Aibu to be so angry with the tory government regarding grenfell

[GreenTreesWithLeaves]

Grenfell should not have happened. Austerity, cost cutting, ignoring the poor, helping the rich get richer, all this led to the horrific circumstances.

Tory response? Theresa May didnt even speak to the survivor residents. A tory minister cited security reasons, yet the Queen managed to come out and talk to the residents without issue.

Tories have form for voting against safety issues in housing. All to benefit the wealthy. It is utterly shameful that these are the people that run our country, who care only for the rich.

Of course this is fucking political. Don't politicise this just sounds like STFU, move along, nothing to see here, stop being so uppity, know your place.

Of course it is political; people have died in a tower block fire where there had been repeated warnings to the management committee and the council that it was unsafe and fire was a likely outcome.

There was a 2013 coroners report with recommendations for amendments to Building Regs following the deaths in a 2009 tower block fire. Nothing appears to have been done by government with this. There is a culture and a drive to reduce red tape, austerity cuts have hit local government hard and there is a drive to outsource services to the private sector. I'm not sure if this Council's failings (if that's what it was) were due to austerity but I have definitely noticed a huge reduction in council enforcement of building regulations and housing regulations over the past 5 years and I think that's due to resources as well as a prevailing culture in which business is not burdened and building and regeneration is encouraged at all costs.

I'm not sure of the details of the labour amendment to the Housing and Planning Bill but it had cross party support, the support of Shelter, the Local Government Association and numerous other charities and bodies. It was unanimously voted down by the tories. It may not have had a direct impact on Grenfell but it - in my opinion- betrays a complete lack of concern about the conditions renters often have to live in by this government.

I would also mention the drastic cuts to legal aid which doesn't really exist in civil cases anymore. As person without a significant amount of money you don't have access to the courts which are ultimately how you hold your landlord to account.

Of course this is fucking political. Don't politicise this just sounds like STFU, move along, nothing to see here, stop being so uppity, know your place

I don't think it does. It means look at the realities of the situation in all it's complexity rather than drawing simple conclusions before the truth is known.

Catminion So by that logic, is Jeremy Corbyn responsible for the failings of Rochale and Rotherham Labour councils which both failed to respond to Asian grooming gangs raping and abusing hundreds of girls for years and years, leading to hundreds of children suffering unnecessarily?

In slightly more temperate language this time, I'm absolutely on board with not drawing hasty conclusions but TBH some are staring us in the face. Parking elderly partially sighted residents on the 20-somethingth floor of a tower block is a direct consequence of the shortage of suitable social housing. "don't politicise this" is privilege in practice. It's for people who have faith that the political system will eventually do the right thing. Well, from the point of view of the residents, I can well believe that they have zero incentive to believe that the powers that be will do anything other than kick this into the long grass. The best predictor of future experience is their very own past experience of being ignored and told to basically STFU by the system that denied them legal aid to have their voice heard.

The Labour Party as a whole should continue to address the whole child abuse scandal.

It's actually a very good example of how immediate interventions need to be made in situations, and that an inquiry, which will no doubt take years, doesn't resolve the immediate problems being created by an inadequate response right now.

It is a tory government and a tory council. The tories have the power to deal with this disaster right now, and it is being handled incredibly badly.

crosswordsalad

The policies and values of the Conservative Party as demonstrated in RBKC are directly responsible for this awful event. They have treated the citizens of North Kensington with utter contempt over a long period of time. Greed and privilege trumps all.

I don't believe it is Labour Party policy that led to Rochdale, so I do not blame JC for that.

I actually think the Labour Party do need to consider how their own attitudes and ideologies could have contributed to Rochdale/Rotherham, there does seem to have been an unwillingness to upset a section of the community. I don't directly blame JC though - he didn't, as an example vote against an amendment to a bill to prevent grooming nor was he part of a government that sat on a coroners report for 4 years that addressed how to stop a tragedy from re occurring.

the Grenfell Action Group firmly believe that only a catastrophic event will expose the ineptitude and incompetence of our landlord, the KCTMO, and bring an end to the dangerous living conditions and neglect of health and safety legislation that they inflict upon their tenants and leaseholders.

Tories = RBKC = KCTMO

KTCMO is run by the residents, who are the only people allowed to vote for the Board, who appoint the directors and managers.

Only the residents have the [power to change the management of KCTMO, not the Tories or anyone else.

