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

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/2595702-To-wonder-how-this-company-is-still-in-business

"The cladding system on Grenfell Tower was reportedly passed by a building control officer from the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea on 15 May 2015, despite a nationwide warning that the combustible insulation it featured should only be used in conjunction with cladding that does not burn."

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jul/14/grenfell-tower-cladding-passed-by-council-officers-in-2015

I have read the Grenfell blog several times over the past few months, and I honestly can't see anything tangible which would ring any alarms with me as a serious complaint or concern.
Lots of moaning about the refurb, mostly along the lines of long detours round building sites and having to eat sandwiches as the electric was off, but nothing that anyone living in their own home would not expect if work was being done.
As I have said before, there is nothing unique or noteworthy about a tenants' blog warning of dire danger - it would be more newsworthy if it didn't.

I see the false quotations have started up again, as has the RL habit of telling posters what their opinions are instead of noting what they've actually written

Since most have been seeing straight through it, could I suggest it might be worth ignoring this sort of goading? There's been a lot of substance on here today and it would be a shame to gift the chance for derailment/deletion they may be aiming for

LFB warned all the councils in London about cladding before the grenfell fire. This could have happened just as easily anywhere else under any council:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40422922

Also, although the cladding was clearly the wrong choice, there is no way an equivalent tower block in Liverpool or Newcastle or stoke would ever have had that sort of money spent on it in the first place. Who knows what other issues there are in older unmodernised blocks in poorer parts of the country.

I think also the issue about the difference between can't help/won't help is interesting. Eg immediately after the fire residents couldn't help themselves. Along with literally hundreds of other locals and communities from outside London, DP and I took lots of donations to the site - they asked specifically for baby formula and nappies so we went and got those, then they asked for toilet rolls and sanitary towels and washing items, so we went and got those etc etc etc.

Equally there are some people who clearly have needs that should be prioritised - the elderly, the disabled, the refugees who are new to the country and have left unimaginable trauma behind them.

But there are some who can help themselves but seem to prefer not to, eg those who are in good health turning down flats because they aren't in exactly the area they want when most people don't have that luxury. That's where my personal view draws the line and says it's not fair to give priority to those people over others in the queue who have been queuing for years and have their own needs.

What did the rest of the documentary say Helena? A 1 minute clip is not a documentary.
But anyway, this cladding - which passed building regs - is used extensively all over the world, in high-end buildings, commercial buildings and social housing.
I am not sure how you make the leap that K&C using it on social housing meant they were disregarding their tenants' safety or they wilfully endangered lives.
Anyway, we will never agree, it's nearly Christmas and I don't want this thread being derailed again or turned into a cut and paste-o-rama.
Let's agree to differ.

cath please can I ask if you could link that Grenfell blog you mentioned? Once again I can't seem to find it among all the other google hits ...

Thats not what im saying Cathf and well you know it. There is a culture of ignoring and dismissing tenants concerns IN GENERAL. Which i gave you an example of.

Some of these cladding materials have been used on hospitals which is bloody appalling I am well aware that its not only on the Grenfell building.

I know it wasnt me you asked Puzzled but here it is anyway.

grenfellactiongroup.wordpress.com/2016/11/20/kctmo-playing-with-fire/

Garden i dont know if its true but apparently it was asbestos used for the snow in the Bing Crosby film White Christmas.

Thanks, Helena

OK, I'll bite.
Nothing hysterical at all about that page, especially the bit about Kim Jon Un.🤔

Goodwill to all men eh?

Nothing hysterical at all about that page

Is it hysterical if it is true? Seventy one people died.

I am losing the will to live here.
Helena, you have broken me 😁

Just had a quick look at the blog. Well, the council certainly took the wrong decision apropos Earl's Court where I was raised. That demolition was criminal.

Regards Grenfell, I would like to have seen the file of correspondence between Grenfell and KCTMO in order to gauge if both sides gave good accounts of themselves.

Seventy one people died.

If you believe the official figures given.

Cathf there's no chance of a rational discussion with some people.

Regards Grenfell, I would like to have seen the file of correspondence between Grenfell and KCTMO in order to gauge if both sides gave good accounts of themselves.

Well we can certainly agree here!

If you got through the hyperbole there is very little of any substance in that blog, just catastrophising about minor gripes really.
It's the same as Helena's gas drama - lots of emotive postings on that thread she linked to, but most of the complaints boiled down to the engineers not turning up or having to wait for parts, which although I can appreciate is annoying (and happens in the private sector too) is hardly the picture of danger painted by Helena.

This is from the GAG link posted by HelenaDove yesterday. The group speaks of deliberate "social cleansing" by RBK&C. Here is a snippet.

"Back in the summer of 2011 members of the Grenfell Action Group first stumbled across concrete evidence that the Council was making plans to “socially cleanse” RBKC of it’s poor and excluded residents. It was at this time that Councillor Coleridge sanctioned a “Decant Policy” to apply to tenants and leaseholders on housing estates facing regeneration that explicitly removed the “guarantee” that they could return to their existing communities in the event of being decanted during construction works.

"The following comment appeared on the Hornet’s Nest website and it is the considered opinion of the Grenfell Action Group that it was most likely posted anonymously by a Labour Councillor on 5th May 2015 :

“The new Private Rented Sector Offer (PRSO) will be applied to every new homeless household for whom the Council becomes responsible. This means paying private rented sector landlords to offer temporary accommodation to these households outside the borough, for a period of two years (including very probably a “sweetener” on top of the rent). After two years the household can be evicted into homelessness – but will then be the responsibility of the borough where they are living. This policy explicitly states that “eventually the majority of households owed the full duty will have that duty ended with a PRS offer.

"Furthermore, the Council has instructed its agent the TMO not to bring empty properties up to standard for re-letting on the estates that are ear-marked for imminent “regeneration” plans. These include Balfour Burleigh, parts of Silchester Estate and the “finger blocks” on Lancaster West. All other Council-owned properties that become void will either be sold on the open market or let at a market rent and won’t be allocated to homeless families”.