Massive fire in London - Grenfell Tower in Shepherds Bush

[symyjym]

Since the tragedy there has been a lot of talk of the cladding etc which caused the fire to spread, however not so much of the fridge/freezer which initially caused the fire. Have the models been recalled? / is there any safety concerns over these?

A spokesman said Hotpoint was working with the authorities after its FF175BP model was found to have started the devastating blaze last week. He urged consumers who believe they own that model or the FF175BG to contact the company on a freephone hotline or visit the website to register their details.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...eck-fridge-freezers-after-grenfell-tower-fire

 

[Insel affe]

There was always going to be one or a few taking advantage of this. Some residents are claiming up to 500 are dead or missing so if you can hide your wife and kids you could be on to a very big payout. There are probably quite a few scams possible in this.

You think....

I also was slightly taken aback that the council said they are not concerned about people sub letting or illegal immigrants in the block at the time there will be no prosecutions, now to me that has just asked for the trouble.

I understand that yes they need to know who was in the block totally get that, but they will never know the true amount due to some people lying about relatives etc. To me aswell if you were sub letting and making a profit from basically tax payers subsidising your rent then hell yeah prosecute them in time yes.

Shoot me down, if you wish it is just my opinion.

 

[symyjym]

You think....

I also was slightly taken aback that the council said they are not concerned about people sub letting or illegal immigrants in the block at the time there will be no prosecutions, now to me that has just asked for the trouble.

I understand that yes they need to know who was in the block totally get that, but they will never know the true amount due to some people lying about relatives etc. To me aswell if you were sub letting and making a profit from basically tax payers subsidising your rent then hell yeah prosecute them in time yes.

Shoot me down, if you wish it is just my opinion.

I didn't know they had said this tbh. All the ID's of people who weren't listed as staying there would have gone too so there is scope for taking advantage or losing out big time because it could work out either way. Even just an overnight friend is a problem and hard to prove so Grenfell is going to be a tangled web.

I heard of someone who managed to write off some debt, or something like, using a fictitious death of a business partner in 9/11. There will always be a percentage of people who are opportunists.

 

[CHAPPERS]

 

[Ernest]

The new leader of K & C council has never been inside a tower block , another Tory who has no idea how people live

 

[beorhthelm]

seems Mr Monboit is building a large straw man, as far as i'm aware (correct me please), no regulations in this area have been removed by the alleged cabal. not on building regulation or on fire safety. (though iirc they did introduce new regulations on private landlords a few years ago).

more importantly, i find it dangerous to stoke up mistrust in the public inquiry before its even begun, it means what ever the findings, some will always believe there was something else, even if there isn't. not sure who other than the government is in a position to commission an inquiry and appoint the judge. would it really server the victims for local residents to pick someone, decide on terms of reference which cover every conceivable complaint and grievance they have, so that the inquiry can never reach a conclusion?

 

[Tooting Gull]

seems Mr Monboit is building a large straw man, as far as i'm aware (correct me please), no regulations in this area have been removed by the alleged cabal. not on building regulation or on fire safety. (though iirc they did introduce new regulations on private landlords a few years ago).

more importantly, i find it dangerous to stoke up mistrust in the public inquiry before its even begun, it means what ever the findings, some will always believe there was something else, even if there isn't. not sure who other than the government is in a position to commission an inquiry and appoint the judge. would it really server the victims for local residents to pick someone, decide on terms of reference which cover every conceivable complaint and grievance they have, so that the inquiry can never reach a conclusion?

Not sure which of that I disagree with most, but certainly all of it.

Personally, I have absolutely no doubt that a systematic programme of cuts in money to local authorities and the public sector in terms of salaries and other has contributed directly or indirectly to this disaster.

I strongly suspect that a local authority's ability to maintain fire (and other) safety standards has been compromised by the lack of resources, and that the pendulum has swung far too much towards abolishing expensive red tape for companies, and away from ensuring safety for the public.

Checks and controls, even fire safety training, has been undermined and sparse resources have been spread too thin to protect the public properly.

Now while that opinion is shared by millions, it has to be properly tested - and it has to be tested in the inquiry. An inquiry that looks only at the very narrow cause of blaze, how it was dealt with, and a few basic recommendations won't achieve that.

