

Catching up on this story today, it's becoming difficult not to feel that what should be an important response to a major tragedy, with implications for millions of current and future high rise occupants, has been thoroughly hijacked to the point of being impeded. There is apparently now a "Grenfell Muslim Response Unit", for instance (hardly screams 'integrated multicultural society'). I'm unsure why being of a particular religious preference requires a specific organisation, when the aim is presumably the same for everyone. Various law firms also now seem to be in on the act. Perhaps the government ought to stick its neck out a little and suggest that dealing with one representative organisation would be significantly quicker and get things done rather more efficiently than having to keep duplicating various processes.

Elsewhere, a Grenfell tenant has declined two flats, and is quoted as stating that his requirements include a property on a specific floor of a building (not the ground floor). It appears that some seem not to have grasped the unfortunate realities of the situation, and you have to wonder if expectations and the belief in certain 'rights' have been inflated by some of those groups claiming to represent these people.

 

[Cantab26]

Catching up on this story today, it's becoming difficult not to feel that what should be an important response to a major tragedy, with implications for millions of current and future high rise occupants, has been thoroughly hijacked to the point of being impeded.

This is precisely my worry. The principal issue of general public concern - the adequacy or otherwise of the building regulations - is being obscured by a mass of sentimentality and emotionalism.

This is not to say that this is not a terrible tragedy for the residents affected, but that is a private matter. There is a very present danger that these private concerns will over-ride or prejudice the investigation of the public concerns in this matter. The demands for the Chairman to resign are the current apotheosis (or perhaps nadir) of such attitudes.

Elsewhere, a Grenfell tenant has declined two flats, and is quoted as stating that his requirements include a property on a specific floor of a building (not the ground floor). It appears that some seem not to have grasped the unfortunate realities of the situation, and you have to wonder if expectations and the belief in certain 'rights' have been inflated by some of those groups claiming to represent these people.

I have no sympathy for such behaviour. If he was a private resident then he should have taken out insurance. If he was a social tenant reliant on public provision - paid for in large part by the taxation of others - he is in no position to be picky.

 

[Geezertronic]

Also reports suggest an Immigration 'amnesty' for Grenfell fire residents

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40512382

I do wonder how authorities can tell the difference between a real Immigration survivor and the plethora of people who would chance it on the off-chance that they would get waved through since there has already been at least one sickening case of someone claiming to live in the tower block when they did not

 

[MarlowDonkey]

I do wonder how authorities can tell the difference between a real Immigration survivor and the plethora of people who would chance it

Aren't all the survivors being interviewed to build up the picture of where they were when the fire started and how they got out as well as establishing residence?

 

[DarloRich]

I disagree vehemently with the views expressed by tspaul26. I dare not express my contempt for his lack of empathy or understanding further. The views and experiences of the victims need to be examined and considered rather than ignored and brushed under the carpet. That is not "a mass of sentimentality and emotionalism" but decency and humanity.

The adequacy of the building regulations should be just a part of the scope of the investigation. That should be the subject of an expedited interim report. There is much more to look at than simply the building regulations. Part of that should be a look at the impact, if any, of the governments austerity agenda on decisions made leading up to this terrible tragedy.

 

[AlterEgo]

Also reports suggest an Immigration 'amnesty' for Grenfell fire residents

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40512382

I do wonder how authorities can tell the difference between a real Immigration survivor and the plethora of people who would chance it on the off-chance that they would get waved through since there has already been at least one sickening case of someone claiming to live in the tower block when they did not

Who knows?

What seems clear is that nobody seems to know who was living in the tower block. A number of people seem to have been living there illegally. A number of people, it would seem, shouldn't even have been in this country. I think it will be quite difficult for the authorities to accurately determine who was and who was not living there.

 

[bnm]

I disagree vehemently with the views expressed by tspaul26. I dare not express my contempt for his lack of empathy or understanding further. The views and experiences of the victims need to be examined and considered rather than ignored and brushed under the carpet. That is not "a mass of sentimentality and emotionalism" but decency and humanity.

The adequacy of the building regulations should be just a part of the scope of the investigation. That should be the subject of an expedited interim report. There is much more to look at than simply the building regulations. Part of that should be a look at the impact, if any, of the governments austerity agenda on decisions made leading up to this terrible tragedy.

Indeed. A careful look at the consequences of the government's 'Cutting Red Tape' agenda needs to be done.

Local authorities were tasked by central government to look at, amongst other things, building control, construction regulations, building inspection, health & safety, to see where cost savings could be made by making regulations in these areas less burdensome.

It's quite possible that central government policy has contributed directly to the disaster at Grenfell Tower. For 'Cutting Red Tape' read 'cutting corners'.