i use to work with a chap who was in the SWP.when he knew i was from Kidbrooke he tells me he knows the area as he attended marches re Stephen Lawrence organised from Sheffield -----ironic that he is now working in the council building that was attacked !
Throwing bottled mineral water over someone, when will the nightmare end?
Send me your address and a few of my masked mates will wait outside till you come out, we'll all get in your face, chuck some water over you and one of us will volley the back of your legs, see how you get on.
At least the guy's still alive. I'm unclear why such a minor incident is allowed to deflect from the tragedy in question.
As tragic and unbelievably sad it is I don't think it excuses complete dickish behaviour.
Smashing into council offices and being aggressive resulting in town halls being evacuated is only going to hamper efforts to get people rehoused etc.
We've seen the peaceful demonstrations, marches and vigils that are well intentioned but violence and physical aggression should be off the table full stop. Unfortunately there is a miliatant element of our society who will use any tragedy to push their agendas with force.
This is a bit more than "any tragedy" though, isn't it ?
Normally I would agree but I think people are really, really angry and the response thus far from the council and government has not been acceptable - I just hope that the focus can stay on them to compel them to up their game rather than giving them an opportunity to deflect.
i use to work with a chap who was in the SWP.when he knew i was from Kidbrooke he tells me he knows the area as he attended marches re Stephen Lawrence irganused from Sheffield -----ironic that he is now working in the council building that was attacked !
The SWP are well organised and can mobilise people quickly to any `cause'.
In the 70s a bloke joined our workplace but was seriously out of place. He told me he was put there by the SWP to agitate the workforce against management.
Apropos of this my own local authority did get into bed a few years back with an outsourcing company and had a massive programme of contracting out of all the "back office" functions like HR & ICT. This included the emergency planning team who at the time were part of HR. The whole thing was a disaster from start to finish and it cost the authority £m's to bring those services back in house. Except now many of the experienced, aka expensive, staff have gone in the meantime...because the company were completely focussed on the bottom line.
Other authorities to my knowledge have also contracted out their regulatory services which might include building control in certain situations.
I have zero idea whether any of this is relevant to the dreadful events of this week and the way the authority has responded to it afterwards and sincerely hope that when the enquiry takes place it is not.
Some of the journalists covering this disaster are absolute idiots. Just watching the BBC news and Naga Munchetty interviewing someone about the remaining 4000 high rise buildings asking how many of them have the same cladding and then answering the question for him by saying he didn't know. I am sure these people have more important things to do dealing with this tragedy than being questioned by morons.
Throwing bottled mineral water over someone, when will the nightmare end?
Send me your address and a few of my masked mates will wait outside till you come out, we'll all get in your face, chuck some water over you and one of us will volley the back of your legs, see how you get on.
At least the guy's still alive. I'm unclear why such a minor incident is allowed to deflect from the tragedy in question.
As tragic and unbelievably sad it is I don't think it excuses complete dickish behaviour.
Smashing into council offices and being aggressive resulting in town halls being evacuated is only going to hamper efforts to get people rehoused etc.
We've seen the peaceful demonstrations, marches and vigils that are well intentioned but violence and physical aggression should be off the table full stop. Unfortunately there is a miliatant element of our society who will use any tragedy to push their agendas with force.
This is a bit more than "any tragedy" though, isn't it ?
Normally I would agree but I think people are really, really angry and the response thus far from the council and government has not been acceptable - I just hope that the focus can stay on them to compel them to up their game rather than giving them an opportunity to deflect.
It is indeed. That's why I think it's bang out of order if the militants are using the high emotion and widespread public grief to their own ends via physical aggression.
Let's be clear - I agree with protest and I agree with getting your voice heard but it needs to be done within the law. Your last sentence is spot on but I fear the story will shift which is highly disrespectful to all affected and completely unnecessary and will be as a result of illegal actions of a one-track minded minority and their bandwagon jumpers.
Throwing bottled mineral water over someone, when will the nightmare end?
Send me your address and a few of my masked mates will wait outside till you come out, we'll all get in your face, chuck some water over you and one of us will volley the back of your legs, see how you get on.
