Grenfell tower

[Industrialsize]

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.

Turn off the BBC. You'll find your cohorts here:
http://www.breitbart.com/london/

 

[dandelion]

The cladding had an identical fire safety rating to a more expensive cladding.

No, it didn't. The manufacturers knew the difference and distinguised their own products in literature. It was recommended not to be used on tall buildings.

We now know this fire safety rating was wrong, but the teams involved in the cladding of 600+ towers did not.

We did know the fire rating was wrong, because the manufacturers correctly specified their own product and all builders would get this information. The material had been certified to be used, but it would have been obvious to management at least that it was not fireproof.

Taking account of fire safety would not have caused the councils to use the more expensive material.

The other council I now forget the name of specified fireproof material. Their builders supplied flammable material. Their defence would be as you say that it had been signed off as adequate. However, it seems likely they breeched the contract by using it, because it was not. They in turn might have legal claims against whoever did this certifying.

Its pretty obvious what happened. Products A and B have worthless government certificate, because it isnt being tested properly. Product A has a legitimate manufacturers warning about how it should be used and product B says it can be used on tall buildings. Product A is cheaper. Someone chose to ignore manufacturers advice.

I'm disgusted by the agenda of Corbyn and Momentum which tries to assert Conservative guilt in this.

Why? They could have stopped the grenfell fire, but deliberately chose not to act upon warnings. I am pretty confident they did this not because they didnt care, but because they inexpertly thought the risk was negligible, but they did choose not to spend the necessary money to revise fire regulations.

They didnt burn people to death on purpose, but they did negligently allow something to happen which they could have prevented.

Jason, I think you need to sit back and smell the coffee. The nation is getting sick of excuses for sub standard housing. Even the middle classes are ntw in revolt against the conservatives about this.

 

[Jason]

@dandelion, the UK's housing stock is among the best in the world. I'm not aware of a simple league table that ranks cities or nations on housing alone, but this seems to be the closest approximation and puts London 40 out 230.
https://www.uk.mercer.com/newsroom/2015-quality-of-living-survey.html

This said we do need to improve it further.

The biggest issue seems to be the demand. It is very hard indeed to see how any imaginable society could keep up with the annual increase the UK has at present. We absolutely have to get migration below 100,000pa. Even this level is testing for building.

 

[798686]

but I hope others reading this forum will recognize you for the pompous fraud you are.

Look in the mirror, sunshine.

 

[798686]

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.

The tone of your response leads me to believe I'm on to something - otherwise why the anger?

I'm actually a fan of the BBC - and have no problem with any messenger as long as they're accurate.

What I dislike is the tone of the reporting since the event. The agitation and fuelling of blame and hysteria.

The factual parts of the reporting, such as what happened, how it happened, what may have lead to it and how it needs to, and could be changed, were all fine.

What was not fine was the accusations, and insinuation from early on. See the Maitlis Newsnight interview with Theresa May, and tell me if you think it was either fair, balanced, objective or helpful in any way whatsoever - other than to give a grieving public their pound of flesh.

The situation in Grenfell was horrendous, the disaster tragic, the failings many - but to paint it as murder, or to frame it as either deliberate or calculated in anyway is irresponsible. As is blaming it on one particular political party, rather than a substandard situation that had developed across multiple governments.

I suspect you're more of a protest voter yourself, much like Dandy, who is happier pointing the finger than actually taking responsibility.

Pathetic.

 

[Jason]

The story with Grenfell is where we go now.

Corbyn is determined to frustrate progress. The inquiry judge is facing a barrage of Momentum abuse (because he has never lived in a tower block and this supposedly makes him unable to do the job). All Grenfell tenants have now been offered alternative flats, but Momentum is urging them to refuse the offers and many have done just this. The idea is that they can launch a class action and become rich. It's a myth - compensation will reflect reasonable loss, not a passport to wealth.

There are broader issues around what we do with 600+ tower blocks once the cladding is stripped.

 

[Chrysippus]

I suspect you're more of a protest voter yourself, much like Dandy, who is happier pointing the finger than actually taking responsibility.

You would be wrong.

 

[Chrysippus]

hysteria

Hysteria: a psychological disorder (not now regarded as a single definite condition) whose symptoms include conversion of psychological stress into physical symptoms (somatization), selective amnesia, shallow volatile emotions, and overdramatic or attention-seeking behavior. The term has a controversial history as it was formerly regarded as a disease specific to women.
You are using the word to mean exaggerated or uncontrollable emotion or excitement, especially among a group of people.

Show me, prove to me that the BBC exhibited hysteria.

