Grenfell tower exposes stark inequalities in our society.

[thinkiamgoingcrazy]

In the new luxury block some of the Grenfell residents have been rehoused in, 3 flats put together are "worth" an eye watering 5 million pounds. The same amount of money as the government has pledged for the Grenfell victims.

What is the matter with our society that such vast inequalities are able to exist? When did London become an investment bank for the rich rather than somewhere for its citizens to live with dignity ?

[Why are there some "private" squares in London where the benches have plaques on them reading that they are only for the patrons of the nearby hotel ?]

Why are we such an unequal society in general with a massive gap in earnings, and a tiny precentage of our population owning such a huge amount of our wealth?

I don't think that this is a dignified or progressive way to live. Nothing against capitalism, but ffs it can't be allowed to do its rampant worst. IMO.

Insurance won't pay out immediately - they are therefore homeless.

Human nature has always been that people with more want to keep it and people with less want to take it off them. When has it ever been different? Of course communism sounds like the ideal but go try living in a communist country and see if you feel differently. Capitalism, so far, is the best system for making any society work.

starheart in this country you are not financially rewarded for innate ability, intelligence skills or rewards. Sure some people come from disadvantage and do well through ability and/or work ethic. But they are rare. They're like uncle Peter who smokes 40 a day and lived to 90. They are statistical outliers. You wouldn't recommend smoking on the evidence of Uncle Peter would you?
We have a glass floor with low social mobility. Tim nice but dim is never going to end up in social housing on a zero hours contract if he's sent to a private school and his parents milk their contacts... His mediocrity will be rewarded by a nice life, be mediocre and poor and your fucked... You've got to be extra bright and motivated to escape your circumstances hence why your an outlier.
The people are not equal so it's ok that society isn't equal is a shit argument because society is so unequal. We reward the wrong people. This is not just unfair but economically illiterate. What a waste of talent and resources...

*You'd gratefully tear your children away from their school, friends and family to be housed miles away due to a horrific fire that was not your fault, in which your children suffered terrible emotional trauma that will take them years to recover from along with possible injuries, loss of siblings/parents/friends? Leave your own job and family behind?

Because I seriously doubt that any person would do that and do it happily.*

I don't know. If I had escaped from that tower block fire and my options were another apartment block in Kensington or an actual house in Tottenham/Reading/Watford/Harlow/Bedfordshire etc I'd be bloody hard pressed to choose the option that had me living higher than jumping distance from the ground. If I had a job that could be easily done outside London and was still within, say, a 90 minute train ride of extended family I wouldn't even consider it a choice, I'd be gaining so much more than I'd be losing.

There are a lot of voices insisting that the tenants be rehoused locally but that will mean most of them living several stories up again, which for some/many survivors could, understandably, be a terrifying prospect. While the prospect of an actual house, even somewhere outside of London could be exactly what they're wishing for. I think that each homeless former Grenfell resident should be asked what it is they actually want and efforts should be made to accommodate them as individual households with unique needs in terms of coping with such a severe trauma.

And yet to improve employment oppertunities, people move away everyday.

The people of Grenfell Tower who survived will only be rehoused if they were social housing tenants. People who were privately-renting, sub-letting off of council tenants or owner-occupiers who had bought their flats will not be offered accommodation

chester the LA has a duty to rehouse anyone who is made homeless - not just social housing tenants

I think what the PP probably meant is that private renters within Kensington don't typically fall into the LA's rehousing obligation category. Isn't there an income/asset threshold?

I think that each homeless former Grenfell resident should be asked what it is they actually want and efforts should be made to accommodate them as individual households with unique needs in terms of coping with such a severe trauma

I agree. If they're happy to move they should be supported in that, but they should not be forced out in case they bring down house prices or because they are not as deserving as the Russian billionaire who owns five properties he's never visited. Nor should they be forced out because poor Tarquin who worked so hard to graduate from Oxbridge can only afford to live in zone two.

Crafty TM did say this afternoon that something along the lines if "no one will be rehoused where they don't want to go". I think she was talking about location but hopefully it includes type of property too.

Some of the posts on this thread are making me .

Have some of you read anything at all about the victims of the fire? Virtually ALL of them worked, many of them night shifts/two jobs. One girl went to sit her GCSE exam on the DAY of the fire - is that a person from a shitty, don't-care-about-education, swilling-beer-on-a-sofa-in-the-front-garden family, do you think?

And even if her family was like that, what about her? What about any of those children? One of the missing, a 12 year old boy, was described by his science teacher as having brilliant academic potential.

But he lived in a tower block in a poor area, so why should he deserve a safe home, eh? Those are just for the kids of brain surgeons, apparently.

I aheee with you Lord. I've never been so disappointed in MN in the 7 years I've been here. I thought all the benefit bashing was horrific but the attitudes toward these poor people is so bigoted and ignorant. I said on another thread, it's like reading the DM comments section.

@leanback if a refugee felt that their country of origin was so horrible that they needed to flee it, the last thing they should want into be reminded of it everyday. They were prepared to make the journey across continents and so them to insist they they need to be near familiar food, places of worship is disingenuous. If that was so important they could have stayed home. Acclimatisation is the most important thing. They have left, they are in a country of safety and they should acclimatise as not to do so would only make life harder for themselves. British food may be unpalatable to people from certain cultures but it is perfectly edible. Worship can be done in the privacy of one's own home. As for being around people speakingbthe language, they should be learning English and funding should be increased for that.
Unaccompanied refugee children should be extremely grateful to be here never mind having strong opinions on where they should live. Especially If they are children,they should be able to acclimatise and integrate quicker.

