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!

@bigyellowjumper no, but just usingbit as an example. If you see the way they hate LGBT people, you would be shocked to think they would even use that or associate themselves with that albeit for their own gain. Never underestimate how peiple will sacrifice their own deeply held beliefs of right and wrong if they see an ultimate benefit for themselves

fatdogs, I agree.

In fact, I don't give a damn if they house the genuine victims in empty mega mansions in Kensington, and I think I said so on the thread about Corbyn wanting to seize rich people's vacant homes for Grenfell victims.

But what bothers me intensely is a policy or announcement that could fuel or further complicate the disastrous situation we currently have in Europe as regards illegal immigration, human traffickers and criminal networks.

The reality is that, after Grenfell, no British government can viably deport or prosecute any illegal migrant involved in a similar incident, regardless of whether the circumstances in their case were caused by arson or not.

You can't turn round to a bunch of illegal migrants with charred clothes and singed hair, and say: "Sorry, we have to deport you now because, well, your fire was arson set by a scumbag trafficker and not an accident like Grenfell."

So it isn't too far-fetched for a vested criminal interest to assume the same and say: "Pay us twenty thousand euros and we'll torch your residential building so that the British government won't deport you."

fat I just think it's a ridiculous example to use. No doubt many people will try to come to the UK using nefarious means. No one is saying otherwise.

But it is a big step from 'they pretend they're gay' to 'they might set more houses on fire'.

@bigyellowjumper let's hope so. I see it as a scale of people willing to sacrifice their personal idea of morality. Let's say I'm gay is on one end of the scale as it may only impact on him and let's torch a building is the other extreme ad it may impact on countless others. The difference is how desperate you are.

I would like to think that we, as a country, take moral responsibility.

We could just wash our hands of the victims who are here illegally and go 'oh well, sorry about that, bye' but I'd like to think we are better than that.

If some people take advantage of that, then that is the price you pay for living in a just society.

That is without adding in the fact that many immigrants come from countries that have issues that stem from a direct result of British foreign policy both past and present. That adds a certain moral responsibility, although many people seem keen to deny that. Perhaps that fact quite over-complicates matters on this issue, however.

But it is a big step from 'they pretend they're gay' to 'they might set more houses on fire'.

Well, it has been known for migrants to set fire to shelters in protest at their living conditions or asylum status.

This story is from the BBC last year about the Dusseldorf shelter fire.

"One group of men not taking part in the fast complained that their meals were not big enough. "We're looking at this as the motive," an investigator said."

Then it happened in Lampedusa last year as well.

Reuters article about the Lampedusa shelter fire that suggests previous arsons have been caused by migrants not wanting to stay in Italy

So setting residences on fire is not as unthinkable as may first appear.

BigYellow 👏👏👏

quiet

Indeed.

But do you think that giving people amnesty this time will result in an increase in arson?

I think the people who would do that would do it anyway regardless. Or something equally as damaging.

Big That is without adding in the fact that many immigrants come from countries that have issues that stem from a direct result of British foreign policy both past and present.

But you can just as well say that these many of these immigrants come from countries that have issues that stem from hundreds of years of Ottoman Imperial policies and post Ataturk Turkish attitudes to former Ottoman territories post-imperial collapse and the subsequent power vacuums that arose in many Middle Eastern countries that gave rise to pan-Arabist movements that then fell into disrepute and gave way to religious sectarianism.

Or you can say these people come from countries with issues that arose from Soviet foreign policy in the twentieth century.

I mean, who really screwed up Afghanistan? Britain? Or the USSR back in the 70s? Or the US with its funding of cold-war-era jihadi groups to fight said Soviet invasion troops?

And look at Algeria, Mali, Libya, Somalia and the Congo. Do their their problems stem from British imperialism or French, Italian and Belgian imperialism?

And I have to remind you that Syria was French mandate post-Ottoman collapse; it wasn't British.

No-one is saying that every problem in the world is a result of the UK.

And of course other countries need to accept their part in wars/colonialism.

But the UK gets involved in every war going and sells arms to those countries.

So we also have a responsibility.

You can't just say 'but these other countries did bad stuff too'. So? I don't see how that's in any way relevant to what I said.

You can't turn round to a bunch of illegal migrants with charred clothes and singed hair, and say: "Sorry, we have to deport you now because, well, your fire was arson set by a scumbag trafficker and not an accident like Grenfell."

Not intentional, I'm sure Corday but you sound like you are being flippant. It's not funny.

In addition:

Thing number one : I would be happy for them NOT to be deported anyway. I would be happy for that precedent to apply

Thing number two : not all illegal immigrants emerge form circumstances you describe with gangmasters etc. Khadija Saye, for example, had visa issues

Thing number three : you really do behave , perhaps born out of personal experience as if Grenfell Tower, perhaps even the entire country, is/was stuffed full of the most extreme form of illegal immigrants. I still have heard no evidence of this.

Thing number four : you seemed to ignore previous comments about precedent being a complex legal issue to be argued by lawyers (expensive lawyers) on a case by case basis.

ps not sure any inquiry or inquest will say Grenfell was an accident

Fucking hell, I really hope none of the Grenfell residents or their friends and families reads this thread.

No they shouldn't, they are different issues. I also don't agree with Khan wanting people who are in the country without visas, to be automatically been given visa's to stay because they were living at Grenfall tower. Amongst other issues I think this will result some people see it as acceptable to start fires in order to gain amnesty and the right to automatically be given right to stay. I do think that the people at Grenfell should be fast-tracked regarding visa application though.

spelling errors in that were really bad sorry :)

Surely anyone could turn up without anything at a police station and say I'm a Grenfell survivor give me my visa.