 

[SamSpain]

@dandelion, the UK's housing stock is among the best in the world. I'm not aware of a simple league table that ranks cities or nations on housing alone, but this seems to be the closest approximation and puts London 40 out 230.
https://www.uk.mercer.com/newsroom/2015-quality-of-living-survey.html

This said we do need to improve it further.

The biggest issue seems to be the demand. It is very hard indeed to see how any imaginable society could keep up with the annual increase the UK has at present. We absolutely have to get migration below 100,000pa. Even this level is testing for building.

When will you people ever learn that immigration is not the issue. It's consistent governments' failure to address housing issues. If they really wanted to they could help build great housing and quickly. But sadly no, as it might affect house prices where they live, and the inheritance for Tarquin and Phoebe.

 

[Jason]

When will you people ever learn that immigration is not the issue. It's consistent governments' failure to address housing issues. If they really wanted to they could help build great housing and quickly. But sadly no, as it might affect house prices where they live, and the inheritance for Tarquin and Phoebe.

I doubt this.

There are planning restrictions reflecting underlying resource restrictions.

London and SE England are very close to their water usage limit. There are no easy ways to boost water supply. Flat land is not great for reservoirs. There's not an obvious long-distance source (and the water would need to be pumped). Desalination has all sorts of problems.

Infrastructure is such that roads and railways are really not coping. There isn't empty land to build more - rather more roads need demolition of buildings. There are few examples of new railways. HS1 and CrossLink are both exceptions, and both almost unbelievably expensive.

London and SE England already has very high population density. We may have to make it yet higher, but globally very high density areas tend not to be very nice. The alternative is to build well outside of London, but this is building where people really don't want to live.

I'm not aware of any nation which has been able to sustain the level of migration the UK now has. The rate was matched briefly by the USA in the 1890s, but in the context of a wild west that was virgin land. Right now in the UK we need a couple of decades of the fastest building ever alongside a couple of decades of low migration.

 

[dandelion]

@dandelion, the UK's housing stock is among the best in the world. I'm not aware of a simple league table that ranks cities or nations on housing alone, but this seems to be the closest approximation and puts London 40 out 230.

I didnt ask whether kensington is on average a nice place to live, it certainly is. I'd be very happy living in one of the giant houses in embassy row next to the palace, stuffed full of antique and valuable furniture. I'd be very happy with the income of the people who live there. Unfortunately thats quite different to the top floor of Grenfell house living on benefits or waiting tables.

Its a plain fact that the size of every living unit has fallen in the UK for decades.Standards for minimum size introduced after WW2 have been abolished. Government has had a drive to create 'affordable housing', which means small housing. In recent times legislation has been introduced to force landlords to improve their houses, becuse there is a perceived need to do so. Slum landlords are coming back. Schemes to 'help' first time buyers have offered them subsidised loans, so in fact encouraging them to borrow yet more money and in an open market where there is a shortage of housing, actually 'bid up' house prices even further and make them ever more unaffordable.

The conservatives lost the last election because of the votes of people who cannot afford housing. Their biggest area of support is amongst people who can afford to buy (ie the very rich), and those who have already bought. The have had a long term strategy of encouraging people to buy and inflating house prices by persuading people it is in their interest to do so. Well in one sense it is. But the number of people losing out from this has grown steadily and has reached a tipping point, where now even the conservative party is losing out from its own policy.

The biggest issue seems to be the demand. It is very hard indeed to see how any imaginable society could keep up with the annual increase the UK has at present.

It isnt hard at all. 95% of England is not developed. Half of the part developed is gardens and parks and suchlike. The particular problem is government centralisation upon London. After WW2 it was national policy to move people out of London. At some point this changed and instead we have been cramming people in. London must be reduced in size and industry encouraged to go elsewhere. There are other cities. We will never keep up with demand if we deliberatly build fewer houses than the demand requires. The UK building industry has practically disappeared because of lack of use.

The other side is indeed demand, but governments have failed to do anything about workforce needs. The UK currently has a lot of immigration, but this is because of government policy choices not to train enough UK people to meet skills shortages, not to pay sufficent at the lower end of the income scale to make jobs attractive to UK citizens, but most of all to encourage growth of the economy. What do politicians imagine growth is except more people doing more stuff living in more houses?

We absolutely have to get migration below 100,000pa.

Then there must be a national policy to discourage it. At present Uk companies advertise abroad asking people to come here. Because we have a labour shortage. Its easy to stop immigration. Reduce demand for workers in the UK. Accept that the nation's income will be lower. Oh. But the government's plan to solve its budget deficit is.......GROWTH!

We need to change a cheap labour economy into a highly paid economy. At the same time we need to bring down house prices by building more. Just think how much better off you would be, and everyone else, if your housing costs were halved. Pay is not just about wages or tax, its also about living costs and the biggest of those is housing.

