Horrendous tower-block fire in W London

Subject: RE: Horrendous tower-block fire in W London
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Jul 17 - 06:26 AM

The anomaly that you point out Iains, is not confined to the views of Mr McGrath, who is IMO a thoroughly decent person, but pertains to the whole of the "liberal left" who live in a world of make believe, sustained by an all encompassing view that every political ill can be laid at the door of the Conservative Party and those who are stupid enough to support them.

In reality WE are the masters of our own destiny and must seek unity to produce a better society.....at present the biggest impediment to that is a corrupt media who thrive on conflict.

Subject: RE: Horrendous tower-block fire in W London
From: Iains
Date: 09 Jul 17 - 04:26 AM

"As I said And yet I am pretty sure there'll be the odd voice here defending this decision. Talk about extremists..."

So an extremist is a person that believes in the rule of law? A typical retarded view of certain of the left. One can easily see how the latin sinistra evolved to become sinister. What a funny little world mg of h inhabits. Tell me do you wear shorts and sandals and hug trees as well?

Subject: RE: Horrendous tower-block fire in W London
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Jul 17 - 03:48 AM

MGOH - You were asked what I thought was a reasonable question:

"If they are illegal immigrants why should they stay?"

Why have you chosen to ignore it? And what other laws do you believe we should all just ignore?

Subject: RE: Horrendous tower-block fire in W London
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Jul 17 - 08:52 PM

As I said And yet I am pretty sure there'll be the odd voice here defending this decision. Talk about extremists...

And the reason to avoid despairing about humanity is that the Katie Hopkins brigade really are "the odd voice". Even if it sometimes seems they aren't.

Subject: RE: Horrendous tower-block fire in W London
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Jul 17 - 05:53 AM

MGOH's post and Iains response reminded me of a conversation I was party to when I was working up in Glasgow. During the General Election campaign of 1992 in the days of the "Poll Tax". A Labour Councillor was defending those who had refused to pay their "Poll Tax" while at the same time he was roundly condemning the Government for lack of funds (He seemed to miss the point completely that the reason the Council was lacking funds was because people were not paying their "Poll Tax"). At the end of his little speech he was asking people what they thought and how they would be likely to vote. To my surprise someone I knew who was a Conservative voter said that he would most certainly be voting Labour and that because of what he had just heard he hoped Neil Kinnock and Labour were elected to Office. The Councillor was rather astonished at this "epiphany" and thanked his newly won convert to the cause. To which the life long Tory explained, "Oh no I have not changed my political views but it would be idiotic of me to ignore such a financial opportunity. You have just explained to us that you and your party commend and fully support those who are blatantly flouting the law by not paying perfectly legal taxes. If Neil Kinnock and Labour win this election I will elect to refuse to pay any income tax and I will expect you and your Party to back me to the hilt - after all if one section of the population can pick and choose what laws they wish to ignore - then everyone should have that right."

Subject: RE: Horrendous tower-block fire in W London
From: Iains
Date: 08 Jul 17 - 04:07 AM

DM of Harlow.If they are illegal immigrants why should they stay? Is a bank robber entitled to his loot after being caught?
What a totally perverted sense of justice you have! Please justify why a law to keep illegals out should be flouted.

Subject: RE: Horrendous tower-block fire in W London
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Jul 17 - 09:24 PM

Newest twist to the nasty story about the official response to the people who somehow survived thus holocausr - the announcement that in order to encourage survivors to come forward, there won't be any problems if their immigration status is in question. To last for the next 12 months. At the end of which they can look forward to being deported.

Sometimes the viciousness of our rulers takes even me aback. I really didn't think they could have it in them.

And yet I am pretty sure there'll be the odd voice here defending this decision. Talk about extremists...

Subject: RE: Horrendous tower-block fire in W London
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 04 Jul 17 - 09:26 AM

Just as an anecdotal aside...

1986, after realizing I'd be an inadequate social worker, I moved to East London to pursue my arty farty aspirations..

As was standard practice I used my qualifications to get a civil service day job.. in the DHSS...
and my real world experience with claimants was considered an asset..

Clerical Officer I recall was the job grade, one down from degree level, but easiest to get interviewed and employed quicker....

Day 1 induction for our new batch intake, and start of training to be a front desk benefits officer...
2 months later still all of us in the classroom training to memorise, understand & apply all the regulations...
Then the rules were changed overnight, and we had to start training all over again from scratch..

