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.

But you - and others - are wrapping the facts in a load of emotional claptrap, based on rumour, bias and chips on shoulders.

Bollocks. Facts are not emotional claptrap. That's how I know you haven't read the links because they don't fit with your preferred narrative. This is a wide forum with a wide demographic where people will disagree with you occasionally. You may need to look a little closer for that chip, you'll find it may be sitting on your own shoulder.

I think it depends on the purpose of the inquiry and the role of the panel. If it is a purely technical inquiry, then recognised experts in the technical subjects should be on the panel. From a visual perception, it would be good if they spanned the spectrum in terms of ethnicity, gender etc but not at the expense of expertise.

If the panel is to also consider previous representations from the tenants and their validity or otherwise, then it makes sense to ensure the panel can fully understand where the tenants were coming from, in terms of culture, education etc. as, for example, what might be considered a forceful complaint in one culture might be considered a vague mention in another culture.

Plenty of inquiries have resulted in a whitewash even when it was patently obvious where the fault lay (e.g. Bloody Sunday) so I can fully understand why the residents would like reassurance that their positions will be properly represented.

Can you point me where it has been established as fact that the tower was clad because it looked better for the others living in the area?
Can you point me to the fact that the cladding was chosen because it was cheaper, even though the council knew it was unsafe?
Can you point me to the fact that the council are covering up how many people were in the flats.
None of the above are facts - they are your own take on the situation. The articles you link to do not prove anything you have stated as fact.

There are plenty of people who argue there is 'no proof' that the Shoah happened.

Some people got ill living in unhealthy conditions died. It was tragic.

Can you point me to the fact that the cladding was chosen because it was cheaper, even though the council knew it was unsafe?

I just did. In the link I posted.

If you want an example of an inquiry of this sort that was handled well it might be worth taking a look at The Cullen Report into the Piper Alpha Disaster. Personally I feel that there are far more parallels to be drawn with this incident and Grenfell than there are with Hillsborough and where the focus of the investigation should fall - i.e. The most significant conclusions will relate to the root causes and how to legislate to avoid such a tragedy happening again.

This too dealt with safety regulations after something that could have been prevented if better systems had been in place at the time. It has had a far reaching impact - globally in fact and the recommendations revolutionised the way in which hazardous industries manage their safety to this day. It is hard to underestimate how significant this has been. It most certainly did not pull any punches.

The Grenfell inquiry should be used as an opportunity to emulate this and not get bogged down in emotive issues of ethnicity, race, poverty or "class" in the context of what that report should be looking to conclude. Those factors I agree are hugely significant in what might have made the victims vulnerable in the first place but should not influence the make up of the appointed inquiry board - a responsible and well conducted enquiry should make sure that those voices are heard.

It is hard to underestimate how significant this has been. It most certainly did not pull any punches.

Not at all AwayFromHere. I believe that the the recommendations they made in 2013 would be much better if they were mandatory rather than advisory.

Going off on a tangent a little bit, there was a worker severely injured on a new building by a company I shall remain nameless. The worker was still in rehab a year later (head injuries). There was a big change after this, and I had a little smile to myself when I passed a building site recently with the same company ans there had been so many changes and their H&S policies were stringent. So even though very sad for the worker, it helped change and probably prevent further accidents by them improving their standards.

Ijustwantaquietlife

I agree with you fully. I hope their wishes are ignored. Their obvious prejudice against white people is offensive. As you have stated, as an Asian, it is offensive to you that the idea that someone that shares the same skin tone as you could represent you better, and please don't get me started on the prejudice regarding class.

not get bogged down in emotive issues of ethnicity, race, poverty or "class" in the context of what that report should be looking to conclude. Those factors I agree are hugely significant in what might have made the victims vulnerable in the first place but should not influence the make up of the appointed inquiry board - a responsible and well conducted enquiry should make sure that those voices are heard.

I totally agree with that. From what I've seen of the residents interviewed I don't think they understand the process at all and believe it's just a board amongst themselves that will decide without input from others.

... that was a bit of a ramble but if anyone is interested the Cullen Report made a key recommendation for "safety cases" which ensured that the operators of offshore platforms were able to demonstrate to the HSE that they were reducing and then managing the risks that they had - also ensuring that they were directly liable for it if not . I suspect that a similar sort of recommendation will eventually be made for the owners of large buildings and developments such as Grenfell.

This is part of a bigger trend.

People don't want experts, as illustrated by brexit and the Charlie Gard case. The skin colour is a red herring.

It would be a bit racist to assume that they couldn't find any black experts and only white ones were available.

Obviously what happen was that they didn't give any thought to diversity because people rarely do unless prompted. Clearly given the ethnic diversity of the victims, more thought should have gone into this. It's rather telling that it didn't.

It wood be racist to assume they would only trust a black expert.
I think the race of the experts is irrelevant, people want feelings any understanding, not cold hard experts talk.

Seems a pretty sensible idea to me. They will bring linguistic ability with them

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.
cheaper
cheaper
Aesthetically pleasing

As PP have said I think it is odd not to have some representatives of the residents on the investigation panel. These days in healthcare there is a clear obligation to include patient representatives on a panel, as they are the 'experts' in being patients. I don't see that this is any different, and ideally the representatives of the residents on the panel would reflect the ethnic, social and economic background of the residents. In reality how helpful this is is probably very variable, as 'the residents' are probably from a very diverse range of situations, but at least it would be better than not including any representation at all.

I would feel the same if an all male pannel discussing female reporductive rights.

Yes. That.

I totally agree with that. From what I've seen of the residents interviewed I don't think they understand the process at all and believe it's just a board amongst themselves that will decide without input from others. As happened with Hilsborough, you mean...

It's rude and patronising to claim that people don't understand the process when in fact all they are doing is asking for a fair process.

do you guys really want a token minority of the panal or do you want the right person on it?

It really boils my piss when people say whitewash and all boards should be divirse.

So in the case of this should people be positivily discriminating for all things? should people get jobs simply because of their skin colour sex or sexual preference? or should it be simply the best person for the job?

In a horrific awful scenario where a large group of people from mainly ethnic minorities burned to death trapped in an unsafe building, it's stupid to not pay any attention to race, and hard to justify a lack of sensitivity to the issue.

do you guys really want a token minority of the panal

Because any black person on the panel couldn't possibly be an expert?

A lot of this rhetoric is making me rather uncomfortable - it's the inverse equivalent of Alf Garnett going to A&E and being stroppy about being treated by an Indian Doctor.

The inquiry if led effectively (and there is no reason to suggest that it won't) will be inclusive, allowing all voices to be heard and where relevant issues of race and ethnicity to be raised if appropriate. Interviews of the thousands involved from victims to responders to subject matter expects may well be interviewed by members of their peer group (maybe defined by ethnicity or even through necessity where there are language difficulties...) as appointed by the enquiry panel - those listed won't have time to produce and record all of that data on their own, it's simply not possible!

This is awful that this is being hijacked for points scoring in this way.

i am not saying that black people cannot be experts but if you had for example doctors and in the field the 10 best are all white would you want someone who is not the top of the field because they are not black?

Should those 10 better / arguable more experenced not get the job because they happen to be white?

So in the case of this should people be positivily discriminating for all things? should people get jobs simply because of their skin colour sex or sexual preference? or should it be simply the best person for the job

There is a perfectly legitimate argument that says both these things can happen. Really, lesbians, black people, asian people, they can all be engineers, teachers, doctors, dustmen. There, every day is a school day, worrid

And before anyone jumps on me I am in fact not white but of native indian decent not that it matters in my opinion but i am sure someone will jump down my throat about white privilage