 

[dandelion]

London and SE England are very close to their water usage limit.

Rubbish. Water is soooo cheap people just let their taps run and leak. Its sooo cheap people use it on gardens so the grass looks nice.

There are no easy ways to boost water supply.

Depends what you mean. one solution would be to move more population where the water is, because the south east where the population density is highest is also the dryest part. Send more people north. Failing that, flat land is great for building pipelines. Victorians criss crossed this nation with canals, which could have transported massive amounts of water across the nation. if they could do it, we certainly could. We choose not to invest in infrastructure. Just as you say, we choose not to build house. We choose not to build new water supply or new hospitals or new roads.

. There isn't empty land to build more

Untrue Untrue!UNTRUE! UNTRUE! I have repeatedly posted the statistic that 95% of England is not built on. Accept it and stop spreading untruths.

globally very high density areas tend not to be very nice.

If you fly over south east England, the great bulk of it is empty countryside. I was once amazed in London to see an aerial photograph of the city showing how green it was....because of all those gardens. From the street, all you see is the fronts of buildings. Demand to live in London is huge. You posted a survey saying how nice a place it is to live compared to most places in the world. The solution is to increase the total developed area but also disperse it much more so there are more, smaller cities.

The alternative is to build well outside of London, but this is building where people really don't want to live.

No. This is building where people are not permitted to live. Build houses and they would come.

I'm not aware of any nation which has been able to sustain the level of migration the UK now has. .

So change the government policies of encouraging growth which are the cause of population growth.

 

[geitjeshoeder]

The entire bit about 'socialism' and 'angry mobs' kind of misses the point from an economics standpoint.

Mass poverty will affect a lot more then just being confronted with poor people, it's **very** bad for business.

Poverty means less spending, more crime and less people recieving proper education which is very bad for all medium and small enterprises aswell as the self-employed...

If business starts to develop south, people start to lend money, they overhaul their business and use a model which copes with less overhead, by using a franchise-chain or being take-over large companies and banks seize parts of main street shops, retail chains and other important employment providers.

A business which is traded on the stockmarket doesn't care about people who are the backbone to the spirit at your local supermarket, they command that a 17 year old drop-out does the work for little to no money.

Imagine people with low education keeping jobs and having secure jobs and secure pensions, image the impact of such things on crime, healthcare, communities at large etc etc...

Social housing, good healthcare, good pensions are the cornerstone of a functional and happy society. Need an example? visit Norway or Finland.

 

[dandelion]

There are broader issues around what we do with 600+ tower blocks once the cladding is stripped.

Perhaps we should buy up some of the posh properties in Kensingon and break them up into flats, and offer them at the same rent people from Grenfell tower were paying before. Then the tower itself can be demolished to build more nice homes there instead. but the important point is that the rents of these much nicer homes will be kept as low as those in Grenfell tower. That was the purpose of council housing. Good quality housing at low prices for those who could not afford market rent.

This government has introduced measure to increase council house rents and force councils to charge higher market rents even where the homes themselves were profitable on low rents. It is an outrage and people who do that should not be allowed to be in government. There should be no right to buy council houses. That was a tory invention to buy votes and it has been a long term disaster for the nation. Even the old are now starting to see that they will not be allowed to pass on the wealth they imagine they saved because of the so called value of their home which they spent their whole life paying for. Now the tories are introducing dementia tax on them.

 

[chrisrobin]

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.

For a long time the BBC has indeed worn its politics on its sleeve.
Newsnight in particular is so pull of anti Brexit and anti government people its embarrassing to watch. The BBC will wheedle any liny story and weave it into anti material regardless, Laura with her fatuous sneer, the scruffy git on Newsnight and a plethora of reporters.
The BBC was always socialist, it used to be said if you were one of the three "k's" you'd get on- Katholic Kosher or Kweer - and now this socialist attitude has spread from current affairs right through to the news.
The BBC needs to be held up and questioned, and its not that the press or media need to be controlled or monitored, as Emily stated it was being asked to do when barraging an MP but in the fairness of living up to its charter of being non-biased. When a group of MP's complained about the BBC's bias the BBC denied it and this was lauded by Tim Farron. When complaints were made live ( I'm sorry I cant recall the lady's name) who was first to step up to the plate , Tim Farron. And hey folks, he is so anti Brexit as well as the government his complaints prove the complaints about bias really are true.

 

[chrisrobin]

[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.

