To think an amnesty needs to be made asap for Grenfall residents

[brexitstolemyfuture]

Mayor Kahan supports this but government officials haven't granted it yet. Surely these people have been through enough without persecution for subletting or visa issues!

"But is it? Let's not forget we're always being told how "stretched" those who do the checking are and how "underfunded" everything is; if we add to that the chaos surrounding this tragedy, I'm not sure it's such a huge gamble really - at least, not enough to dissuade plenty from taking the chance"

For a start, I don't think that the quotation marks are required when describing current services as underfunded.

Secondly, yes some people will take the chance of falsely claiming things they aren't entitled to. I fail to see how granting amnesty would make this more tempting. In the hypothetical example I gave of a person illegally subletting out their appartment while living elsewhere, they ALREADY have an incentive to lie and say that they were living in the flat themselves. In fact they have a double incentive to hide the truth - to gain from being "rehoused", and to avoid prosecution. Granting immunity does not remove the first incentive, but it does remove the second.

In relation to the amnesty/immunity point, an amnesty in immigration terms will normally mean the granting of ILR (indefinite leave to remain). Not just letting people go with no action, but if picked up again we'll then take action.

They are tricky to administer and you always get loads more individuals coming forward than you predict. The ones I was involved with, which related to long term illegal entrants who had been here more than 10 years, was done for very good reasons, but we got 10x the number of people coming forward. Some of that was due to our predictions being off, but others came forwards when they hadn't been here 10 years, and it was difficult to confirm that with any certainty.

Too often, the phrase "virtue signalling" is used by bastards to make themselves feel morally superior to people who don't share their mean spirited misanthropy. Its a very twisted sort of logic; Giving a fuck about other human beings (or whales!) is not a personality failing, and admitting to giving a fuck is not something to be ashamed of.

[off topic but...] I think Virtue Signalling is a good phrase when used appropriately. I have relative who has every banner going on their FB page. Whatever is the cause of the day. But are they a good person in real life? Not really. Have they ever done anything charitable? I sincerely doubt it. They live in a very desirable property with many spare rooms. They were displaying "Refugees welcome here" on FB but I see no evidence of any practical help, let alone offering accommodation in either of their houses.

Oh the phrase certainly applies in some cases! But it is massively overused, which is a shame as like all apt phrases which become cliched, it loses its power and relevance after a while

Choice on offer here:

Would you like to be

a) a virtue signaller?
b) a wankbadger?

Good to see some honest, in depth and thoughtful debate on the subject from both sides.

Well, that was my point Lady

It is a valid phrase (I guess) but is used very often when people have nothing left to argue, so they just say 'stop virtue signalling' when the person arguing wasn't doing so, but rather just putting forward a point of view.

Then the conversation gets derailed (thus).

There are some vile, narrow minded, emotionless wankbadgers on this thread. Hang your heads in collective shame.
Carry on with the verbal abuse - we all know that's the best way to get people to change their minds and agree with you

Red the choice is not binary, nor the solution. To an extent the views expressed fall between pragmatism v idealism. But some do just come on to shout how evil anothers pov is, to signal that theirs is the opposite. That is, I think, virtue signalling, more so than their particular pov.

A bit more derailing... but some posters come on with nothing to offer the ongoing discussion/argument and just throw into the mix, "How can you be so unfeeling about the victims? You don't care " which is simplistic and trying to look better than anyone trying to make a more nuanced point. Yes, some people do seem a bit harsh, but plenty of others are trying to discuss the problems of an amnesty in a reasoned manner.

Yes, these are exceptional circumstances.

girl, please, please tell me that your username is coincidental and not invented purely for the sake of this thread? Because if the latter, then I do admit (virtue signalling or not!) that I find it a disgusting choice.

but if the illegal immigrants were not in this country in the first place, they would not have been affected by the tragedy

Victim blaming at its “finest”. Jesus fucking wept.

Some of the comments on here are truly vile. I hope you don't think you're decent people.

It is coincidental and I am sure most are familiar with the Alicia Keys track; I do realise it can be construed as distasteful when used in this instance, however I had posted before the significance became apparent.

The thing is, I'd rather an 'illegal' sublettee got compensation than the 'legal' subletter who wasn't even in the building

Incidentally sub letting has been going on for decades. I know people who were living in a sublet council flat over 30 years ago and they weren't on their own.

Mumsnut, totally agree with you.

