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.

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?

I take it the reason why many women don't make it to c-level positions is basically because they're just not as good as the men. I wish someone would have told us that earlier so that women could have just calmed down and stopped complaining about sexism in the workplace.

How is the truth of one person better than the truth of another? One person thinks they did the best they could to run the building, another person thinks the building was an accident in the making. Neither one of them is lying about that. Yes, there will be facts, such as how many people lived there, the cost of cladding, the regulations about building materials etc. But facts only give one part of the whole picture. To reduce human tragedy to a list of facts is ridiculous, and not what the investigation is about. It's trying to find out the truth - not just a list of facts, but whether the fire could have been avoided, or if some person/group is liable.

How they reach that conclusion will be influenced by facts, but also by their cultural heritage, opinions, experiences etc. So why aren't the people most affected by the facts allowed a voice in deciding what the truth is?

The problem is that assessment of how 'suitable' and experienced someone is for a job is multi-layered and often not objective. It's not many years since women were considered totally unsuitable for various jobs due to being female, after all. And this meant they didn't get to develop expertise and experience and 'become suitable' because they didn't get the right training and development. TBH in some fields this hasn't changed either.

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

Nope. No-one needs to jump down your throat regarding white privilege. The beauty of what you've described means that you, as a person of colour or rather ethnic minority, are helping maintain the status-quo. Doing the work for them, as it were. Carry on.

Look at the panel. Best people in the whole world for the job, totally irreplaceable by anyone black? Really?

If the slightest bit of thought had been given to diversity, they could have found black people equally up to the job. They didn't.

There was a row on twitter recently. A maths education panel at a conference was all male. Clearly no thought had gone into it, and there were many women who could equally have been on the panel. When it was pointed out, there was bluster about how all the men were great. Well the women would have been great too, and it was unacceptable that none were there.

Same thing here. It's unacceptable, and post-hoc rationalisation of thoughtless decision-making to claim that this is the only possible panel that could have been chosen.

I did not mean that they cannot ok I will explain it better

10 people all go in for a job

9 of them all have 10 year + experence in the job

the 10th person only has 3 years in the job but is the only black person who applied

Should all the better quailfied / experenced people not get the job simply because they are white.

I REPEAT I DID NOT MEAN THAT MINORITY PEOPLE COULD NOT DO HIGHLY QUAFILIED JOBS I WAS ATTEMPTING to make a point that if 10 people were better qualified / had far more expernece but simply because they were white they should not get the job?

Oh for goodness sake!
Just because a cladding is described as asthetically pleasing in the advertising blurb does not mean - as I have previously read and has been alluded to on here - it was chosen to protect the sensibilities of the well-heeled neighbours.
Just because it's not as fire resistant as more expensive cladding does not mean it was chosen with wilful disregard for safety. It had passed safety standards.
You are looking at this with the benefit of hindsight. I have read nothing - NOTHING - that pointed to the cladding being unsafe BEFORE the tragedy. General complaints about the refurb yes, but nothing about the safety of the cladding.
As the weeks go on, rumour and suspicion are becoming rooted as fact. Is there anyone else who can see that? I find it very frustrating!

I suspect that a similar sort of recommendation will eventually be made for the owners of large buildings and developments such as Grenfell.

AwayFromHere yes, hopefully they'll follow those recommendations. Because they didn't from the fire safety report.

I think that's what people are forgetting. These people are going to be highly emotional when they see a disaster that could, in all theory, be entirely preventable.

I remember doing the Hillsborough case back at college and uni. It was clear going through that gate and letting over capacity into that overflow would make it unsafe (the stands) and that's exactly what happened.

So whilst all these things need sorting out and untangling and recommendations, part of that process will be examining why it was allowed to happen in the first place. Including why fire safety recs were ignored etc etc.

I'm amazed at the illogical comparisons drawn by posters on this thread. Typified by this post:

"Let's say there was a terrible scandal concerning something which largely affects only women. Abortion rights, rape survivors, domestic violence etc. An inquiry is announced.

The panel are all male.

Would you trust its conclusions?"

This was a FIRE IN A BUILDING. Any group of people - men, women, black, white, gay, straight, or any other identity - are equally qualified to investigate its causes. Provided of course that they actually hold some bloody qualifications about investigating fires in buildings.

That so many posters believe that white people are inherently corrupt and/or biased, and think this is an opinion that should not be kept to themselves, is frankly shocking.

Those vocally supporting the Grenfell victims in this form of race baiting do them more harm than good. Public sympathy will rapidly evaporate as this thread indicates.

Provided of course that they actually hold some bloody qualifications about investigating fires in buildings.