The clear worry is that the government, who set the terms of reference, will not widen it to examine their own possible role in the disaster (like, for example, various ministers failing to take strong action over the recommendations following the other London tower block fire).

The scale of this tragedy means the public and the victims must be put first, before anyone's reputation. And now is very much the time to try and influence the terms of reference, and not as you put it 'stoke up mistrust in the inquiry'. Once the terms are set, it's gone. They must be right in the first place.

Some of the more personal criticism of the judge from the likes of David Lammy is probably unhelpful, but if that judge has any integrity then if the terms of reference are too narrow to do a proper job, he can resign himself on principle. If he did that, I can't see the govt being able to avoid a proper examination of all the causes, immediate and the backdrop.

 

[beorhthelm]

Not sure which of that I disagree with most, but certainly all of it.

Personally, I have absolutely no doubt that a systematic programme of cuts in money to local authorities and the public sector in terms of salaries and other has contributed directly or indirectly to this disaster.

I strongly suspect that a local authority's ability to maintain fire (and other) safety standards has been compromised by the lack of resources, and that the pendulum has swung far too much towards abolishing expensive red tape for companies, and away from ensuring safety for the public.

Checks and controls, even fire safety training, has been undermined and sparse resources have been spread too thin to protect the public properly.

seems your view is based on assumptions that cuts have been made in areas that may or may not have been significant. you strongly suspect safety standards have slipped due to removing red tape, which is the basis of Monboit's point. my point is to ask has there been removal of regulations in the affected areas? in over 4 mins painting a picture linking politicians involved in the grand aim of reducing regulation, no actual regulation or law is mentioned.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

seems your view is based on assumptions that cuts have been made in areas that may or may not have been significant. you strongly suspect safety standards have slipped due to removing red tape, which seems to be be Monboit's point. my point is to ask has there been removal of regulations in the affected areas? in over 4 mins painting a picture linking politicians involved in the grand aim of reducing regulation, no actual regulation or law is mentioned.

That's your point. Others have different points. I think all questions should be asked, and looked into to ensure you, and others, get answers and above all to ensure this doesn't happen again.

 

[Tooting Gull]

seems your view is based on assumptions that cuts have been made in areas that may or may not have been significant. you strongly suspect safety standards have slipped due to removing red tape, which is the basis of Monboit's point. my point is to ask has there been removal of regulations in the affected areas? in over 4 mins painting a picture linking politicians involved in the grand aim of reducing regulation, no actual regulation or law is mentioned.

Why have you cut the quote before the line that says: 'That's only my opinion, it should be properly tested in the inquiry'?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Why have you cut the quote before the line that says: 'That's only my opinion, it should be properly tested in the inquiry'?

Didn't fit his agenda?

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Death count of 80? In the middle of the night when most residents are asleep? With a fire of that magnitude? In a block of that size? Yeah, right. The true numbers will be officially drip-fed over a period of months, or even years, primarily in order to prevent massive civil unrest.

 

[beorhthelm]

That's your point. Others have different points. I think all questions should be asked, and looked into to ensure you, and others, get answers and above all to ensure this doesn't happen again.

i agree, so lets start from a neutral place, with questions rather than apparently having prepared answers.

Why have you cut the quote before the line that says: 'That's only my opinion, it should be properly tested in the inquiry'?

because you "have absolutly no doubt " and "strongly suspect" that its cuts to money and regulation, seems like you're decided. anyway my argument isnt against your opinion, its against prominent person in the media making a flawed assertion.

 

[Tooting Gull]

i agree, so lets start from a neutral place, with questions rather than apparently having prepared answers.


because you "have absolutly no doubt " and "strongly suspect" that its cuts to money and regulation, seems like you're decided. anyway my argument isnt against your opinion, its against prominent person in the media making a flawed assertion.

That's right, I am absolutely decided. But also fair-minded enough to realise that one opinion is no good for this inquiry. If you don't even examine the broader issues in that inquiry, then it can only be deeply flawed, and cannot be said to have done everything to get to the bottom of why this happened in all its facets. To do justice to the victims, this has to happen.

 

[AmexRuislip]

If only!