London Fire: Grenfell Tower thread five

[RhythmAndStealth]

RIP

Five victims officially named
At least 79 victims expected, possibly more
Many displaced and struggling

To all those affected and all those helping

Thread four
Thread three
Thread three contains links to threads one and two.

It very much appeals. Thank you will look in it.

I think more people need to get involved into exposing stuff and I'm trying to think of ways this can be achieved in an era with weak local press so anything like this is useful.

The book is by Andrew Hosken, one of the BBC's leading investigative journalists, and it was turned into a BBC Radio play called Shirleymander (short excerpt):

I read it as a history book but the past couple of weeks have made me realise how current it is 30+ years later.

Witnesses said the fire spread rapidly up the building, with some suggesting it was fuelled by gas.
Mr Paramasivan, 37, told the Press Association: "There were explosions everywhere you looked, lots of bangs, blue gas coming out everywhere you looked.
"About 12 floors up I saw three children waving from a window and then there was just an explosion and they disappeared.
http://www.hampshirechronicle.co.uk/news/15346167.UPDATEANDDPHOTOSSeverallpeopledieafterrtowerblockkisengulfeddinflamessin_London/

So it wasn't just the cladding but was internal as well. Which company carried out the gas refurbishments that residents said was done earlier this year? There's been no mention of them like there has been of the cladding company. Why?

Ordered.

The primary reason Grenfell has caught my attention is less about the horror of it, but the failings behind it as its symptomatic of wider issues of accountability and democracy. Grenfell is gross is its scale and drama but the same things are happening on smaller scales and they need much more scrutiny.

Yes. I know human interest aspects pull in the audience/readers but to me the real story is always about structural failings meaning a lack of accountability leading to an abuse of power.

There's been no mention of them like there has been of the cladding company. Why?

Because the way the cladding burnt has millions of eye witnesses from videos.

And the gas stuff has had coverage in the guardian this week. Which mentions the contractors.

In fact I read the day after the blaze an eye witness saying about the gas works so that certainly needs looking into too.

I remember the corruption at Newcastle council when I was a little girl - T. Dan Smith. (Labour but these tehings tend to affect both sides) Accepted bribes. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T._Dan_Smith

Surely there would have been a valve accessible to the fire brigade to shut off the gas supply wouldn't there?

This is starting to sound similar to the Exeter Royal Clarence fire where that too was fuelled by gas pipes inside the building which seemed to take over a day to turn off.

If there's no quick and easy way for the fire brigade or national grid to shut off the gas supply to a building, then that's something else that needs to be changed too!

Rydon threatens legal action against Camden Council.

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/30/firm-that-refurbished-grenfell-tower-takes-legal-action-against-council?CMP=twt_gu

Surely there would have been a valve accessible to the fire brigade to shut off the gas supply wouldn't there?

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/27/grenfell-tower-gas-pipes-left-exposed-despite-fire-safety-experts-orders

LFB also said the day after the blaze that it had not been able to put out the flames until firefighters had isolated a ruptured gas main in the block.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/grenfell-tower-fire-latest-neighbours-hot-water-gas-utilities-high-rise-disaster-kensington-a7810686.html

Residents in the homes surrounding Grenfell Tower are still without hot water and gas two weeks on from the fire that killed at least 79 people.

Hundreds of flats that overlook the site of the tragedy are still without basic amenities after the fire destroyed centralised gas and water lines under the building.

Affected residents in Hurstway, Testerton, Barandon and Grenfell Walks, part of the same estate as Grenfell Tower, have been told works to repair the lines could take another month.

Sounds to me that something fairly major happened with the gas and access to the supply was not easily accessible.

The video on this page is of a community meeting. Apparently ppl have had letters saying the £5000 they have been given may affect their Housing Benefit.

www.facebook.com/mzbhavar.socialiteraver/videos/10154584326096120/

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/30/grenfell-tower-management-chief-quits-to-focus-on-inquiry-robert-black-kensington?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Tweet

About time. Now for the council...

It would be good to see the letters received because the Government definitely said the £5k would not affect benefits so if it is then that must be stopped.

The state cannot organise a piss up in a brewery. One lesson from all this is if you can possibly avoid it never expect the state whether left or right wing to provide anything competently.

Re the £5000 payment. Because of our enept systems they are saying it will impact on benefits but that the council/government would make additional payments to offset any money that is withheld. Why in 2017 the age of technology can they not just amend the system? We're not talking about thousands of people either, a few hundred.

YY mrs glow And i bet those additional payments will require more form filling and more chasing around for the residents to do.

Sorry * inept!

Yes Helena that's what I thought too. Another piece of crap for the residents to have to sort out.

FOR THE MILLIONT TIME!

why are the folk reliant on handouts when millions have been donated

why are they reliant on going cap in hand to the government and staying in crappy B&B

whi is handling this money

A series of tweet threads which contain some important stuff.