Caroldecker

Have you read the Grenfell Wordpress. Do you really blame the residents?

Cat I am saying only the residents have the power to change the management at KCTMO.

Channel 4 fact-check of fitness for habitation legislation.

Carol

If it was that easy they would have done so. An article quoting one of our loca councillors who sits on KCTMO about their attitude to fire safety

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/14/fire-safety-concerns-raised-by-grenfell-tower-residents-in-2012

Cat
It's not about blame - nobody (with the possible exception of the Daily Mail) are saying the residents are responsible. It's simply that the Tories didn't control the management composition of KCTMO.

Do I think the residents have been let down badly - Yes. Do I think that the blame sits solely with any one political party - No.

What sort of steps would the residents have had to take to replace KCTMO? I am struggling to understand how they managed to remain if they were so non-responsive.

Cat
A total of 59 residents out of a total of over 11,000 properties turned up at the AGM. A further 700 voted on the proposals.

The policies and values of the Conservative Party as demonstrated in RBKC are directly responsible for this awful event

I don't believe it is Labour Party policy that led to Rochdale

Labour Party policy, probably not, but Labour Party values and practice were in part responsible.

YADNBU.
I'm very angry too. I think richer people have an obligation to look after poorer people. I always think 'there but for the grace of God go I.'

Gloria In the annual AGM, all residents of the 11,000 properties managed by KCTMO, get a vote on keeping KCTMO in charge of the properties.
This is offered as a postal vote or you can turn up on the day. Happens every year.
In Sept 2016 (the last vote) only 24 residents voted against KCTMO continuing in charge.

You wonder how accessible and transparent KCTMO actually made themselves to residents, though, and how residents were made aware of the correct channels for complaint, who to go to if you wanted KCTMO removed.

I'm not saying that lightly, just from personal experience it can be extremely hard to get a factor, for instance, changed. Private companies often do whatever they can to make process obscure to residents and make themselves seem like the least worst option. In one flat I lived in, the factor wanted to have work done on the building's exterior (a quick Google showed that the owner of the company they suggested using was the brother of the head of the factor's agency) - this was purely cosmetic but would allegedly cost each flat over a grand. They contacted residents by email but the mailing list was far from complete. They held a vote on the proposed works and didn't get a majority. So a few weeks later, they held another one (giving residents 'the chance to have their say '). All emails around this second vote were couched in coercive language, effectively trying to convince people the work was necessary. They came to the doors of tenants who had just moved in. In the end, no majority second time round and the whole affair got enough people worked up about them that they were ousted.

Now, I'm talking about homeowners here. With a lot more power and leverage than social housing tenants. And I would not be surprised if KCTMO made it as difficult as possible for residents to get effective action on their concerns.

I think that after years the residents of Grenfell became disenfranchised from the KCTMO due to their failure to respond to them. According to the KCTMO constitution 8 of the 15 Board members are residents of KCTMO properties and are elected every 3 years. To have a vote a resident also needs to become a Member.

[[http://www.kctmo.org.uk/sub/about-us/22/constitution-and-accounts]].

The Resident Members probably didn't live in Grenfell and if one did, they would be up against the other 14 and most likely would be disallowed from making decisions on Grenfell due to their 'personal interest' by living there.
I was a member of an HA Tenant's Panel (not the Board) and found that most of the other Panel Residents lived in the best properties in the best areas and had little understanding of what is what like to live in the less than best areas and properties. I got the impression that most Panel Members were more interested in their sense of importance and when the next meeting was rather than the interests of residents. I resigned after a year and ignored them after that.

Read this if you really don't think that austerity played any part.

This is no act of God, we do need to change things now, as if we didn't realise it already. Austerity hurts the most vulnerable.

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/16/worked-kctmo-nightmares-burning-tower-blocks

I'm afraid labour are just as bad for taking things e.g. Swimming pools away from people. Selling the land off for private homes.
Or attempting to.

The cladding was fire retardant on the outside. I don't think that would have raised eyebrows.

The whole point is that social housing is for people who don't have political clout; old ladies, young families, refugees etc. The job of the council is to make sure their housing is up to scratch, and the standard are those that any of us would expect in our own homes. Full stop. They were not doing this. It is disgraceful.

headofthehive, you have clearly not read that this cladding is banned in the US for buildings over 40 ft. Do you not think that someone installing it on a 24 floor building should consider why it might be banned.