Grenfell ex-residents should get a 3-bed house with a garden if that's what they want

[pingodolcepo]

Daily mail outrage that some of the residents are asking for a 3-bed house with a garden. But honestly, they have been through a living hell that was caused by someone else's very bad choices.

There are plenty of people in London that have a 3 bed council house, why can't these people that have dealt with horrors get one also?

I know someone that got a council house in Highgate in the 80s, was a cabbie with a good wage, bought it when offered and sold it a few years ago for over a million and now lives in a fab place with loads of land and a pool in the south of France. If plenty of normal people got houses why can't these poor residents get one? They won't ever be able to afford to buy it due to the high cost of london houses now.

I find this zone focus bizarre. Zones are just part of a tube map.

Posted too soon- also to say that Kittens sub letting post is excellent.

However, we must not turn London into a rich mans ghetto. The city is richer for generations of Londoners and wouldn't have anything like the personality it does if full of Sophie and Bens from Surrey.

I think the bottom line of the unhappiness so many of us have with this is that council housing tenants and Grenfell residents in particular are elevated to a status above everyone else.

Things that the rest of us are expected to cope with, handle, manage as every day life events are somehow regarded as horrific experiences for council housing/Grenfell tenants and must be avoided at all costs.

We all move far away from family and friends and our support networks all the time, as we find work, as we search for new opportunities, as the area we live in gets too expensive and we can't afford to live where we want. We move our children hundreds of miles, we resign our jobs, we move to places where we don't know anybody else. But we move and adapt to what we can afford and hunt for work. But oh no, social housing tenants cannot be expected to move out of a borough a few minutes away in case their life falls apart.

We rent rooms for years whilst social housing tenants get given flats. We work harder and harder and sacrifice everything to get our first flat or house, whilst social housing tenants get given flats and houses on a plate.

We live in crammed spaces in London, whilst social housing is actually built to bigger space standards than private housing. We are expected to live in small homes, social housing tenants get bigger spaces as laid down in the building standards!

We scrimp and save to do up our homes, but social housing tenants get modifications and improvements done for them.

If our homes burn down, it's up to us to have had insurance. If we didn't, nobody comes to rescue us, it's our own fault for not having insurance. Grenfell tenants without insurance get government funds and people rushing to set up gofundme campaigns to buy new furniture and clothes for them all. Whilst the rest of us are expected to have to rebuild our lives again.

We suffer tragedies, deaths, untold hardship, and we are expected to get on with it. Nobody marches for us, nobody sets up charities and campaigns to dole out cash for us, nobody comes and offers us therapy, we have to pay for it ourselves. Grenfell residents get housed in multi-million pound homes, hotels and get offered homes, all without needing to spend a £ on any of it, whilst a suite of therapists and psychologists are on standby, a whole suite of help and support to prop them up and remove any need for them to stand on their own two feet.

This inequality and elevated status of the social housing tenant is grossly unfair. Our outrage at this isn't a chip on our shoulder, isn't any anti-council sentiment, it's a genuine disgust at the situation where we are going out to work paying for ourselves completely whilst also being expected to wholly fund or subsidise others who get everything provided for them. This is what we are sick of.

are somehow regarded as horrific experiences for council housing/Grenfell tenants and must be avoided at all costs.

Well they were housed in a standing crematorium. It was pretty awful.

Franklin I find your post breathtaking to be honest.

We're talking about the most vulnerable in society. The poorest, the oldest the sickest. You know what is overwhelmingly the largest group in social housing, particularly in London? Pensioners.

Grenfell was full of owners (leaseholders) those people bought their flats in the same way you did. What helping hand did they get?

They have all paid their buildings insurance. You might not be able to pay yours- they have to. They face eviction if they stop paying buildings insurance.

I beg to differ Franklin, it's an almighty chip.

This is what we are sick of

What? Of helping the poorest and most vulnerable in society? Rather than direct your misplaced ire at the "unfairness of society" and stamping your feet, maybe a little acknowledgement that you're LUCKY.

It must be utterly exhausting to be so full of bitterness and hatred

I think the liberal press and social media want it both ways sometimes. Council tenants are portrayed as the weakest and most vulnerable in society one minute, and hard working, dignified tax payers the next.

I dare say there's truth in both, just as there's also truth in the right wings portrayal of them as takers from society.

Sure we could provide plenty examples of all types.

cathf You were right. That post of mine you said would be pulled, was. It breaks no guidelines, it is not offensive, but it did offer an alternative view and we are simply not allowed to say anything against the Grenfell propaganda machine. No doubt somebody will complain about my latest post and demand it will be pulled. We are not allowed to voice any opinion that does not fawn over the grossly unfair provisions given to the Grenfell residents whilst millions stand by and are expected to get on with their lives off their own backs.

I think, if Grenfell residents are getting special treatment (I honestly don't know who to believe in terms of whether they are) this is due to the pressure being applied by the public and media which I agree is utterly misplaced and hysterical.

The public DO NOT care about social housing. People hand wringing about Grenfell who never gave a second thought to people residing in social housing and what conditions they may live under. People who don't even know what social housing is. People who still dont understand the set up of Grenfell, the mix of residents and how they got there, how the building was owned, managed and maintained. The public don't know anything about one of the biggest welfare systems in our country because they don't care.

They have allowed social housing to be the bottom of everyone's agenda for 50 years. They have allowed themselves to be manipulated by politicians and the media to alternatively view social housing tenants as both hard working and decent but devoid of opportunities and alternatively lazy feckless and immoral.

And still, no one really cares

Bubblebubblepop
You know what is overwhelmingly the largest group in social housing, particularly in London? Pensioners. Do you know the make up of the Grenfell tower? I lived round there. I do. The statistical breakdown is widely available. They were not what you say.