For the those not familiar with him, David Allen Green is a lawyer but not experienced in housing / media but this is good to see the legal side to this:

David Allen Green‏ @davidallengreen

It is not credible that @RBKC received the legal advice described in this notice:
www.rbkc.gov.uk/newsroom/all-council-statements/council-statement-following-cabinet-meeting-29-june

Something is false here.

As @RBKC has described legal advice received, they should waive privilege and publish this advice.

As described, makes no legal sense.

As the proposed inquiry does not even yet have terms of reference, impossible to advise how that inquiry could be "prejudiced".

Utter tosh.

Claire Maugham‏ @clairemaugham
as a cllr I experienced LA officers asserting 'legal privilege' as a reason they could not share counsel's opinion for scrutiny purposes

David Allen Green‏ @davidallengreen

Quite.

(((Robin Levett)))‏ @Roblev0
In any event, a meeting from which the public is excluded for reasons of potential disorder remains a meeting which should be fully...1/n
...minuted and the minutes disclosed as a public record. No LGA exemptions were claimed to prevent publication...2/2

James O'Brien‏ @mrjamesob
Really struggling to see how a Public Inquiry could possibly be 'prejudiced' by holding a council meeting with journalists present.

David Allen Green‏ @davidallengreen
No struggling required. It cannot be.

I think its important to see this written down and argued.

This thread is from a LD Kensington and Chelsea councillor
(He was a Labour councillor prior to Oct 2016. He was on the Housing and Property Scrutiny committee from 26th May 2016 until 24th May 2017).

Andrew Lomas‏ @andrewlomas
Some thoughts about the #RBKC Cabinet meeting last night... (1/x)
First, it is still unclear to me what the purpose of the meeting was. Cabinet meets to make decisions as the Council's executive body (2/x)
There was no agenda last night, no papers circulated - in short, a meeting for the sake of it. This raises 2 questions... (3/x)
(1) What was going to be discussed? (2) Why did this have to be behind closed doors? (4/x)
If plan was to discuss how great the #RBKC response has been & how unfairly our reputation has been traduced, issue a press release (5/x)
There is literally no point in dragging Cllrs in to be complicit in a dPR exercise (to which the press had been excluded) (6/x)
If instead the plan was to discuss the #RBKC response then there is no excuse at all for excluding press and public (7/x)
The original reason for exclusion was security concerns given that protesters recently invaded the Town Hall. (8/x)
Fine - either relay proceedings via video or make people register in advance. But was security really the reason? (9/x)
I ask because once press let in, meeting suspended because of fears it might prejudice inquiry into causes of #Grenfell fire (10/x)
That conflates 2 issues: (1) causes of fire; (2) inadequate #RBKC response. As Cllr, it's my job to hold exec to account on latter (11/x)
Now it seems there can be no public forum for raising concerns as to the latter without risking prejudicing inquiry into the former (12/x)
That cannot be right. I haven't seen legal advice on prejudice, but effective chairing of a meeting should be able to contain debate (13/x)
Because the response has been slow, flat-footed and inadequate. That is not to criticise #RBKC staff: they are lions led by donkeys (14/x)
But to hold a meeting in private, in circumstances where #RBKC has lost trust of those it is supposed to serve, is tone deaf at best (15/x)
And to then read a pre-prepared statement saying how marvellously things are going and how beastly the press are beggar's belief (16/x)
People are rightly concerned they are being ignored. Rightly concerned that they are shut out of decisions that impact on them (17/x)
So who the hell thought a great response to that would be to hold a meeting with no publicly disclosed purpose behind closed doors? (18/x)
The reality is that the political leadership of #RBKC has evaporated. The council is in free fall. Where do we go from here? (19/x)
No-one wants to be Leader - least of all, it seems, the incumbent. And all of us are tainted by corporate failures of #RBKC (20/x)
Fresh elections seem almost essential - and are next year any event - but how do we restore trust and accountability in meantime? (21/x)
#RBKC plan is to have a #Grenfell sub-committee of Cabinet and a corresponding scrutiny committee. I can't see how that helps (22/x)
For one, existing scrutiny at #RBKC under-resourced and under-valued. Lack of proper oversight a broader problem with cabinet system (23/x)
Only way of moving things forward is a cross-party unity cabinet. Maybe even co-opt a Lead Member for #Grenfell from community (24/x)
Not least because organising an effective response isn't a party-political issue: it's about basic decency and emotional intelligence (25/x)
Instead, we are hostage of the internal politics of the majority party who are paralysed by indecision (26/x)
Anyway, this is all a long way of saying last night was a catastrophe: played into every negative perception of #RBKC (27/x)
Achieved precisely the square root of nothing useful. And gave impression that #RBKC leadership think things turning a corner (28/x)
I've been active in politics for over a decade. My heart breaks for the survivors and those who lost loved ones (29/x)
If I feel completely impotent as an elected Cllr I can only imagine how those shut out feel. It's beyond upsetting (30/x)
And the best we can do to hold those in power to account about the aftermath is a meeting that descended into chaos after 20 mins. (31/x)
It's truly shaming. (32/32)

And here a thread about legal aid and comments that the Justice Secretary and Lord Chancellor, David Lidington, made about Grenfell.

