Grenfell tower

[dandelion]

New Kensington council leader has apologised for the way the council handled the fire. Not, it would seem, for using flammable cladding.

 

[chrisrobin]

So no action is being akin on the sub lets - a wise choice - but it proves that this was a known illegal action. I wonder if anyone really knows how many flats were sublet - and at what inflated rents, and more to the point exactly how many residents there were....
A team of lawyers, yes layers had been retained by the residents of Grenfell House to protest about absolutely anything. How is it, if I can miss quote John McDonald again, these slum dwellers can afford top council. Who are these various "support" groups spring up and are they really for the residents of Grenfell House?
So much public outcry about the lack of action taken by Kensington council, one of 23 in London, does anyone really think any one borough can have the recourses and money and plans to prepare for a disaster like this? New York has one huge "council", big enough to be able to co-ordinate for almost any event, maybe London should follow suit?
Words in haste were spoken when it was promised that all the residents would be housed quickly - this is a city and a borough where there is a housing shortage, so, no wonder its taking time, can some of the whining protestors stop jumping on soap boxes. The residents themselves don't help, complaining about being in hotels not fit for children, but not thankful to have a roof over their heads. Shown on television were two bedroom flats being offered to families (including the single parent families) and being turned down as they were deemed to be to far away from their natural habitats. It is going to take years to rehouse permanently all the families, but at least it will only be the ones on the rent books! So I wonder how many families in all....
So, if the cash being spent on retaining top lawyers was to be spent on housing those made homeless surely this would be a better use of the cash - but alas it wouldn't have the political clout - and which is the most important to the Cobynistas?

 

[chrisrobin]

New Kensington council leader has apologised for the way the council handled the fire. Not, it would seem, for using flammable cladding.

As usual your bent mind makes it sound as if the cladding was used on purpose....

 

[dandelion]

As usual your bent mind makes it sound as if the cladding was used on purpose....

It was used on purpose. Because it was cheaper. Fireproofness didnt seem to be a concern.

 

[185248]

I did originally post a humour thing in answer to joll. Then I thought it's not really a humour thread.

 

[185248]

As usual your bent mind makes it sound as if the cladding was used on purpose....

It was. You buy a material on purpose, you fix it and install it on purpose. The only purpose it was not meant for was to catch fire. Because it's purpose was not to be fire proof.

Your purpose as a human is to breathe air to survive. Your purpose is not to breathe water because you are not a fish.

Tell me, who do you trust? The aircraft engineers to keep the plane in the air, or, the Lawyer to sue the company when you die in a plane crash.

Who gets paid more? Do these Lawyers and Barristers make a difference? No....Because they depend on mistakes to survive. You don't depend on lawyers to survive. You, your life, depend on the guys who install, maintain, and build.

 

[798686]

I did originally post a humour thing in answer to joll. Then I thought it's not really a humour thread.

There's always room for humour - as long as it's not disrespectful.

 

[185248]

There's always room for humour - as long as it's not disrespectful.

I could not decide whether it was or was not....so I deleted it.

I still feel for those firies. Perhaps is the reason why my humour in this thread is depleted somewhat.

Also, when you come into contact with families who have survived fire, and fought it.

Fire is not like drowning. Being trapped alive in a fire is akin to be buried alive, except with searing pain.

I sat with children many a night for fear of dreams being burned alive.

I'll save my humour for the DT and related threads Now and then the EU one.

 

[Jason]

It was used on purpose. Because it was cheaper. Fireproofness didnt seem to be a concern.

The cladding had an identical fire safety rating to a more expensive cladding. We now know this fire safety rating was wrong, but the teams involved in the cladding of 600+ towers did not.

Taking account of fire safety would not have caused the councils to use the more expensive material. Arguments for using the more expensive material might have been aesthetic or better insulation. I don't think the insulation argument applies to Grenfell. What we are left with is that the council didn't go for the more aesthetic and more expensive option. Of course we now all know that this would have been better, but there were other calls on this additional money.

