Grenfell-ex-residents-should-get-a-3-bed-house-with-a-garden-if-thats-what-they-want? - thread 2

[cathf]

Don't know how to do links
But this is to continue discussing the Grenfall-ex-residents-should-get-a-3-bed-house-with-a-garden-if-thats-what-they-want? thread

Op my df was a senior figure in local authority housing (I'm trying to be vague) for over 30 years. He also grew up in a council house himself so he was no snob. What you have said about your experience as a young reporter is exactly what he told me over the years. He would also tell if fire doors being propped open and smoke detectors damaged. It's a bloody hard job running social housing.
(Interestingly I remember as a child shitty stories in the media about the big bag council where the tenant would be quoted but the reporter wouldn't use a quote for a council spokesperson as that spoiled a good story).

That's actually a dreadful smear against not only Moore-Bick but English Law.

There have long been questions regarding the lack of diversity in English Justice. For instance Lady Hale works hard trying to get more women in silk.

Perhaps it matters?

I don't think the Grenfell action group was talking about having female representation. They wanted diversity based on ethnic background. That sounds peculiar to me as London is very cosmopolitan, and anyway how would having a Panel affect the investigation/testimony/evidence? Curious to know, Make.

It strikes me after reading Misseliza's post that there seems to be a gulf in opinion between those who have been involved in some way with social housing and those who haven't.
I suspect the latter are accepting the propaganda from tenants groups and rabble rousers at face value, whereas those of us who have been closer know the reality is often different.
There is one man - I won't name him - who is very strongly connected with Grenfell, and I was not at all surprised to read that he is still not rehoused. I noticed him straightaway after the disaster and I recognised him immediately as the trouble maker that is involved in every tenants group.
He will not accept help with housing because he is determined to wring every last drop of victimhood and point scoring against the council from the disaster.
He has been working up to this for as long as he has lived in social housing, and he is going to make the most of it.
PPs like Makeourfuture think people like this have no voice and have appointed themselves as the voice of the oppressed, but really, they haven't a clue.

Also, do people know what the purpose of a public inquiry actually is? It is to try to drill down to that cause of the disaster and put recommendations in place to prevent it happening again.
It is not a group therapy session so tenants can be 'heard' and complain about the HA/council/Government.
I don't see what difference the ethnicity of anyone on the panel would make, as the social make-up of the tenants should be completely irrelevant to the conclusion of the inquiry.

PPs like Makeourfuture think people like this have no voice and have appointed themselves as the voice of the oppressed, but really, they haven't a clue.

Perhaps. I am wondering if any of you guys are fire safety specialists. Perhaps you are.

Perhaps if there are some medical professionals here they can describe to us what the temperatures generated in that furnace/vortex did to those people.

I don't see what difference the ethnicity of anyone on the panel would make, as the social make-up of the tenants should be completely irrelevant to the conclusion of the inquiry.

Perhaps it makes no difference at all. I recall reading studies here and there that say that people can be swayed by things like ethnicity and such. For instance I believe in this thread that someone stated that "people from these backgrounds lives were cheaper".

I'm not a fire safety expert, but I am not sure how relevant that is to the original question?
I don't think anyone would disagree that the disaster was horrendous and the suffering terrible.
But, the point is, that does not mean that houses miraculously appear and they are all given everything they want.

cathf i was searching for one of your old posts to prove how disingenuous you were being about tenants in general But at 14.51 today you did that for me.

On the previous thread you were saying how unfair the Grenfell tenants were being by refusing housing which is a bit more complicated than that...........and how unfair it is to other tenants....................yet i know on previous threads you have slagged off tenants in general and it really knocked me sick to see you pretending to care when it suits you. I couldnt find that old post of yours but now i dont have to as you have demonstrated it at 14.51 today.

And you know damn well that there are certain repairs that tenants arent allowed to touch because it violates the tenancy agreement. I and others on this site have told you this enough times. eg There is a strip light in our kitchen which we are not allowed to touch.

Please stop pretending to care about other tenants because you are only doing so to pit them and the Grenfell residents against each other.

But, the point is, that does not mean that houses miraculously appear and they are all given everything they want.

Well the point is that this tragedy was perhaps due to negligence. If so, there will be serious repercussions. You will agree with me on that.

So no, the housing will not magically appear, the powers that be will have to work very hard to fix their mess.

Helena, I am not really sure what you are getting at.
I care about fairness, and what is happening at Grenfell is not fair.
That's the beginning and end of it. I have no strong feelings about tenants and I only speak from experience, although I realise obviously that not all tenants are the same as the ones I came in contact with.
You are entrenched in you opinions that all tenants are oppressed victims and the HAs are constantly dreaming up ways to deliberately make life difficult for them.
So Helena, assuming you have read the full thread, who would YOU give the one flat to?

cathf if it were me who had visited that tenants home where her husband had put his arm through a glass door while drunk my immediate suspicion and concern would be whether or not it was a possible case of domestic abuse not thinking of them as entitled tenants.

You have entrenched views assuming tenants dont have contents insurance. Many do and always have....including me.

The Grenfell blog DID warn that something may happen. In April 2015 i reported a co. to gas safety because of the shortcuts they were taking.

Gas Safety told me there was nothing they could do until something ACTUALLY HAPPENED. I made a note of the date and time of the call in case i ever need to come forward later on. I hope to God that it never comes to that.

And i never said all HAs were bad? Do i really have to again link in my thread praising an HA for taking a stance on domestic abuse like i had to on a previous thread we were both on?!! That HA obviously reccognizes the signs even if you dont!

I think people should have a needs assessment, and that's what they should get. Nothing more or less. So if they need a 2 bed, then they get a 2 bed, if they need a 2 bed but want a three bed- tough. Very few people NEED a garden, even though they might want it.

I can understand that many residents want to stay within close proximity- but there does need to be recognition that exactly what they want may not be available in the exact location that they want it to be. There may need to be some compromise- either in location or housing- demands have to be reasonable.

The residents have been through trauma and do need to be adequately housed and helped with refurnishing costs etc but there also has to be a recognition that there are limits to what they can demand. If some of what has been in the press is accurate (and I can't say whether it is or not), some are being unreasonable in their demands and that appears to be taking advantage of the situation. Which is not on.

For instance I believe in this thread that someone stated that "people from these backgrounds lives were cheaper".

Not sure who said that, but I remember it and you have taken the quote out of context. That is NOT what was said or meant.

There wasn't an issue with gas in the Grenfell Tower, though, was there? If there had been, surely the whole block would have exploded?

FitBit i was merely pointing out that tenants concerns being ignored happens a lot.

you have taken the quote out of context

I am unsure as to how else it can be taken.

Helena, are you saying that the HA said you had to wait until there was an explosion before they would look for a gas leak?
Sorry, I don't believe it. There is more to the anecdote than you are telling.

I think the point that was being made was that some of the victims came from countries where life is held cheap, compared to here, which is very different from saying that these people's lives don't matter so who cares what happened at Grenfell.

And as I have said upthread, of course the Grenfell blog warned something would happen. They always do.

No Cathf It wasnt the HA that told me that. Read my post properly. It is exactly as i said.

And yes the Grenfell tenants will probably have to have whats available as you cant have what isnt there.................but quite how that ties in with dismissing their warnings and their concerns prior to the disaster i cant fathom.

Ok Helena, what shortcuts were they taking?