At least the guy's still alive. I'm unclear why such a minor incident is allowed to deflect from the tragedy in question.
As tragic and unbelievably sad it is I don't think it excuses complete dickish behaviour.
Smashing into council offices and being aggressive resulting in town halls being evacuated is only going to hamper efforts to get people rehoused etc.
We've seen the peaceful demonstrations, marches and vigils that are well intentioned but violence and physical aggression should be off the table full stop. Unfortunately there is a miliatant element of our society who will use any tragedy to push their agendas with force.
This is a bit more than "any tragedy" though, isn't it ?
Normally I would agree but I think people are really, really angry and the response thus far from the council and government has not been acceptable - I just hope that the focus can stay on them to compel them to up their game rather than giving them an opportunity to deflect.
It is indeed. That's why I think it's bang out of order if the militants are using the high emotion and widespread public grief to their own ends via physical aggression.
Let's be clear - I agree with protest and I agree with getting your voice heard but it needs to be done within the law. Your last sentence is spot on but I fear the story will shift which is highly disrespectful to all affected and completely unnecessary and will be as a result of illegal actions of a one-track minded minority and their bandwagon jumpers.
It's happening on here already.
I agree and we have certain parts of the press who can't wait to find a reason to blame the victims. Already the Mail and Express have tried to blame the EU and green policies, which is the thin end of the wedge. How long before we get a 'Hillsborough' type piece?
Interesting comments on newsnight last night from an experienced solicitor. Suggests government very hasty to pledge public inquiry but this will save them being cross examined under the inquest route; Comments captured in this short video extract-
I saw her being interviewed. Experienced? In what, I wonder? The deaths were "sudden and/or unexplained". As a matter of course they will be referred to a coroner. A coroner is entirely independent and can do whatever is necessary including holding an inquest. That will almost certainly happen IMO. A "public inquiry" does not trump an inquest. IMO it is inevitable that an inquest will happen whatever else goes on in parallel.
Interesting comments on newsnight last night from an experienced solicitor. Suggests government very hasty to pledge public inquiry but this will save them being cross examined under the inquest route; Comments captured in this short video extract-
I saw her being interviewed. Experienced? In what, I wonder? The deaths were "sudden and/or unexplained". As a matter of course they will be referred to a coroner. A coroner is entirely independent and can do whatever is necessary including holding an inquest. That will almost certainly happen IMO. A "public inquiry" does not trump an inquest. IMO it is inevitable that an inquest will happen whatever else goes on in parallel.
I agree, it needs to be an inquest. From my understanding a public enquiry is not in fact public but private and it will not give the opportunity for people who lived in Grenfell to give their side.
Interesting comments on newsnight last night from an experienced solicitor. Suggests government very hasty to pledge public inquiry but this will save them being cross examined under the inquest route; Comments captured in this short video extract-
I saw her being interviewed. Experienced? In what, I wonder? The deaths were "sudden and/or unexplained". As a matter of course they will be referred to a coroner. A coroner is entirely independent and can do whatever is necessary including holding an inquest. That will almost certainly happen IMO. A "public inquiry" does not trump an inquest. IMO it is inevitable that an inquest will happen whatever else goes on in parallel.
I agree, it needs to be an inquest. From my understanding a public enquiry is not in fact public but private and it will not give the opportunity for people who lived in Grenfell to give their side.
An inquest is essential in this case so that people are held to account - an inquiry will just drag on and probably be a whitewash.
Interesting comments on newsnight last night from an experienced solicitor. Suggests government very hasty to pledge public inquiry but this will save them being cross examined under the inquest route; Comments captured in this short video extract-
I saw her being interviewed. Experienced? In what, I wonder? The deaths were "sudden and/or unexplained". As a matter of course they will be referred to a coroner. A coroner is entirely independent and can do whatever is necessary including holding an inquest. That will almost certainly happen IMO. A "public inquiry" does not trump an inquest. IMO it is inevitable that an inquest will happen whatever else goes on in parallel.
I agree, it needs to be an inquest. From my understanding a public enquiry is not in fact public but private and it will not give the opportunity for people who lived in Grenfell to give their side.
