To not understand why grenfell victims want the investigation panel to include Morrocan and Nigerian ethnicities

[Ijustwantaquietlife]

Surely the only thing that's important is they are experts with experience or knowledge? I can't see why ethnicity even gets into it.

Maybe I'm missing something but hecking the current panel and calling for them to be replaced as they are "too white" just doesn't sit very well with me.

I think there is a bit of truth on both points of view here. I can understand why the residents want a panel representative of them in terms of ethnic background, although I believe it is far more important that the people on the panel have the knowledge and the expertise to investigate the matter fully and thoroughly. Otherwise, what's the point of the enquiry?

I understand that there can be unconscious bias, but to say that every woman thinks the same as me, or that every person of an ethnic minority is going to think or view events in the same way is naive. There is far more to it- socio-economic background and level of education, for instance, will surely both have an impact.

To be honest, I think that almost whatever the scope or speed of the enquiry, there will be some/many residents who feel it didn't report quick enough and others who feel that it did not have a wide enough scope. The reality is that the enquiry cannot have a wide scope, be thorough AND report very quickly. It can be quicker with a narrower scope or larger, but slower.

I also think that some of what the residents are demanding is undeliverable- especially in terms of the police investigation/missing persons. I appreciate they are distressed and traumatised, but the investigation has to be done properly and the recovery is going to take time. I'm not condemning them, the residents are understandably angry and traumatised- but that doesn't mean that what they ask or demand is correct, fair or deliverable on every occasion.

For instance, I don't think they have the right to demand every council member resigns- those councillors represent more people than just the Grenfell residents. I think some of the demands on housing have also been right either, just as not all of the housing offered has been suitable. Likewise the demands for automatic residency for every survivor- although believe they could be prioritised IF they meet other mandatory criteria and checks. I'm prepared for others to say I'm lacking in empathy, although I disagree. I just don't believe situations are all black and white, good vs bad.

Vladimir "The shocking thing here is that you as an Asian woman can't see that."

wow. I'm not white and I feel as if that was a remarkably racist remark.

As if we are all just measured by the colour of our skin.

Wow HelenaDove that's interesting reading

Working to prevent it from happening again in closing the stable door after the horse has bolted stuff.

It should never gave happened in the first place.

Anyone who actually bothers to read beyond 'momentum puppets' and such other nonsense will understand exactly why GT residents are so angry.

*have

KickAss
People saying that the expertise of the panel is the most important thing, what kind of expertise?
Experts in cladding, fire safety, regulations, council meetings? Sure, they should be there.
And so should experts in experiencing life in GT, in trying to raise issues & being brushed off. Their knowledge of what happened is just as much a part of the picture and shouldn't be shut out

You see, I think that the panel members need to be experts in investigating, examining experts and witnesses, assimilating complex informationand so on. The expertise in fire cladding/construction/safety regulations and so on will most probably come from expert witnesses. The residents of GT can be called as witnesses to describe what they experienced, the way they were treated and how their concerns were not taken seriously (or at least a number of representatives, not sure each and every one could- perhaps they could all give a written submission). They would struggle to be independent and act as such in the enquiry- I think I would in a similar situation. I don't think that is "shutting them out", it is recognising that their voices must be heard, but that the way that happens is by giving evidence.

You see, I think that the panel members need to be experts in investigating, examining experts and witnesses, assimilating complex informationand so on

And you don't think any Nigerian or Moroccan people are capable of this?

Imagine warning, repeatedly warning that you feared this would happen, getting nowhere so going public with it, then being threatened with a lawyers because you dared to speak up, and well they have more money and resources than you do anyway so you're at a disadvantage from the start.

Imagine having only one stair way, and one fire escape for 23 floors. Where the escape route was blocked.
Imagine where they chose not to use fire resistant materials because the other lot was a couple of quid cheaper and well the neighbours across the road won't find it very pretty to have to look at.

Imagine where the Prime Minister met with the emergency services but not with the victims. Where children were standing at the windows watching the news helicopters, probably under the mistaken belief that they're the good guys came to save them. That the fire service didnt have the correct equipment and tried so desperately to do all they could with the little they had.

Imagine where your valid concerns are constantly dismissed, but people just think you're just a nuisance and should just be bloody grateful for your roof over your head even if it is a death trap.
Then there's other concerns, that people from the council have said publically they knew how many people were in those flats but the rumour that it was full of sublets is convenient for all. It stops the other questions being asked.

Imagine where its all well and good keeping people at bay, but then those pesky journalists come along and can afford to fight back with their own case and win a court order. Upon discovering this. You close the meeting down causing further suspicion.