The last thing we should be doing is encouraging and fostering enclaves of different specific communities. That is the first step to refusal to integrate and building of tribal factions. It makes it easier for immigrants to refuse to integrate and to perpetuate the more backward aspects of certain cultures unchecked. I say this as an immigrant who would not want to live in a community of people from my country if you paid me. I came here to live in England and to leave my native culture.

fatdogs they are fleeing the current political climate of their country - not their culture. Most of them hope to go back once political situations have changed. They have every right to not just live in the uk and be comfortable here. Gratefulness doesn't come in to it. It's human decency and their wishes and feelings are protected by uk laws so actually they are allowed a strong opinion and have every right to voice them. Culture and identity are important.

gloriagilbert support for homelessness is not income assessed. They will be provided at the very least with emergency accommodation until they are able to privately rent again.

Crafty TM did say this afternoon that something along the lines if "no one will be rehoused where they don't want to go". I think she was talking about location but hopefully it includes type of property too.

Is that realistic though? How many available ground or first floor homes are there in the borough/nearby neighbourhoods? I guess if there are a lot of people who want to live in a lower floor flat/house some of them will have to choose between type of property or location. I read last week that before the fire residents were being pressurised to move to areas like Hastings and as awful that was, some people now might find a house by the sea and a whole fresh start more appealing than trying to cope with any sort of high-rise living again.

@leanback you can keep your identity and culture while integrating. Like I said worship can be done in the privacy of your home. You can teach or speak to your children in your native language. I don't buy the argument that the only way to keep your identity is to live in a specific location with your countrymen. In fact, for some refugees this may cause further danger as their countrymen may have opposing political or religious views or you have ethnic hatred within those from the same country and those internal rivalries which caused the warfare in their home country gets played out here in a microcosm.

I grew up in the 70's on a private residential estate, not posh but very nice.
Our town had numerous council estates that surrounded our estate.
They all varied in tenants and those that messed their place up were transferred to the worst one, where they all messed their places up.
The others were really nice, the tenants looked after them, took pride in the area and looked after each other.
It seemed to work well.

fatdogs putting an Eritrean sixteen year old boy in a rural town in Yorkshire isn't going to do much in terms of promoting his identity or culture though is it.

@leanback that 16 uear old boy will not be living on his own will he? He will be in a group home or a foster home. He would be allowed to worship in his own room. Majority of Eritrean are Christians so there should be no lack of churches in rural Yorkshire. There should be funding for him to learn english, although I believe most Eritreans are conversant in English. In fact I believe the usual reason why most refugees prefer UK to other European countries is precisely becuase English is widely spoken and they feel that they will be able to get by better than having to learn a new European language. As for food, that is something he will have to get used to. If he happens to be an Eritrean Muslim, I think there are mosques in Yorkshire. He may have to get a bus though.

And btw the UK has no duty to promote his culture. He is allowed to practice his religion and to demonstrate aspects of his culture within the law. And he can do that perfectly in rural Yorkshire.

Perhaps you argumentbisbthat people in rural Yorkshire may be less than welcoming to a young Eritrean boy. That may well be true. Them the solution is to educate them and to enforce the law if they were to act in a racist manner against him. Not to throw up our hands and say refugees should be allowed to dictate where they live (invariably in London) simply becuase they have an enclave there.

Eritreans are primarily Christian yes, but I have worked with Eritrean muslims also. They have their own special brands of Christianity - Eritrean orthodox and so going to your village Parrish is not the same as attending their own special ceremonies. Their church is radically different to our churches. The majority I have worked with also cannot speak English when they arrive here - though are very keen to access college and learn. Most of them don't attend adequate schooling back in Eritrea - they tend to come from poorer backgrounds as they are fleeing forced conscription or labour camps.

I don't understand what your argument is exactly? Why shouldn't they be placed in areas where they can socialise with people from their own country? I work with these people every day - from many different backgrounds and they want to intergrate but they also want to eat foods appropriate to their diets. They want to be in areas where they can easily access halal foods for example or where a mosque is a five minute walk away instea of an hours bus journey. There is nothing unreasonable about this. I have never met one refugee or asylum seeker that has asked me to help them find accommodation away from other people who share their country of origin.

Honestly the idea that someone should be grateful because we've allowed them to flee persecution in their own country and so should accept whatever we offer them is ludicrous. They still have wishes, feelings and needs.

So, if capitalism is so terrible and doesn't work, then show me a country where communism works, and the people are happy and equal.

@leanback in would quite like to live in a place where walking to WORK is 5 minutes walk away. But guess what, no one is giving me a house in that area. And I think going to work to earn money is more important than going and spending time on my knees praying to the great sky fairy, no? We all have to make compromises. London and other major cities are crowded and expensive and while refugees need to be housed , they should not be demanding houses in the most expensive locations simply for reasons of their convenience for trivialities. And halal food is fairly commonplace in most supermarkets now anyway.

@leanback I do absolutely agree that funding to help with refugees and immigrants in general for English and other educational qualifications should be increased. I think it is a disgrace that they cut funding for ESL lessons for immigrants.