Yeah but this idiot lawyer has stoked up rage and indignation and the twats in the Guardian & Independent are already talking about a "whitewash". It's all hokum and does nobody any good. A coroner is going to be all over this. They are required by law to "determine the cause of death and will be required to hold an inquest if the death was unnatural, violent, or sudden and of unknown cause".
Why does that dumb lawyer think differently? The demands are that May order an inquest. That is not in her remit is it? It's the job of a coroner. Coroner's are strong-willed independent people who give short shrift to Government. By way of example the UK swapped the airbase the dead from Afghanistan were flown back to because they didn't like the deputy coroner that had Brize Norton on his patch. The dead were flown into RAF Lynham instead. (Labour Govt. then of course...)
Now, we have an entirely misplaced petition which 50k people have signed and ill thought out and inflammatory press coverage. Bonkers.
BTW, the aforementioned Deputy Coroner of Oxford, Andrew Walker, who seemed to so successfully get up Labour's nose, is now a coroner in Greater London....... I wonder?
Edited to add: of course the Govt. are not doing themselves any favours by not pointing this out and saying they would expect the coroner to hold an inquest.
This is the solicitor who represented victims of the lakanal fire in 2009. You seem to have a lot against her cafcfan? She was pointing out that an inquest will give the chance for questioning by tenants of Grenfell. I don't know what type of inquest this is and how the coroner is connected but she intimated in my view some kind of jury involvement. The law society gazette has an article from yesterday pointing out an inquiry and an inquest are not in fact mutually exclusive as the solicitor (Sophie Khan) had said in newsnight.
"Khan's comments prompted a discussion about public inquiries and inquests. The two are 'not mutually exclusive', human rights barrister Simon McKay said on Twitter today.
McKay said a public inquiry, under the Public Inquiry Act 2005, 'will almost certainly' be chaired by an independent judge. Victims and other interest groups will be 'core participants' and can be represented by lawyers. Their lawyers can, under the Public Inquiry Rule, ask questions of any witness subject to the chair's permission". An inquest has a narrow frame of reference, McKay said. The deaths at Grenfell Tower will likely qualify as article 2 inquests, which have a wider frame of reference.
McKay added: 'Contrary to the commentator's views last night advocates don't "cross-examine" witnesses as an inquest is inquisitorial by nature. Advocates and other interested persons can ask relevant questions. There is no requirement on the part of the witness to answer a question that might incriminate them.
'An inquest may also avoid areas likely to be the subject of a criminal investigation. Importantly an inquest cannot apportion blame - in terms of civil of criminal liability - that is not the function of an inquest. Unlike a public inquiry. Caution should be exercised by those thinking an inquest is a panacea... I'm not saying public inquiries are not without difficulties but the idea they are an attempt to divert accountability is deeply flawed."
Still I think it is a discussion worth having. All governments are prone to promise public enquiries to take the sting out of situations too difficult for them and to push the problem down the road.
On a slightly separate note I saw there was much activity at the coroners court on horseferry road yesterday- many vans pulled up there with a police cordon, the remains of the deceased I presume.
This is the solicitor who represented victims of the lakanal fire in 2009. You seem to have a lot against her cafcfan? She was pointing out that an inquest will give the chance for questioning by tenants of Grenfell. I don't know what type of inquest this is and how the coroner is connected but she intimated in my view some kind of jury involvement. The law society gazette has an article from yesterday pointing out an inquiry and an inquest are not in fact mutually exclusive as the solicitor (Sophie Khan) had said in newsnight.
"Khan's comments prompted a discussion about public inquiries and inquests. The two are 'not mutually exclusive', human rights barrister Simon McKay said on Twitter today.
McKay said a public inquiry, under the Public Inquiry Act 2005, 'will almost certainly' be chaired by an independent judge. Victims and other interest groups will be 'core participants' and can be represented by lawyers. Their lawyers can, under the Public Inquiry Rule, ask questions of any witness subject to the chair's permission".
Still I think it is a discussion with having. All governments are prone to promise public enquiries to take the sting out of situations too difficult for them and to push the problem down the road.