No fucking way.

Why the hell should these people have citizenship handed to them based on the face they were living in the country illegally and renting somewhere, also illegally.

Britain needs to get more in line with the Australian view, if you don't belong here legally, get out. We will deport and we will prosecute.

It's a massive tragedy, but the death toll is likely so high for people ignoring the law.

Yes, the death toll is so high because the council appears to have ignored the law regarding cladding : a law which is applied in Australia.

I normally engage with views and debate viewpoints but yours are too odious to even bother. I am fairly sure the Australian govt don't lack compassion, despite your assertion.

There is no evidence to suggest the building was overly full. Difficulty in evacuation was caused by a number of , mainly structural and procedural, causes.

It's a massive tragedy, but the death toll is likely so high for people ignoring the law.

Unless the people you're talking about are the council or construction companies (who may have broken the law - we will see when the inquiry reports), this is bollocks.

The residents were not responsible for the death toll. A 120 flat block is always going to have a huge number of people living in it, regardless of whether those people are legally in the country.

This thread is fucking horrible. They won't hand out visas or houses to anyone that walks up fgs, they will have some system in place.

I just think people latterly coming on to the thread haven't even read the first few pages where pole discuss what the amnesty could be granted for and why.

It's not about changing immigration status. it is partly about the prosecution (or not) of subletters and not perhaps pursuing some visa issues. I am sure they will be very very careful about that latter one. It is also about needing to identify the dead.

I am more than confident that the vast, vast majority of folk in Grenfell were legal residents.

People not pole...

Agree Piggy.
They are not having citizenship handed to them "on a plate". That is not even being proposed. Not by Khan, not by be me, not by anyone on this thread.
The amnesty is about giving people who may be living "under the radar" of authorities the confidence to make themselves known to the authorities (if they need minor medical help, or if they want to report someone else as missing) without fear that in doing so they are making themselves known to the authorities.

The amnesty is not just about illegal immigration either, but about other minor crimes too: Like a single mother who moved her boyfriend in without telling the benefit authorities. Or someone letting out a spare room to a lodger without their landlord's permission. If that boyfriend/lodger is now missing, she should not fear punishment for reporting him missing.

Although there may have been illegal immigrants living in Grenfell, there is no evidence that it was packed full of the most desperate, most criminal immigrants. There is ZERO evidence that any of them were war lords.

All those saying we should not help those in case it encourages others to burn down their homes; I suppose you're passionately opposed to the Make a Wish foundation too?
Given how it so blatently encourages parents to mutilate/poison their children in exchange for a holiday?

"I don't see anyone who is resentful and angry about any of the victims, illegal or otherwise receiving handouts and assistance."

Look harder, because I do. There were one or two on this thread ("where's the pop song for cancer sufferers?" etc), and more on other mumsnet threads, and loads more haunting the comments sections of news articles, facebook etc.
Its awful.

I am more than confident that the vast, vast majority of folk in Grenfell were legal residents.

You may well believe that Piggy but it is quite likely to be pretty untrue. Illegal subletting in London is rife and in area like Kensington where the true tenant can make a lot of money (some of the private flats were renting for £2,000 a month) it is likely quite a few were doing so.

Also overcrowding. My DH works a lot in areas like Barking, Dagenham etc. He sees not only very overcrowded flats and houses but sheds with maybe 5 or more people living in them.

I am not cold or hard hearted. Of course I have sympathy for the residents, legal or not. I cannot begin to imagine the horror they went through and of course they deserve help with somewhere new to live, money, clothes etc.

I don't think anyone renting illegally should be prosecuted. I do however think the legal tenants that were subletting should be prosecuted.

I also am not sure that anyone that lived there being in this country illegally should just be dealt with by a blanket ignoring of the rules and laws.

This article might help some people understand why an amnesty may be necessary. If people are too scared to even seek medical help, they will surely be too scared to approach the authorities with accurate information on who was residing where in the tower. It should also help some people understand why a "secret" "fudged" amnesty would be pointless.
www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/22/grenfell-tower-survivors-too-scared-to-seek-help-because-of-immigration-status?CMP=share_btn_tw

One woman from north Africa was referred to De Zulueta by a volunteer psychological counsellor because she was complaining about a possible head injury. “On her way out of the building, coming down the stairs, she hit her head and she lost consciousness for a few minutes. Someone helped her out of the building,” the GP said said. Her partner and other relatives are still missing, presumed dead. “The counsellor said she was too scared to go to hospital.”

De Zulueta, who lectures in public health and primary care at Imperial College, continued: “She was visibly distressed, she had short-term memory loss, dizziness, headaches – symptoms which could relate to traumatic stress or which could indicate brain injury. While I was talking to her, her level of consciousness was fluctuating, which is another sign of brain injury.

“I felt quite strongly that she should go to A&E. She was very reluctant. When I asked if she was frightened to go, she nodded.” She called an ambulance for the patient and persuaded her to go. “I told her there would be no repercussions and that she would be safe,” she said.

....

“The people who are more longer-term UK residents are more vocal and forthright about their rights. The more marginalised don’t know their rights,” Sacranie said, after attending two legal and housing advice meetings for residents on the estate.

....
“A lot of the victims are not able to navigate the system. The people who were marginalised previously are now even more so; you won’t see them going to the community meetings; you won’t see them asking for something. They need a voice,” she added.