One of them on the panel is a former DWP worker. What relevant qualifications do you think they hold?

This was a FIRE IN A BUILDING. Any group of people - men, women, black, white, gay, straight, or any other identity - are equally qualified to investigate its causes. Provided of course that they actually hold some bloody qualifications about investigating fires in buildings.

The panel is a bunch of white lawyers and a white politician.

Noble

Arguably, yes they should have included ethnic minority panel members (not sure I think every panel member needed to be though). It may be thoughtlessness that has led to none being appointed. Though think limiting it to those of Moroccan or Nigerian descent is perhaps taking things to extremes.

In terms of the lead investigator- my understanding is that this is a judge-led enquiry- I wonder if there was possibly an issue relating to the fact that there is a relatively small pool to chose from as there are not that many BME judges (I am aware that the lack of diversity within the judiciary is a big issue and is a long way from being resolved, but that is somewhat of a tangent from here). So while I am sure that a judge from an ethnic minority background could have the relevant experience it is not necessarily the case that they are available (and even want the job- I can imagine this could be looked on as a poisoned chalice). I am not saying this IS the case- just that I wonder if that is a contributing factor.

That so many posters believe that white people are inherently corrupt and/or biased, and think this is an opinion that should not be kept to themselves, is frankly shocking.

All of us hold bias and opinions. Everyone does. Even when we try to be objective and look at 'facts' we interpret them according to our owns truths in life. Why should we pretend otherwise?

That's why diversity is so important - that we don't hear just the one story from people with similar biases. That a range of opinions is heard. That's why there are actually laws about representing different political views in the media etc.

So why would an investigation into a tragedy suddenly ignore all of that and only represent one fairly small minority of people who are far removed from what happened?

I'm sure that they are all well intentioned, honorable people, but as there's no actual official qualification required to be selected for the board, then really it reflects nothing but the bias of the people who selected the board, even before the inquiry begins.

But they're not asking for a BME Judge. They're asking that they're represented properly. Which they're entitled to do.

There's an interesting piece about their lawyers saying they may be in breach of the Equality Act via their selection process.

the 10th person only has 3 years in the job but is the only black person who applied

If they're the best person for that job out of the applicants. Then yes, of course they should.

Away with the Pixies - who do you mean by 'they' in your 2nd paragraph? Just want to clarify.

The question was asked should they get the job if they only had 3yrs experience when others have ten. The use of the word he/she wasn't used so I used they.

"There's an interesting piece about their lawyers saying they may be in breach of the Equality Act via their selection process."

Sorry, Pixie, I meant this bit.

It's a highly public and emotionally charged inquiry into a horrific event where the race of the victims may play a large role. Of course race should be part of the consideration of who is best to investigate. Stupid to think otherwise.

no pixies in my example i was showing or atleast attempt to show that they were not the best as they had fewer years of experence (i should of put qualifications in the example)

But simply asking should he of gotten the job simply because he was black?

Oh sorry kickassangel will try and find it. It explains better than I do.

How they reach that conclusion will be influenced by facts, but also by their cultural heritage, opinions, experiences etc. So why aren't the people most affected by the facts allowed a voice in deciding what the truth is?

I suppose it depends by what you means as represented on the panel. The enquiry has to be impartial and panel members must put aside any pre-conceived ideas. Perhaps an advocate could act as a representative of the victims on the panel. I agree the residents should be represented and must, either in person or by written submission, be able to give evidence. That doesn't mean they have to make up the panel or must decide on all of the members of the panel of the enquiry. The victims are unlikely to be able to be impartial, precisely because of the terrible impact of what they have experienced and the very poor handling of the aftermath.

It's from this kickassangel

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jul/21/lawyers-for-grenfell-survivors-call-for-diverse-inquiry-panel

To your impeccably PC point about people not being defined by what they are not terry, as it happens, I agree. If others did perhaps we could get past this bullshit about the ethnic composition of the enquiry panel and focus on what its purpose should be, which is finding out the truth.

The enquiry has to be impartial and panel members must put aside any pre-conceived ideas.

That's completely utterly impossible and flawed thinking. That's why enquiries have to have a broad range of different views. Because people never do put aside their own cultural heritage, even when they try to. So - the only way to make sure that the panel is as impartial as possible is to have diversity.

Otherwise you're effectively saying that you trust a white lawyer to put aside their cultural bias, but not a black one. No-one can fully think themself out of their own life experience, so we need a range of diverse life experience in order to see the whole picture. We're just getting one kind of experience if we get one kind of person viewing it.

The residents seem very well aware of this, yet still they are not being listened to when they voice their concerns.