Interesting comments on newsnight last night from an experienced solicitor. Suggests government very hasty to pledge public inquiry but this will save them being cross examined under the inquest route; Comments captured in this short video extract-
I saw her being interviewed. Experienced? In what, I wonder? The deaths were "sudden and/or unexplained". As a matter of course they will be referred to a coroner. A coroner is entirely independent and can do whatever is necessary including holding an inquest. That will almost certainly happen IMO. A "public inquiry" does not trump an inquest. IMO it is inevitable that an inquest will happen whatever else goes on in parallel.
I agree, it needs to be an inquest. From my understanding a public enquiry is not in fact public but private and it will not give the opportunity for people who lived in Grenfell to give their side.
Yeah but this idiot lawyer has stoked up rage and indignation and the twats in the Guardian & Independent are already talking about a "whitewash". It's all hokum and does nobody any good. A coroner is going to be all over this. They are required by law to "determine the cause of death and will be required to hold an inquest if the death was unnatural, violent, or sudden and of unknown cause".
Why does that dumb lawyer think differently? The demands are that May order an inquest. That is not in her remit is it? It's the job of a coroner. Coroner's are strong-willed independent people who give short shrift to Government. By way of example the UK swapped the airbase the dead from Afghanistan were flown back to because they didn't like the deputy coroner that had Brize Norton on his patch. The dead were flown into RAF Lynham instead. (Labour Govt. then of course...)
Now, we have an entirely misplaced petition which 50k people have signed and ill thought out and inflammatory press coverage. Bonkers.
BTW, the aforementioned Deputy Coroner of Oxford, Andrew Walker, who seemed to so successfully get up Labour's nose, is now a coroner in Greater London....... I wonder?
Edited to add: of course the Govt. are not doing themselves any favours by not pointing this out and saying they would expect the coroner to hold an inquest.
Where in the Guardian is there any mention of a whitewash? I read it every day and haven't seen that.
Throwing bottled mineral water over someone, when will the nightmare end?
Send me your address and a few of my masked mates will wait outside till you come out, we'll all get in your face, chuck some water over you and one of us will volley the back of your legs, see how you get on.
At least the guy's still alive. I'm unclear why such a minor incident is allowed to deflect from the tragedy in question.
As tragic and unbelievably sad it is I don't think it excuses complete dickish behaviour.
Smashing into council offices and being aggressive resulting in town halls being evacuated is only going to hamper efforts to get people rehoused etc.
We've seen the peaceful demonstrations, marches and vigils that are well intentioned but violence and physical aggression should be off the table full stop. Unfortunately there is a miliatant element of our society who will use any tragedy to push their agendas with force.
This is a bit more than "any tragedy" though, isn't it ?
Normally I would agree but I think people are really, really angry and the response thus far from the council and government has not been acceptable - I just hope that the focus can stay on them to compel them to up their game rather than giving them an opportunity to deflect.
It is indeed. That's why I think it's bang out of order if the militants are using the high emotion and widespread public grief to their own ends via physical aggression.
Let's be clear - I agree with protest and I agree with getting your voice heard but it needs to be done within the law. Your last sentence is spot on but I fear the story will shift which is highly disrespectful to all affected and completely unnecessary and will be as a result of illegal actions of a one-track minded minority and their bandwagon jumpers.
It's happening on here already.
I agree and we have certain parts of the press who can't wait to find a reason to blame the victims. Already the Mail and Express have tried to blame the EU and green policies, which is the thin end of the wedge. How long before we get a 'Hillsborough' type piece?
Turns out the answer is no as the cladding is banned in Germany amongst other countries. But the Express know what they're doing, some will have read the headline and decided the EU was definitely responsible.
It's actually ironic that proper regulations might've stopped flammable cladding being used but that's too much "red tape" for the Express.
Interesting comments on newsnight last night from an experienced solicitor. Suggests government very hasty to pledge public inquiry but this will save them being cross examined under the inquest route; Comments captured in this short video extract-
I saw her being interviewed. Experienced? In what, I wonder? The deaths were "sudden and/or unexplained". As a matter of course they will be referred to a coroner. A coroner is entirely independent and can do whatever is necessary including holding an inquest. That will almost certainly happen IMO. A "public inquiry" does not trump an inquest. IMO it is inevitable that an inquest will happen whatever else goes on in parallel.