Grenfell was full of owners (leaseholders) those people bought their flats in the same way you did. What helping hand did they get? This is wholly untrue. Where are you getting this rubbish from? There were just 14 leaseholders out of 129 properties. Only 14! The helping hand was that they bought their properties with over 1/3 off the value, something that non social housing tenants never get the chance to do.

They have all paid their buildings insurance. You might not be able to pay yours- they have to. They face eviction if they stop paying buildings insurance. Nice try there to evade the massive lack of insurance in the tower. Your measly 14 leaseholders might have had building insurance but you know I was referring to contents insurance and you also know that they've found that most tenants did not pay for contents insurance and are getting new furnishings and clothes and technology whereas everyone else has to pay for their own.

franklin you know Lancaster west doesn't represent social housing as a whole. However the make up of social housing tenants in k&c is majority pensioners and always has been .

As for right to buy, there haven't been any right to buys in K&C for decades. Of course they were originally bought under RTB. But are those owners still there? Doubtful. Certainly many units have been up for open sale in recent years.

I believe that yes they should be rehoused but they shouldn't be bumped up the list. I agree however that anything higher than 2nd floor may not be reasonable, this does not mean they need a house.
I've been trapped in a flat fire and rescued out the window by firemen, I did get PTSD and I can't sleep/live anywhere higher than I can reasonably jump from, which to me is 2 floors up. B&bs work for short term but not so much for long term due to the space, food and washing needs. People should not be "holding out" for something better; simply something suitable, the same as anyone else. 1 bedroom for a couple, 2 bedroom for young children etc.

The flat I was in was set alight and the fire alarm turned off. There was no windows in the stairwell so it filled with smoke very fast. The flat that was set alight was next to the fire door which people had used as bike storage.
I tried to escape down the stairs but it was pitch black and I fell. We had to run back in to our flat and try and block the door with clothes to stop the smoke coming in, it didn't work. We had to stand up on the window sill with our heads out of the window trying to breath, but the person below us had the same idea so the smoke from their window went straight up at us. When the firemen finally arrived and brought a ladder round it was too short so they had to go back round for another.

Grenfell propaganda machine

You know, there are groups and such that can afford "propaganda machines". It is very expensive. Lobbyists, PR, PA, office space, staff...

Do these poor people have those sorts of resources?

Do these poor people have those sorts of resources?

A lot of far-from-disinterested parties have flocked around "the poor people" to politicise the situation. It isn't helping in terms of a resolution.

Ebear my husband has family links going back generations on both sides. Maternal grandparents in Chelsea, paternal ones in the East end. He was born in North London, but we've never been able to live there.

His parents moved away for work, his older brother returned and lived with relatives, but as a young family we could give our children decent housing in the north. We didn't have a cat in hells chance of any kind of social housing if we'd decided that London was where we wanted to live.

Unless people have genuine connections such as permanent job and/or necessary family support there isn't a logical reason why they can't have a nice home in parts of the country where the demand and overcrowding is far less.

The logical reason is it's not about people making a life out of London. The logical reason Is that London would be a much worse place without those people in it!

I think the point people are missing here is that Kensington & Chelsea council have been exposed as the Rotten borough that they are,

Hopefully one good thing to come out of this tragedy is that they will be forced to spend some of the hundreds of millions they have kept in reserves,
A lot of which was accumulated from the rents & council tax of the people they are now neglecting,

The state of their care homes & council homes is shocking !

I think the point people are missing here is that Kensington & Chelsea council have been exposed as the Rotten borough that they are,

Indeed, but some of the "advice" that the tenants are now getting from all comers isn't pure hearted either. At least the local authority is now under intense scrutiny.

I AGree. K&C have got away with being arrogant and lazy for decades.

And the worst thing is there are hundreds of councils who are the same

A lot of far-from-disinterested parties have flocked around "the poor people" to politicise the situation. It isn't helping in terms of a resolution.

I struggle with this. Social housing is important. And while I am not sure if investigations have concluded, it seems very likely that the lack of sprinkler systems and the type of cladding used turned this into a disaster of epic proportions.

If the decisions to not install sprinkler systems and to use that particular cladding were made either because of lack of funding, or unwillingness to spend on social housing, then that is a political issue. It absolutely is.

Being given social housing in central London is not just being given a home. Because of the massive disparity between social and private rents it is a literal gateway to a whole second income. It's winning the housing lottery

Which might well explain the PP's remark about some requesting houses for their adult children as well as themselves

And I know this isn't the point at all, but where's Lily Allen in all this? Oddly enough I haven't seen her around for a while, swivelling her goggle eyes to catch the nearest lens ...

You've lost me make.

Is some part of your post supposed to relate to (or contradict?) my post that you quoted?

I can't see any connection at whatsoever.

Are you sure you understood what I meant and aren't inflicting other meanings on my words?

We're talking about the most vulnerable in society. The poorest, the oldest the sickest. You know what is overwhelmingly the largest group in social housing, particularly in London? Pensioners.

Why assume everyone in socially housing is poor or vulnerable? Social housing rent is pretty cheap compared to a mortgage or private rent which means even on a low wage, social housing tenants are often better off than "rich" private tenants who not only have to pay much higher rents but have to pay out of earned income and are not normally entitled to any benefits, whereas someone working 16 hours a week on minimum wage with children will have lots of top ups and satellite benefits.

In the end the "rich" person living in zone 5 having to commute at 6am to central London (paying ££££ for a yearly travelcard), doing a 37 hour week on £50k (not entitled to any state benefits) ends up no better off after tax than the person in secure tenancy, larger property in central London doing a 16 hour per week job.

The only people who can really afford to live in London are the very rich and those in social housing/getting housing benefits, there are now very few middle income earners in central London, it has become a place only for the rich/social housing tenants only and has lost it's diversity.