I'm disgusted by the agenda of Corbyn and Momentum which tries to assert Conservative guilt in this. The guilt according to Momentum attached to the council and Conservative government, but not to Labour councils, Labour government, Labour mayor of London. How did Corbyn react when he first heard of the fire? DId he cheer? DId he crack open the champagne? He has exploited the disaster to nourish the cancer of Momentum. The Momentum lynch mob have been bussed in with their pre-printed placards, like Young Pioneers expressing their love for grandfather Stalin. Now Corbyn is on a roll and is busy getting rid of what he calls "traitors" in the Labour Party. For Corbyn a pack of lies about Grenfell is just part of his plot to seize power.

 

[185248]

The cladding had an identical fire safety rating to a more expensive cladding. We now know this fire safety rating was wrong, but the teams involved in the cladding of 600+ towers did not.

Taking account of fire safety would not have caused the councils to use the more expensive material. Arguments for using the more expensive material might have been aesthetic or better insulation. I don't think the insulation argument applies to Grenfell. What we are left with is that the council didn't go for the more aesthetic and more expensive option. Of course we now all know that this would have been better, but there were other calls on this additional money.

I'm disgusted by the agenda of Corbyn and Momentum which tries to assert Conservative guilt in this. The guilt according to Momentum attached to the council and Conservative government, but not to Labour councils, Labour government, Labour mayor of London. How did Corbyn react when he first heard of the fire? DId he cheer? DId he crack open the champagne? He has exploited the disaster to nourish the cancer of Momentum. The Momentum lynch mob have been bussed in with their pre-printed placards, like Young Pioneers expressing their love for grandfather Stalin. Now Corbyn is on a roll and is busy getting rid of what he calls "traitors" in the Labour Party. For Corbyn a pack of lies about Grenfell is just part of his plot to seize power.

So, where did this thread go to Corbyn, Starlin, traitors...Labour party?

The fact of the matter is this. Modern cladding was approved, installed, caught fire. It was installed against manufacturers recommendations.

Those who installed it, and approved it are guilty. I doubt very much their political persuasion came into play.

Those who were called to put out the fire failed to adhere to their training to expect the unexpected.

The building, built in the 70's, was probably, and as I have said before...built better than they are now with regard to fire rated materials.

It was a modern day material. Installed incorrectly, due to greed or mistake. Not because of some political bullshit.

 

[Chrysippus]

What we are left with is that the council didn't go for the more aesthetic and more expensive option.

No, what we are left with is the public cremation of living poor people as a media spectacle.

 

[Jason]

I doubt very much their political persuasion came into play.

....

Installed incorrectly, due to greed or mistake. Not because of some political bullshit.

I'm sure you are right.

Corbyn's story has been that the cladding demonstrates that the Conservatives regards the poor as second class citizens who are expendable. His deputy John McDonnell has called it murder by the Conservatives. The Momentum mob has been out in force expressing the view that Tory scum murdered the poor and demanding that Corbyn should be prime minister. Many are in effect saying that Theresa May personally murdered the victims.

Corbyn's narrative has not changed despite the revelation that more Labour councils than Conservative installed the cladding, and that the legislation dates from the years of Labour government. Rather Corbyn has used the tragedy as a way of getting across a political message and furthering his cause of revolutionary Marxism.

There are so many lessons to be learnt from Grenfell. One of them is that Corbyn sees a tragedy only as a way of promoting his political agenda.

 

[185248]

I'm sure you are right.

Corbyn's story has been that the cladding demonstrates that the Conservatives regards the poor as second class citizens who are expendable. His deputy John McDonnell has called it murder by the Conservatives. The Momentum mob has been out in force expressing the view that Tory scum murdered the poor and demanding that Corbyn should be prime minister. Many are in effect saying that Theresa May personally murdered the victims.

Corbyn's narrative has not changed despite the revelation that more Labour councils than Conservative installed the cladding, and that the legislation dates from the years of Labour government. Rather Corbyn has used the tragedy as a way of getting across a political message and furthering his cause of revolutionary Marxism.

There are so many lessons to be learnt from Grenfell. One of them is that Corbyn sees a tragedy only as a way of promoting his political agenda.

Opposition politicians, no matter what persuasion will try to make the best of any publicity. Upon the advice of political advisors.