I agree, it needs to be an inquest. From my understanding a public enquiry is not in fact public but private and it will not give the opportunity for people who lived in Grenfell to give their side.
Yeah but this idiot lawyer has stoked up rage and indignation and the twats in the Guardian & Independent are already talking about a "whitewash". It's all hokum and does nobody any good. A coroner is going to be all over this. They are required by law to "determine the cause of death and will be required to hold an inquest if the death was unnatural, violent, or sudden and of unknown cause".
Why does that dumb lawyer think differently? The demands are that May order an inquest. That is not in her remit is it? It's the job of a coroner. Coroner's are strong-willed independent people who give short shrift to Government. By way of example the UK swapped the airbase the dead from Afghanistan were flown back to because they didn't like the deputy coroner that had Brize Norton on his patch. The dead were flown into RAF Lynham instead. (Labour Govt. then of course...)
Now, we have an entirely misplaced petition which 50k people have signed and ill thought out and inflammatory press coverage. Bonkers.
BTW, the aforementioned Deputy Coroner of Oxford, Andrew Walker, who seemed to so successfully get up Labour's nose, is now a coroner in Greater London....... I wonder?
Edited to add: of course the Govt. are not doing themselves any favours by not pointing this out and saying they would expect the coroner to hold an inquest.
Where in the Guardian is there any mention of a whitewash? I read it every day and haven't seen that.
Sorry, I mis-spoke. I was referring to some of the responses in the comments section on-line and twitter feeds rather than the journalists themselves.
The PM and Mayor should establish the facts from the emergency services and then talk to the survivors / families - as they will want answers (understandable). Which is how events unfolded afterwards.
It seems to me though, that politicians are somehow being blamed for the tragedy and venues are being mobbed by angry crowds - thus reducing the opportunity for facts to be distributed. The PM has called for a public inquiry - the highest investigation in the land, yet folk are saying they want answers now.
How can this be achieved with masked protesters manhandling the very people who we want to get to the bottom of this matter.
And what if the Mayor/Pm were to announce that the fault lies entirely with Mr X of London ? - more violence and suffering will surely follow.
There are some firefighters, cops and paramedics who will probably never work again after this tragedy, and in my view, the locals need to calm down while the recovery and investigation work is completed and wait to hear what the authorities have to say.
Otherwise this is going to be and excuse for another Summer of inner-city riots, where more innocent people will suffer at the hands of fools.
Please God, the number of poor souls who are affected by this tragedy does not increase.
The PM and Mayor should establish the facts from the emergency services and then talk to the survivors / families - as they will want answers (understandable). Which is how events unfolded afterwards.
It seems to me though, that politicians are somehow being blamed for the tragedy and venues are being mobbed by angry crowds - thus reducing the opportunity for facts to be distributed. The PM has called for a public inquiry - the highest investigation in the land, yet folk are saying they want answers now.
How can this be achieved with masked protesters manhandling the very people who we want to get to the bottom of this matter.
And what if the Mayor/Pm were to announce that the fault lies entirely with Mr X of London ? - more violence and suffering will surely follow.
There are some firefighters, cops and paramedics who will probably never work again after this tragedy, and in my view, the locals need to calm down while the recovery and investigation work is completed and wait to hear what the authorities have to say.
Otherwise this is going to be and excuse for another Summer of inner-city riots, where more innocent people will suffer at the hands of fools.
Please God, the number of poor souls who are affected by this tragedy does not increase.
A small part of the issue is that a public inquiry is a long way short of being the "highest investigation in the land". Yet that (and a £5m cash handout) is the only crumb being offered by the Prime Minister. No wonder people are angry as well as tired, confused, distraught and desperate.
What's higher than a public inquiry when there has been a failure of public servants (Steven Lawrence/Hillsborough etc) ?
Genuine question - what would you propose as immediate action / appropriate sum ?