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.[/QUOTE]
In the case of the US media most of it is controlled by a handful of press barons, there isn't anything in the USA where a free from political interference television/radio network exists.
The BBC is supposed to be non political, unbiased and impartial.
Its written in the Charter.
When subversive elements begin to run riot its like the one bad apple in the barrel infecting the rest, so slowly the rot sets in.
In the case of the BBC a few highly political journalists found they could get away with spouting their own beliefs. This spread to the copy cat brigade so suddenly its the flavour of the month, or year, to bash Brexit, the bash the government.
Trump calls anyone who doesn't see the world through his rose tined glasses the opposition - and yet on the 4th July CNN
broadcast the whole of his speech to the nation from the White house - but CNN broadcast fake news so - was this fake!

 

[Chrysippus]

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.

In the case of the US media most of it is controlled by a handful of press barons, there isn't anything in the USA where a free from political interference television/radio network exists.
The BBC is supposed to be non political, unbiased and impartial.
Its written in the Charter.
When subversive elements begin to run riot its like the one bad apple in the barrel infecting the rest, so slowly the rot sets in.
In the case of the BBC a few highly political journalists found they could get away with spouting their own beliefs. This spread to the copy cat brigade so suddenly its the flavour of the month, or year, to bash Brexit, the bash the government.
Trump calls anyone who doesn't see the world through his rose tined glasses the opposition - and yet on the 4th July CNN
broadcast the whole of his speech to the nation from the White house - but CNN broadcast fake news so - was this fake![/QUOTE]

Again, if a gov't can't withstand press criticism, it may be weak enough to fail legitimately. Your 'subversive elements' is rhetorical exaggeration. At least you dropped Jason's lie about a 'Marxist mob'.

I certainly don't hold up US media as fair, impartial, or doing anything other than advancing the interests of its owners. BTW The US doesn't have barons, that's your rhetorical touch. I abhor and detest CNN--you shouldn't think I approve of CNN.

PS. who's going to insure BBC is corrected back into its charter--you? Jason? Theresa May? Nigel Farage? Jeremy Corbyn? The Crown? Parliament? Feckless, all.

 

[southeastone]

Perhaps we should buy up some of the posh properties in Kensingon and break them up into flats, and offer them at the same rent people from Grenfell tower were paying before. Then the tower itself can be demolished to build more nice homes there instead. but the important point is that the rents of these much nicer homes will be kept as low as those in Grenfell tower. That was the purpose of council housing. Good quality housing at low prices for those who could not afford market rent.

.

Just out of interest what would you do about all the people in grenfell who owned their own flats, some residential some let out?

 

[southeastone]

[/QUOTE]

PS. who's going to insure BBC is corrected back into its charter--you? Jason? Theresa May? Nigel Farage? Jeremy Corbyn? The Crown? Parliament? Feckless, all.[/QUOTE]

The government should scrap the charter and indeed the BBC, there is no place now for this organisation amongst the commercial stations available, self funded media and peoples right to chose what they watch (and pay for!) are needed, BBC value for money??

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4666068/BBC-spends-just-half-budget-programmes.html.

You may or may not be aware that we have to pay for this crap if we want it or not, all households having a TV or internet connection of any sort must pay the yearly £145 ($190) with no say in its running.

 

[chrisrobin]

Perhaps we should buy up some of the posh properties in Kensingon and break them up into flats, and offer them at the same rent people from Grenfell tower were paying before. Then the tower itself can be demolished to build more nice homes there instead..
Nothing wrong in the tower when it was built, it was deemed very nice by those who lived there
but the important point is that the rents of these much nicer homes will be kept as low as those in Grenfell tower. That was the purpose of council housing. Good quality housing at low prices for those who could not afford market rent. By those who cannot afford the market rent I presume you mean those not in work and "on the social". Remember the one parent families, the asylum seekers not to mention all the illegal inhabitants (those not registered but living in sub let council properties), so lets get real. When you get "homeless"
turning down living accommodation and egged on to do so my members of Momentum you really have to wonder why.....

This government has introduced measure to increase council house rents and force councils to charge higher market rents even where the homes themselves were profitable on low rents. It is an outrage and people who do that should not be allowed to be in government. There should be no right to buy council houses.
and who were the ones to benefit by council house buying - after a few years they sold on for a large profit - oh yes - good socialists
That was a tory invention to buy votes and it has been a long term disaster for the nation. Even the old are now starting to see that they will not be allowed to pass on the wealth they imagine they saved because of the so called value of their home which they spent their whole life paying for. Now the tories are introducing dementia tax on them.

You really are the pits, but typical after all, as you well know the so called dementia tax was scrapped - in any case it was better that that set up by Labour who had a cap at about £23k - the Tories were adding another £77 thousand to this...
Grenfell Tower has become a cause celebre to the likes of you and the Corbynistras, at any price grab the headlines, promise the earth and give nothing, everything for free but in the end you'll pay... through housing and education (3 sons of Corbyn went to Grammar schools...by the way) running the country into debt so it becomes like Greece.