For help, advice and discussion about stuff not related to aviation. Play nice: no religion, no politics and no axe grinding please.
avtur3 wrote:
johnm wrote:The usual morons now invading the Town Hall while TM announces £5m relief fund.

I'm sure they speak highly of you as well ...

Active supporter of strong protest, but not keen on rent-a-mob, in fairness not entirely sure which in this case probably both :oops:
chevvron wrote:2. Those families probably (and illegally) sub-let rooms so it was overcrowded.

What a nasty little slur on dead families. Are immigrants just perceived as exploiters of resources rather than real people who want their own private space to live, relax and bring up their families in? Shame on you.
Mike Tango liked this
This has just gone up on the BBC, it's the council answers to the questions posed:

Council respond to protesters' questions
Posted at
Protesters who gathered outside Kensington town hall earlier submitted a list of questions to the council.

Here's what the council responded:

1. Written commitment from the council on the immediate rehousing of all the victims of Grenfell Tower fire, within the borough.

We plan to house residents of Grenfell Tower as locally as we can. But we may well need help from our close neighbours. We want to rehouse people in a good home as quickly as we can. The council is committed to looking after the immediate and longer-term housing needs of all those affected by the fire.

2. Immediate release of funds to cover costs of welfare and all losses suffered by the victims.

We are already releasing funds to take care of the immediate needs of those affected as well as other support, We are absolutely committed to supporting anyone affected in the days, weeks and months ahead. But if you know of individuals or families who you feel aren't getting help, then please let us know so we can help them as quickly as possible.

3. Commission investigation into the recent £10m refurbishment project on the same tower, and bring those who failed to install adequate health and safety measures and equipment at the building.

We entirely support the calling of the public enquiry and will cooperate in whatever way we can with it so that local people have all the answers about what has happened. We would also work with others to enable the release of any interim reports as quickly as possible.

4. Release of the full list of victims of the tragedy so families can bereave their dead.

This is not a matter for the council but for the coroner, police and other emergency services. But, we understand that this is a hugely distressing time for everyone affected and we will do all we can with our police colleagues to support people.

5. Commission investigation into all other similar buildings in the borough to identify fire, health and safety risks and put in place immediate control measures.

We understand the community will not want us to wait until the conclusion of any formal public inquiry before we understand what lessons may have to be learned. That's why we will shortly commission a fire safety audit in all similar buildings throughout the borough and we will certainly act on the findings.

Regarding number 5 above there is an analogy, on a much smaller scale, about the forum here and what happens after an air accident in my opinion. While there are some people who say that we should "wait until the results of the investigation are known", there are others who want to take what they can *now* using what's known *now*, in possibly preventing something similar. I personally am in the latter camp.

Regarding the "rent-a-mob" I notice in this video that there are a number of banners from Socialist Worker with "Tories have blood on their hands" and calling for "justice". What "justice" as they after? Do they want someone to lynch?
Dave W liked this
back to (underlying theme of) OP's question:

I think there is a longstanding, simplistic, tendency to blame anything untoward which can be postulated on having a political partial cause, however farfetched, on the person of the PM. This is obviously irrational, but understandable after a major tragedy. This tendency is now magnified by modern social media, of course. Such blame attribution may be logically defensible (but dangerous!) in a nation ruled directly by the controlling machinery of a feared dictator, like Stalin or Hitler, or one perceived (wrongly) to be such (like the Kaiser during WW1), but is obviously untenable in a functioning representative democracy when both Government and Opposition Parties are a loose coalition of often mutually antipathetic factions.

When, as a newish immigrant, I first became aware of UK domestic politics, older people were still blaming things in highly personal terms on Attlee or Churchill, later it was Macmillan or Wilson, soon Thatcher or Blair, Brown or Cameron. The PMs who rarely attract such personal opprobrium seem often to be those who (or whose incumbencies) as PM are (sometimes equally wrongly) are perceived as having made less of a general impact, a few issues aside: Eden, Douglas-Home, Heath, or Callaghan.

Sometimes the personal attack gets truly absurd. I recall a UK journalist, newly arrived in clean clothes, interviewing a UK survivor of the Thai tsunami who had been left with only the clothes (tattered) in which she stood, as established early in the interview. The journalist was pressing the survivor hard to blame Mr Blair personally for the tsunami... :roll:

But back to the particular theme: it is understandable that this PM may be seen by some as representative heir and advocate of a political and economic class and movement which in the richest Boroughs of London have pursued at local level policies which have made life in general and housing in particular harder for their ordinary (now, relatively poor) residents at the expense of some of the extraordinarly rich ones. It is not that long ago when such policies in another wealthy Borough were enthusiastically backed by the Government of one of this PM's predecessors, but then determined not only to have been contrivedly cruel but actually illegal:
Last edited by kanga on Fri Jun 16, 2017 8:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
johnm, Rob P liked this

A large police presence held back angry crowds outside a Kensington church where Theresa May was meeting victims of the Grenfell Tower disaster.

The prime minister faced cries of "coward" and "shame on you".

One woman wept, saying it was because the PM declined to speak to anyone outside the meeting which lasted less than hour.

"Why are Sadiq Khan and Corbyn coming down here to speak to people and Theresa May is coming here with police, walking around, not meeting no-one, not meeting families?" the man said.

I think the mob have decided who they want to lynch. I don't really blame her for getting out of there PDQ.

The BBC's Chris Vallance was at St Clement's Church, but while he did not see the prime minister himself, he saw the reaction to her leaving.

A large crowd gathered, I’d say about 50 local residents expressing concern, a great deal of tension and angry mood.
He said journalists, and a large number of police officers, were also there, and added that members of the public expressed "a lot of angry feelings" as they were waiting for Mrs May to leave the church.

He said it was a "very tense" scene as the prime minister left and was "piled into" her waiting car.

There was immediately a rush of people forward to that vehicle and some very angry scenes, tempers running high. It became a bit physical. I wouldn’t describe it as fighting but certainly pushing and shoving between police and angry members of the local community.

"There is a deep hostility against the government," he added, noting that anti-government protesters were present as well as those "angered by this specific tragedy".

A large crowd is marching through Parliament Square chanting "justice for Grenfell".

Some are also chanting anti-Theresa May slogans and carrying home made banners saying "a crime against the poor".

The marchers are now making their way down Whitehall past Downing Street.
chevvron wrote:.........
3. The company who did the re-furb used sub-standard materials which 'met' the minimum standard required and made a whacking profit from the council for doing so.

How can it be "sub-standard" if it met the regs?

Why do you put 'met'? Are you trying to imply the materials did not meet the standard?

How do you know, or otherwise justify, the assertion that they made "a whacking profit" for the job?

I will pass on the council being the customer, but the facts are out there if anyone is interested.
Rob P wrote:Can anyone offer a sensible explanation of why 'everyone' on Facebook etc appears to believe that Teresa May is solely responsible for a tower block burning down?

I really can't be a***d to try and unravel the facts from the dross.

Rob P

I deactivated my FB account months ago, best thing I'd done for a long time.
Spooky, Rob P, Colonel Panic and 1 others liked this
chevvron wrote:But a big plus in her favour - she hates kids.

Given you seem to be on a bit of a roll talking insensitive **** on this thread, I do need to ask why you say that given she and her husband are on record talking about how difficult it was when they were given the news that nature had dealt them the blow of being unable to have much wanted children?

Does being crass come naturally or do you have to practice?
Mike Tango wrote:I deactivated my FB account months ago, best thing I'd done for a long time.

You just needed to be more selective.....

Here's part of Emily Maitlis's interview with the PM that'll be on Newsnight in a min

and here