A full, judge-led inquiry, with the judge being left to determine the scope and terms of reference would be, in my view, the most appropriate investigation. And that should already have been started.
I'd propose an immediate, K&C task force to have been assembled on the morning of the fire, instructed to secure safe temporary accommodation immediately for everyone made homeless.
Then the Housing Dept to be instructed by the Home Office to find permanent housing in the borough within six weeks.
The Prime Minister to call for a full audit on the types of cladding used in every residential block in the UK and for an independent review of their safety and recommendations as to remedial action. Timeframe: two weeks.
And then the commitment to a spending review by the Housing Minister placed within next week's Queen's speech; to put to parliament within a month.
As for the cost? I'd just want to see all of that funded, rather than the Prime Minister making up a round number to appease the media.
What's higher than a public inquiry when there has been a failure of public servants (Steven Lawrence/Hillsborough etc) ?
Genuine question - what would you propose as immediate action / appropriate sum ?
A full, judge-led inquiry, with the judge being left to determine the scope and terms of reference would be, in my view, the most appropriate investigation. And that should already have been started.
I'd propose an immediate, K&C task force to have been assembled on the morning of the fire, instructed to secure safe temporary accommodation immediately for everyone made homeless.
Then the Housing Dept to be instructed by the Home Office to find permanent housing in the borough within six weeks.
The Prime Minister to call for a full audit on the types of cladding used in every residential block in the UK and for an independent review of their safety and recommendations as to remedial action. Timeframe: two weeks.
And then the commitment to a spending review by the Housing Minister placed within next week's Queen's speech; to put to parliament within a month.
As for the cost? I'd just want to see all of that funded, rather than the Prime Minister making up a round number to appease the media.
The last bit sounds perfect for Diane Abbott.
as Phil says, permanent housing for approx 500 people is a big ask. I should there is already a waiting list for social housing. Could not the military be swung into action to provide temporary accommodation? not perfect but they are more adept in a crisis than a local council.
What's higher than a public inquiry when there has been a failure of public servants (Steven Lawrence/Hillsborough etc) ?
Genuine question - what would you propose as immediate action / appropriate sum ?
A full, judge-led inquiry, with the judge being left to determine the scope and terms of reference would be, in my view, the most appropriate investigation. And that should already have been started.
I'd propose an immediate, K&C task force to have been assembled on the morning of the fire, instructed to secure safe temporary accommodation immediately for everyone made homeless.
Then the Housing Dept to be instructed by the Home Office to find permanent housing in the borough within six weeks.
The Prime Minister to call for a full audit on the types of cladding used in every residential block in the UK and for an independent review of their safety and recommendations as to remedial action. Timeframe: two weeks.
And then the commitment to a spending review by the Housing Minister placed within next week's Queen's speech; to put to parliament within a month.
As for the cost? I'd just want to see all of that funded, rather than the Prime Minister making up a round number to appease the media.
The last bit sounds perfect for Diane Abbott.
as Phil says, permanent housing for approx 500 people is a big ask. I should there is already a waiting list for social housing. Could not the military be swung into action to provide temporary accommodation? not perfect but they are more adept in a crisis than a local council.
What's higher than a public inquiry when there has been a failure of public servants (Steven Lawrence/Hillsborough etc) ?
Genuine question - what would you propose as immediate action / appropriate sum ?
A full, judge-led inquiry, with the judge being left to determine the scope and terms of reference would be, in my view, the most appropriate investigation. And that should already have been started.
I'd propose an immediate, K&C task force to have been assembled on the morning of the fire, instructed to secure safe temporary accommodation immediately for everyone made homeless.
Then the Housing Dept to be instructed by the Home Office to find permanent housing in the borough within six weeks.
The Prime Minister to call for a full audit on the types of cladding used in every residential block in the UK and for an independent review of their safety and recommendations as to remedial action. Timeframe: two weeks.
And then the commitment to a spending review by the Housing Minister placed within next week's Queen's speech; to put to parliament within a month.
As for the cost? I'd just want to see all of that funded, rather than the Prime Minister making up a round number to appease the media.