Nearly Legal‏*@nearlylegal*
@DLidington You said yesterday that tenants are eligible for legal aid to take action against landlord if serious concerns about safety 1/n
I’m afraid you might have been rather optimistically briefed. This is only the case where there is actual disrepair - something broken 2/n
- and the something broken leads to a ‘serious risk of harm to health’. It does not include, for example, a fire risk, unless there is 3/n
a lack of repair. Inadequate cladding would not be covered. Nor would excessive cold by an absence of heating. Only if heating broken 4/n
In short, there is no legal aid for ‘safety concerns’, only for where something broken presents an immediate risk. A very limited subset 5/5

PS It is Paragraph 35 Part 1, Schedule 1 of LASPO if you want to check.

PPS I hadn't realised you had also said there was no record of a legal aid app by the Grenfell tenants. That is because there couldn't be!

And finally one on the media and local newspapers. Sorry for the spamming but I do think all these twitter threads are worth sharing.

Jane Merrick‏ @janemerrick23
On the face of it, it's been another troubling week for journalism and the ability of journalists to do their jobs properly. 1/?
K&C council ban journalists from attending a council meeting, then shut it down when the High Court rules media should attend. 2/
The editor of a fake news disseminating website gets prime time platform on #bbcqt. In the US, the White House bans video of press briefings
But wait. I don't know whether anyone at the Canary did their NCTJ but thousands of MSM journalists did. And here's the wonderful thing:
One of the things you learn in journalism training is the importance of being able to attend council meetings. It's our bread and butter.
It's not only bread & butter, it's enshrined in law. Look up Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985. We have a right to be there
Another thing you learn in journalism training is media law. Contempt of Court Act. Section 39 orders. How to challenge authorities when they try to flout the law and ban the press. Just like K&C council trying to ban journalists from a council meeting.
That sacred principle of defending the press under law was there yesterday when media organisations went to the High Court to challenge K&C
Yes, there are exemptions to the 1985 act. But the High Court, rightly, over-ruled the council. The law is there to protect us.
When I say "us" I don't just mean journalists but all of us. Media - the clue in the name - are there for the public, to get you the facts to report on what is going on at K&C in the aftermath of Grenfell. To be able to do our jobs unimpeded without draconian council leaders and to do this without the smoke and mirrors of fake news, conspiracy and pure made-up bullshit.
Because when we are unable to do our jobs properly, the public is left in the dark and things are covered up, scandals deepen.
So far from it being a bad week for journalism, anyone who cares about a free press should be optimistic something as basic & old-fashioned as the right to report on a council meeting was defended by proper journalists & upheld by the High Court
Thread ends.

Steve Fearon‏ @ScreamingStatic

The problem is that Journalism has largely rejected fact reporting for opinion/agenda based coverage, hence the shift towards 'small' media
Its all very well talking about fairness, and the role of the media, but the quality of reporting has been dropping for years
Like politics, the general public now has such a low opinion of 'journalistic integrity' that you are all tarred with the same brush.

Damien‏ @goal_media

Agree wholeheartedly. But unsure why more of MSM aren't laying bare the lie meeting could have prejudiced judge-led inquiry.

www.pressgazette.co.uk/council-refusal-to-hold-grenfell-fire-meeting-in-front-of-press-condemned-by-number-10-and-society-of-editors/
Council refusal to hold Grenfell fire meeting in front of press condemned by Number 10 and Society of Editors

A Number 10 spokesperson said the Prime Minister’s view was that the council should have “respected” the High Court ruling.

They said: “Our view is that access to democracy should always be easy and we think that is vital if people want to retain confidence in our democratic system.

“I can’t speak for the council, but there are rules that state that all meetings must be open to the public except in certain circumstances. In this specific case, the High Court ruled that the meeting should be open, and we would have expected the council to respect that.”

Peter Walker‏ @peterwalker99
@RBKC say will give legal details on how public cabinet meeting could prejudice Grenfell inquiry later. Lawyers, prepare to be enlightened

Or, indeed, baffled, which has been the dominant emotion so far during this saga.

Maybe dear old Nick got confused and the 'legal advice' he received was in respect of a possible criminal case that could be 'prejudiced'??

Why would dear old Nick be worried about that?