Subletting must also have contributed to the difficulty in escaping via the single stairwell, up which the fire officers were coming as residents came down. The building seems to have been greatly overcrowded.

if so, aren't sub-letters virtually accessories to manslaughter?

Last I checked we didn't have the death penalty in this country and if we did I doubt it wouldn't be for illegal subletting. Blaming the victims is a ridiculous argument.

Doubt it would be

Piggy I think of "An Inspector Calls" so often in life!

To the PP who mentioned "virtue signalling" - there's a subtype of virtue signaller who is actively involved with certain issues, but fails to apply the same critical thinking elsewhere (eg outspoken anti-racist male who is also sexist ).

It's this that makes me feel a bit "Huh" about an amnesty, when I think of all the awful situations that happen to individuals where some understanding or allowances would be equally appropriate but are not granted (involving systems and agencies but also on a smaller scale, how we treat each other in society).

But if course when you stop to think about it, it makes sense to have an amnesty. As PP have pointed out, the ones who were profiting from subletting, whist being miles away themselves, annoyingly have to be given the same treatment, but mainly it's those who were sharing their home with family/friends, taking in a lodger etc., who are just victims of the housing situation. (Btw subletting council housing is legal if you're living in it and rent out a room, but I assume it has to be done "officially" and you wouldn't be allowed to house whole families.)
We probably also have to accept one or two opportunists may slip through the net but it's worth it to help all those genuinely in need.

In an ideal world I'd like to lock up all the illegal sub-letters.

But somehow its the sub-let tenants that are the evil ones in this because their immigration status is questionable. That's what pisses me off most.

A lot of this is dressed up as being against sub-letting, but its not. Its purely about dehumanising immigrants who are here for reasons that we don't experience in our cosy lives.

This potentially includes people who have gone through the system legitimately to claim asylum and have both got indefinite leave to remain or are still awaiting it.

Why? Both? Because any documentation they had necessary for the process would also have gone up in flame and the Home Office is not known for its pragmatism and experiences in dealing with it in the past are generally pretty hostile ones.

These are vulnerable people who have been through a lot even to get to that.

Then there are overstayers who have been in the country for years and years and have established lives here, rightly or wrongly. People who have been exploited by others because of their status.

Then there are new arrivals who have come here - sometimes risking their lives to do so - because where they have come from was that bad.

I do think there are an awful lot of people who are happy to let the criminal elements of sub-letting go on as long as they are not confronted by the fact that its British people and people with a legal right to be here, but its then the people who are ultimately exploited that are dehumanised by saying they are not worthy of support because they have been exploited and ended up in this situation because they are the criminals for being here illegally.

Where the focus is put and how it is spun is what bothers me most.

I'd rather they were given amnesty and a chance to start out properly - as these are resourceful people to manage to live like this. And were given the chance to give voice to people like them in an effort to draw attention to the subject in a different way since prosecutions clearly aren't working anyway.

Those who sublet and died, don't have a voice, if their names are not known. Not prosecuting subletters in this case, might just draw attention to the subject and the dangers of the practice in a way that hasn't been well publicised before.

Its not an ideal situation but, this is unprecedented and the wider ramifications are far more important.

I don't think idealism has a place for this reason. Idealism hurts people more than it protects them.

Of course it's gone on for years. But it has become more attractive in London because of the price of property. It must be tempting, if you have a zone 1 flat to retain it and make a mint renting it out than to come clean to the council that you have moved in with partner elsewhere/moved abroad - or, as I read online, you are working as a doctor in Wales and own a house there yet still fancy the £2K/month rental income.

But I think this fire has highlighted that subletting has a darker side: it people may possibly remain unidentified. And in this case the illegal landlords could profit from this.

probably also have to accept one or two opportunists may slip through the net but it's worth it to help all those genuinely in need

I think that's the conclusion I would draw too.

if so, aren't sub-letters virtually accessories to manslaughter?

Who managed the building as a whole - including the privately owned flats?

Who should have known who was in the building? Do they have a duty to social tenants in the building to ensure that those who have private ownership follow the law when it comes to fire safety too? That might well include who is occupying the building - and whether its sub-let.

This is the problem with the mixed nature of the building. Did those who managed the building fail to ensure it was safe for all, by not checking this.

I'm sure this is one for the inquiry, and I suspect it will be highlighted how the nature of different ownerships created fundamental problems for residents who were there quite honestly and legitimately.