The last bit sounds perfect for Diane Abbott.
as Phil says, permanent housing for approx 500 people is a big ask. I should there is already a waiting list for social housing. Could not the military be swung into action to provide temporary accommodation? not perfect but they are more adept in a crisis than a local council.
It may be a big ask, but it's also a moral duty.
You don't make progress with small asks.
True but I think the stalling point will be the `permanent' . A spokesperson for the residents has said they want to stay in the borough. To find a mix of 1/2 bedroom properties available NOW that the people LIKE is going to take time.
What's higher than a public inquiry when there has been a failure of public servants (Steven Lawrence/Hillsborough etc) ?
Genuine question - what would you propose as immediate action / appropriate sum ?
A full, judge-led inquiry, with the judge being left to determine the scope and terms of reference would be, in my view, the most appropriate investigation. And that should already have been started.
I'd propose an immediate, K&C task force to have been assembled on the morning of the fire, instructed to secure safe temporary accommodation immediately for everyone made homeless.
Then the Housing Dept to be instructed by the Home Office to find permanent housing in the borough within six weeks.
The Prime Minister to call for a full audit on the types of cladding used in every residential block in the UK and for an independent review of their safety and recommendations as to remedial action. Timeframe: two weeks.
And then the commitment to a spending review by the Housing Minister placed within next week's Queen's speech; to put to parliament within a month.
As for the cost? I'd just want to see all of that funded, rather than the Prime Minister making up a round number to appease the media.
The last bit sounds perfect for Diane Abbott.
as Phil says, permanent housing for approx 500 people is a big ask. I should there is already a waiting list for social housing. Could not the military be swung into action to provide temporary accommodation? not perfect but they are more adept in a crisis than a local council.
It may be a big ask, but it's also a moral duty.
You don't make progress with small asks.
True but I think the stalling point will be the `permanent' . A spokesperson for the residents has said they want to stay in the borough. To find a mix of 1/2 bedroom properties available NOW that the people LIKE is going to take time.
Well as far as I'm concerned, everything must be done to ensure they continue to live in K&C.
Comments
Normally I would agree but I think people are really, really angry and the response thus far from the council and government has not been acceptable - I just hope that the focus can stay on them to compel them to up their game rather than giving them an opportunity to deflect.
In the 70s a bloke joined our workplace but was seriously out of place. He told me he was put there by the SWP to agitate the workforce against management.
Other authorities to my knowledge have also contracted out their regulatory services which might include building control in certain situations.
I have zero idea whether any of this is relevant to the dreadful events of this week and the way the authority has responded to it afterwards and sincerely hope that when the enquiry takes place it is not.
Let's be clear - I agree with protest and I agree with getting your voice heard but it needs to be done within the law. Your last sentence is spot on but I fear the story will shift which is highly disrespectful to all affected and completely unnecessary and will be as a result of illegal actions of a one-track minded minority and their bandwagon jumpers.
It's happening on here already.
Why does that dumb lawyer think differently? The demands are that May order an inquest. That is not in her remit is it? It's the job of a coroner. Coroner's are strong-willed independent people who give short shrift to Government. By way of example the UK swapped the airbase the dead from Afghanistan were flown back to because they didn't like the deputy coroner that had Brize Norton on his patch. The dead were flown into RAF Lynham instead. (Labour Govt. then of course...)
Now, we have an entirely misplaced petition which 50k people have signed and ill thought out and inflammatory press coverage. Bonkers.
BTW, the aforementioned Deputy Coroner of Oxford, Andrew Walker, who seemed to so successfully get up Labour's nose, is now a coroner in Greater London....... I wonder?
Edited to add: of course the Govt. are not doing themselves any favours by not pointing this out and saying they would expect the coroner to hold an inquest.
She was pointing out that an inquest will give the chance for questioning by tenants of Grenfell. I don't know what type of inquest this is and how the coroner is connected but she intimated in my view some kind of jury involvement. The law society gazette has an article from yesterday pointing out an inquiry and an inquest are not in fact mutually exclusive as the solicitor (Sophie Khan) had said in newsnight.
"Khan's comments prompted a discussion about public inquiries and inquests. The two are 'not mutually exclusive', human rights barrister Simon McKay said on Twitter today.