It's not always the case where a party opinion reflects a personal view. For all we know, politicians may have lost family members in the fire.

It's what I have been saying for some time jase, is that there is no strong leader apparent from either side.

In the case of this tragedy. Party politics are not what people wish to hear. I think the strength is in silence here.

Any advisor who advises otherwise is a loser.

 

[798686]

No, what we are left with is the public cremation of living poor people as a media spectacle.

I would agree that the media deserve a certain amount of criticism for increasing tension on this issue.

 

[chrisrobin]

I would agree that the media deserve a certain amount of criticism for increasing tension on this issue.

the bbc is so against the government that they will use every slanted interview and pint of view they can. the bbc is so biased it doesn't even see straight, so, every little thing it can find to bolster its case against the government it does.

 

[Chrysippus]

I would agree that the media deserve a certain amount of criticism for increasing tension on this issue.

That's ridiculous: what the media did was to report candidly people burned to death and dislocated because of irresponsible behavior and ineptitude of government and business. Don't blame the messenger--find those responsible, make them accountable, and swiftly redress the wrong done the inhabitants.

 

[Jason]

That's ridiculous: what the media did was to report candidly people burned to death and dislocated because of irresponsible behavior and ineptitude of government and business. Don't blame the messenger--find those responsible, make them accountable, and swiftly redress the wrong done the inhabitants.

Within hours of the tragedy the BBC was asserting that Theresa May and the Conservatives were responsible. The BBC wasn't reporting someone else's view, but was simply making its own assertion. In effect the BBC was creating a story. The BBC did this at a time before the Con-DUP pact had been agreed, so at a time when there were genuine weaknesses in the government of the UK. The idea is that the BBC were demonstrated that they were ready to support a take-over by Corbyn, a revolutionary seizure of power.

There have long been claims that the BBC is not impartial. I think it is now a certainty. The BBC is funded by a "licence fee" - a tax of £145.50pa on every household. It is not possible in the UK to opt-out of receiving the BBC. The so-called "licence fee" is now indefensible, and the BBC feel the Conservatives will move to reduce it, or to provide public-sector broadcasting in another way. Corbyn would safeguard their jobs and their very lucrative pensions. The BBC is now in effect a cheer-leader for Corbyn and for Momentum. It has become an incredibly dangerous organisation. Trump calls the BBC "fake news". In the case of the BBC he is right - it is a politically motivated organisation that is willing to act to destabilise an elected government and to support a Marxist mob.

The BBC does not yet know the underlying faults. However it seems clear that governments and councils of both parties are to blame. The BBC is no longer the messenger - it is the political pressure group.

 

[Chrysippus]

[QUOTE="Jason, post: 6569801, member: 1465" 1.)]Trump calls the BBC "fake news". In the case of the BBC he is right - 2.)it is a politically motivated organisation that is willing to act to destabilise an elected government and to support 3.)a Marxist mob.[/QUOTE]
Re 1.) Trump calls any journalistic opposition 'fake news', and clearly you have fallen for Trump's tactics.
Re 2.) The BBC destabilising. the British government? If it's weak enough to be destabilized by the press, it should fall.
Re 3.) Marxist mob? Far right labels, and labels are all you have. You're a liar.

 

[Jason]

Chrysippus is now on my ignore list.

 

[Chrysippus]

a Marxist mob

And let's for a moment revisit the 'marxist mob' comment.
Mob: a large crowd of people, especially one that is disorderly and intent on causing trouble or violence:
Mobs happen at a specific time and place, so when did your 'mob' assemble? Was there more than one mob on more than one occasion?
Are you trying to characterize demonstrations you don't agree with as mobs?
Mob? distortion and exaggeration? Assurely so, so you are a liar.
And 'Marxist': were there placards featuring pictures of Marx? Sayings (quotations) of Karl Marx?
The first time I read Marx was in a course called 19th Century British Romanticism--he's your countryman, and his thought is as much of a child of Magna Carta as the US constitution is.

You're Trump's broflake, and you both live in the same echo chamber.

@Jason, ignore me--I don't give a shit, but I hope others reading this forum will recognize you for the pompous fraud you are.