Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

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

218 replies

Ijustwantaquietlife · 26/07/2017 13:09

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.

OP posts:
noblegiraffe · 26/07/2017 21:34

You appear to be saying that the suggestion that the investigative team be diverse is somehow unfair and not in the public interest, despite the victims being part of the public and the ones directly affected by it?

KarlosKKrinkelbeim · 26/07/2017 21:42

I think my question has been answered.
Time for bed.

noblegiraffe · 26/07/2017 21:44

Rather early, but off you go.

AwayFromHere · 27/07/2017 03:14

NOBLEGIRAFFE: the FCO support available to expats is actually quite limited although they will help you to find support in whichever location you may find yourself in difficulty. To give an example they may be able to point you in the direction of means to be evacuated from a country or visit you in jail to ensure your rights are not being violated (as far as possible) but they certainly don't come along and scoop you up onto the first flight out having "pulled a few strings".

This inquiry is an incident investigation which will be managed and coordinated by the appointed panel, they will have wide ranging authority to appoint further subgroups to pursue the root causes of different issues set out in the Terms of Reference of the inquiry. -

Many of these will be technical (cladding/ building design...) some will be looking at the degradation of fire safety legislation no doubt and surely there must be questions about why so many of the most vulnerable were affected or lost their lives.

A hugely important part in all of this is that a common process has to be followed for each line of enquiry - usually root cause analysis, this requires input from subject matter experts and stakeholders to reach the conclusion (and this is the important part...) the conclusion or root will always define the ultimately responsible party for each issue and the failures at each stage. It is impossible to do so correctly without the necessary stakeholders or their representatives being given a role. Take look at Taproot or Kelvin Topset methodologies for an idea of how this works.

The panel will not be simply sifting through mounds of media reports and then making arbitrary judgements based on their bias - they will be coordinating an enormously complex and difficult process while trying to keep bias as far away from it as possible, they will no doubt then have to be quizzed on their initial findings and content by an all parliamentary committee before publishing their findings and recommendations - hopefully many of which will become enforceable legislation with penalties for failure under corporate manslaughter provision or similar.

The attempt to reduce this action to an argument about race representation is unbelievably crass and by definition the enquiry will have to be as inclusive as possible at all stages. It dishonours the dead, the survivors and those that responded so bravely as well as the communities that pulled together.

My family are mixed race in many permutations and all of this misdirected outrage is starting to make me think that large swathes of us from all sections of British society are losing our rational brains and our humanity. Of course we are angry about Grenfell, why is the attempt to put it right being cheapened before it gets chance to get off the ground?

MagdalenNoName · 27/07/2017 07:57

I think the shorter answer to that enquiries have 'gone wrong'. The Chilcot enquiry was widely seen as a whitewash and the initial enquiry into Hilsborough failed to deliver justice to the victims. It's been difficult to set up the enquiry into historic child abuse because people appointed to head it have had links to Establishment figures who were suspected of complicity in abuse. The murder of Stephen Lawrence is a further example of the way in which official bodies may fail to go about investigations in an effective way. The Government's initial response to Grenfell was also too little too late. So it seems important that now strenuous efforts are made to get the scope of the enquiry right. (The initial stated remit was too narrow.) And also to ensure that the make up of the panel is one that is as acceptable as possible to a deprived and diverse community that has suffered terrible losses.

CasperGutman · 27/07/2017 08:28

My initial reaction to this was the same as the OP's: what does ethnicity have to do with fire engineering? But the public enquiry isn't (or ought not to be) only concerned with technical issues. There is also a need to address the context, which was one in which the residents of the tower felt marginalised and ignored.

It is not obviously unreasonable to suggest that race was a factor in this marginalisation, or that a person's ethnicity affects their experience and understanding of racial discrimination.

Andrewofgg · 27/07/2017 08:59

I don't suppose there will be any illegal sub-tenants on the panel either. Or immigration overstayers. But that does not make it unrepresentative either.

AwayFromHere · 27/07/2017 09:04

Sorry if I've missed this further up the thread but this might help and be worth following - you have a day to sign up for IOSH if you wish to contribute to the TOR:

www.iosh.co.uk/MyIOSH/Consultations/Grenfell-Tower-fire-Public-Inquiry-Terms-of-Reference.aspx

noblegiraffe · 27/07/2017 09:05

I think the shorter answer to that enquiries have 'gone wrong'.

Exactly. You'd have thought that the government would have learned from past experiences. Justice must be done, but it must also be seen to be done. And if your inquiry is seen as problematic from the start because it's a bunch of white folk investigating what a bunch of mostly white folk did, when the victims are mainly ethnic minorities, then that's not good. There is a long history behind why the victims might be wary of this set-up.

Andrewofgg · 27/07/2017 10:12

The survivors are asking for what is not to be had: such as for the judge to have people arrested. It's no use asking for the tumbrils; it's not going to happen and it shouldn't happen.

noblegiraffe · 27/07/2017 10:59

They shouldn't have to have asked for a diverse inquiry team, that should have been done as a matter of course.

MagdalenNoName · 27/07/2017 13:36

The MP David Lammy has called for the police to bring a prosecution for corporate manslaughter, so it's not just the immediate community, who feel that justice would be served by prosecutions happening.

I think that if disaster had struck my family and the Government's response had been to send a judge to hold a public inquiry, one of the questions I'd want to ask - given that the offence of corporate manslaughter exists - is 'Will your inquiry help bring those who have been responsible for the deaths of my neighbours to justice?'

Andrewofgg · 27/07/2017 14:59

David Lammy might like to think whether prosecutors might better wait until the evidence is there . . .

In any event Sir Martin does not have the power to have anyone arrested.

And witnesses will be entitled not to incriminate themselves and look out for angry reactions when they exercise that right.

MagdalenNoName · 27/07/2017 19:07

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jul/27/met-says-grenfell-council-may-have-committed-corporate-manslaughter

This was on the Radio 4 6 o'clock news as well.

So we shall hear more.

HelenaDove · 27/07/2017 19:15

Corporate manslaughter = fine.

twitter.com/DavidLammy/status/890628641431797760

Andrewofgg · 27/07/2017 20:51

Corporate manslaughter means a fine because as a judge said in the eighteenth century a corporation has no soul to be damned and no body to be kicked. Making a local council pay a fine out of the local taxpayers' money to the Treasury for the benefits of all taxpayers might not seem a purposeful activity. The private concerns might go into liquidation. Don't shoot or even flame the messenger; that's how it is.

AwayFromHere · 28/07/2017 03:32

Not quite straightforward... depends on the evidence presented and decision to prosecute or not:

^www.hse.gov.uk/corpmanslaughter/faqs.htm#directors^

"Will directors, board members or other individuals be prosecuted?
The offence is concerned with corporate liability and does not apply to directors or other individuals who have a senior role in the company or organisation. However, existing health and safety offences and gross negligence manslaughter will continue to apply to individuals. Prosecutions against individuals will continue to be taken where there is sufficient evidence and it is in the public interest to do so."

Andrewofgg · 28/07/2017 08:18

What is very obvious is this: that if any person or organisation is charged he or she or it will be entitled to make a defence at court and not reveal it in advance to the Enquiry . . . no matter how much David Lammy or the survivors protrst about it. Early prosecutions will not help anyone get to the whole story.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page