McKay said a public inquiry, under the Public Inquiry Act 2005, 'will almost certainly' be chaired by an independent judge. Victims and other interest groups will be 'core participants' and can be represented by lawyers. Their lawyers can, under the Public Inquiry Rule, ask questions of any witness subject to the chair's permission".
An inquest has a narrow frame of reference, McKay said. The deaths at Grenfell Tower will likely qualify as article 2 inquests, which have a wider frame of reference.
McKay added: 'Contrary to the commentator's views last night advocates don't "cross-examine" witnesses as an inquest is inquisitorial by nature. Advocates and other interested persons can ask relevant questions. There is no requirement on the part of the witness to answer a question that might incriminate them.
'An inquest may also avoid areas likely to be the subject of a criminal investigation. Importantly an inquest cannot apportion blame - in terms of civil of criminal liability - that is not the function of an inquest. Unlike a public inquiry. Caution should be exercised by those thinking an inquest is a panacea... I'm not saying public inquiries are not without difficulties but the idea they are an attempt to divert accountability is deeply flawed."
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/tower-fire-solicitor-urges-residents-to-demand-inquest-not-inquiry/5061588.article
Still I think it is a discussion worth having. All governments are prone to promise public enquiries to take the sting out of situations too difficult for them and to push the problem down the road.
On a slightly separate note I saw there was much activity at the coroners court on horseferry road yesterday- many vans pulled up there with a police cordon, the remains of the deceased I presume.
It would seem she's pitching for business,; some might unkindly call her an ambulance chaser. I'd suggest the residents choose someone else.
Edited to add: This might help to explain the processes: 4newsquare.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Hillsborough.pdf
In the light of the matters listed in that pdf, it is surely inconceivable that an inquest will not be held?
Turns out the answer is no as the cladding is banned in Germany amongst other countries. But the Express know what they're doing, some will have read the headline and decided the EU was definitely responsible.
It's actually ironic that proper regulations might've stopped flammable cladding being used but that's too much "red tape" for the Express.
The PM and Mayor should establish the facts from the emergency services and then talk to the survivors / families - as they will want answers (understandable). Which is how events unfolded afterwards.
It seems to me though, that politicians are somehow being blamed for the tragedy and venues are being mobbed by angry crowds - thus reducing the opportunity for facts to be distributed. The PM has called for a public inquiry - the highest investigation in the land, yet folk are saying they want answers now.
How can this be achieved with masked protesters manhandling the very people who we want to get to the bottom of this matter.
And what if the Mayor/Pm were to announce that the fault lies entirely with Mr X of London ? - more violence and suffering will surely follow.
There are some firefighters, cops and paramedics who will probably never work again after this tragedy, and in my view, the locals need to calm down while the recovery and investigation work is completed and wait to hear what the authorities have to say.
Otherwise this is going to be and excuse for another Summer of inner-city riots, where more innocent people will suffer at the hands of fools.
Please God, the number of poor souls who are affected by this tragedy does not increase.
Genuine question - what would you propose as immediate action / appropriate sum ?
I'd propose an immediate, K&C task force to have been assembled on the morning of the fire, instructed to secure safe temporary accommodation immediately for everyone made homeless.
Then the Housing Dept to be instructed by the Home Office to find permanent housing in the borough within six weeks.
The Prime Minister to call for a full audit on the types of cladding used in every residential block in the UK and for an independent review of their safety and recommendations as to remedial action. Timeframe: two weeks.
And then the commitment to a spending review by the Housing Minister placed within next week's Queen's speech; to put to parliament within a month.
As for the cost? I'd just want to see all of that funded, rather than the Prime Minister making up a round number to appease the media.
Permanent housing within the borough for approx 500 people within 6 weeks - surely not possible.
As for the other items - would they really placate the protesters ?
as Phil says, permanent housing for approx 500 people is a big ask. I should there is already a waiting list for social housing.
Could not the military be swung into action to provide temporary accommodation? not perfect but they are more adept in a crisis than a local council.
You don't make progress with small asks.
Not a lot but should help.