Maybe just maybe, people will then understand why they want representing properly this time.

You see, I think that the panel members need to be experts in investigating, examining experts and witnesses, assimilating complex informationand so on

What makes you think they Can't be both?

If we can assume - as many here are doing - that the tragedy was caused by rich white people not caring about poor non white people why are we having an enquiry at all?
I'm being too logical, aren't I.

Awaywitthepixies, I think your post illustrates why it is not practical to allow victims to sit on the panel.
None of your points has anything to do with why the blaze spread in the way it did.
The enquiry is not there for tenants to get everything off their chest - it is supposed to be there to provide impartial answers to the questions.
Properly does not mean to your taste or the way you want things to be done.

non white people People are not defined by what are are not. I'm not a non-man, children aren't non-adults and PoC aren't non-white.

Noble

I didn't say there aren't any experts in fire safety/law etc from ethnic backgrounds. I'm sure there are. My point in my 1st post is surely the most important thing is people with the right expertise are appointed. In my second post I was referring to residents being on the panel. I'm not sure they can be impartial and unbiased investigators- I don't think I could be in their situation.

Suitably qualified people from an ethnic minority background could/should be considered (I think to exclude anyone who is not of Nigerian or Moroccan background is taking things a bit far, TBH). Equally, when it comes to expert witnesses- I think the most important thing is that they are the most appropriate people regardless of age, gender, ethnic background or religious beliefs.

Karlos, and what you have stated will be the only acceptable conclusion of the inquiry.
Anything else and there will be calls of bias, a whitewash and demands for a new inquiry.

The man leading the inquiry appears to have a past record of siding with a council, even when they're in the wrong. Not necessarily the best 'expert' to be doing this job, then. But he comes highly recommended from another "Sir" someone, so he must be the one for the job.

"Sir Martin ruled in favour of Westminster City Council in a dispute with Titina Nzolameso, a tenant who was contesting the council's decision to rehouse her near Milton Keynes. His ruling was later overturned by the Supreme Court."
That quote from Telegraph

Awaywiththepixies

Again- I did not say, or imply, that only white people can be on the panel or that ethnic minorities cannot have the expertise to be members of the panel. I said that the most qualified people should be on the panel, regardless of ethnic background.

For absolute clarity: I think that people of any ethnic background, gender, religion, socio-economic background can posses expertise in law, construction, fire safety and any other expertise that may be relevant to the enquiry.

None of your points has anything to do with why the blaze spread in the way it did.

Yeah. All that crap about not using the correct fire resistant cladding so a 23 storey building doesn't go up like a matchstick is just piffle.

Judges don't 'side' with anyone - they interpret the law in the way they think is correct.
Other judges may interpret it differently.
Do you think there should be someone who has a history of 'siding' with tenants running the inquiry? If so, it's not really an impartial inquiry you want, is it?

No, all that crap about not using the correct fire resistant cladding to save money and because it looked better for other residents is piffle.

No it is not piffle - try widening your reading range. You repeating it does not make it any more true.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/17/warnings-deathtrap-high-rise-building-cladding-ignored-decades/

KickAss

He may or may not be right for the job- but you quote one judgement out of a career how long? Does one judgement really make him unable to do a good job? If you are holding out for a judge with whom you (and everyone else) agrees with every single judgement they have made throughout their career, you could be waiting for a long time for "the perfect person" to come along.

Many have said he has the relevant experience and is an honourable man. Give him a chance. But I do think many have totally made up their minds about the outcome already, so suspect any deviation will not be accepted anyway (and I am not saying that the council or anyone else should be exonerated).

Oh and here. They really are quite easy to find for those who can be bothered.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/16/grenfell-tower-refurbishment-used-cheaper-cladding-tenants-accused/

Tell me again how the fact about them using cheaper cladding is simply piffle...

Nasty threads inciting derogatory criticism of victims have been done to death on MN. This will hopefully be deleted soon enough so, get your jollies in now

Isn't it just MistressDeeCee.

You can always tell when it's the school holidays. Boredom sets in.

I am quite happy with my reading matter AwaywiththePixies.
Nothing I read in that article says the reason the cladding was chosen was to save money and make it look nicer for other residents.
Look, I am not saying the cladding was safe - I am sure the inquiry is going to deem it to be unsafe. But you - and others - are wrapping the facts in a load of emotional claptrap, based on rumour, bias and chips on shoulders.
You have to be able to take a step back and consider everything impartially at an inquiry, and I am not sure most residents could do that.

You see, posters are at it again.
As soon as they read anything they don't like, calls start to take the thread down.
This is a discussion board, not an echo chamber.