I never saw the front desk before I left after a few more months of training later, resigning in frustration & relief,
to start my post grad Arts & Ideology course in a central London Higher Ed College...

Subject: RE: Horrendous tower-block fire in W London
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 04 Jul 17 - 09:12 AM

McGrath.. My diverse experiences and 'insider' knowledge tends to lead to that same conclusion...

Subject: RE: Horrendous tower-block fire in W London
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Jul 17 - 08:54 AM

The bureaucracy is acting in accordance with the decisione of political masters. The system of sanctions was imposed by politicians. The cruelty is not an accidental consequence of bureaucracy. It is what has been intentionally imposed for reasons of ideology.

Subject: RE: Horrendous tower-block fire in W London
From: Senoufou
Date: 04 Jul 17 - 07:47 AM

At our village fete on Sunday there was a fire crew and a fire engine for the children to crawl over. I had a most interesting chat with the fireman-in-charge. He had obviously followed the events at Grenfell Tower with intense interest and dismay. His view was (as is now generally accepted) that the original fire crew had got the fire inside the flat under control within eight minutes. But because the windows had been open in the warm weather, and a neighbour of the resident whose flat it was had said his door was open and she could see the flames from the corridor, it seems the fire had got outside the flat and from there was impossible to quench.

He said that most tower-block fires don't spread to the outside of the building. But this relies on the flat's windows and door being shut and well-insulated from the exterior, and as is evident to all, the cladding does not conduct flames in any way, or provide 'chimneys' for it to travel upwards.

This chap was very self-effacing, but I felt a tremendous admiration for him. He and his family must know he risks his life daily to keep the public safe.

Subject: RE: Horrendous tower-block fire in W London
From: DMcG
Date: 04 Jul 17 - 07:33 AM

Well, Teribus, if we are getting into literary criticism now, I would add that in the book/play the question of right and wrong extends into the damage the father does to the family and whether by the end the interests of the son have been superseded by the ego of the father which will not allow him to compromise even though it is wrecking everyone's life.

But we have battered this one around enough - everyone knows my vuew and yours so there is nothing to be gained by repeating it. Let's get back to the question of the fire, which is many many orders of mahnitude more important.

Subject: RE: Horrendous tower-block fire in W London
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 04 Jul 17 - 07:31 AM

Disclosure - after my degree I spent a couple of years volunteering with a city centre Victims [of crime] support agency,
and Benefit claimants advocacy union..

At that point in my mid 20s, that experience of dealing with diverse
problem 'case histories'
helped me realise and accept I just did not have the personal qualities to apply for a career in Social Work...

It was too bloody difficult and stressful... trying to stay emotionally detached..
and not wanting to throttle some benefits office jobsworths...

Subject: RE: Horrendous tower-block fire in W London
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 04 Jul 17 - 07:21 AM

Terri - absolutely agree with your last comment...

But at a point in life when an individual's moral is already sapped by adverse life events that necessitate help from welfare agencies,
the further grinding negativity of protracted disputes with indifferent, frequently hostile petty officials...
whilst submerging deeper into financial ruin..
... is it fair to blame them for sinking into defeatist despair and surrender...

Yes.. sadly.. people are weak and become victims..
it's not good enough that 'tough hearted' tories blame them for accepting 'victimhood' as a lifestyle choice..

It could potentially happen to most of us...

Subject: RE: Horrendous tower-block fire in W London
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Jul 17 - 07:08 AM

DMcG - 03 Jul 17 - 12:33 PM

No DMcG it is about what is right and about what is wrong, especially when that wrong is perpetrated by an anonymous bureaucracy who believe that they can treat British Citizens any way they chose and not be held to account for it. If they are not challenged then they do get away with it.

Subject: RE: Horrendous tower-block fire in W London
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Jul 17 - 05:57 AM

The main reason for the quick fire spread has more to do with the lack of firebreaks behind the cladding which would be a Building Control issue the gap between the insulation/cladding and the concrete face of the building forms a "chimney" for fire if firebreaks are not inserted every couple of metres.
Without this chimney effect the cladding would have burnt out within a small area and would certainly not spread at such an unbelievable rate.
I watched the tragedy on TV with my son who is also a builder and we both realised immediately what was happening.

Many of the deaths could have been avoided if tenants had not been advised by the fire services to stay in their flats and more internal fire escapes had been available.

Subject: RE: Horrendous tower-block fire in W London
From: Iains
Date: 04 Jul 17 - 05:34 AM

The scope of the enquiry dictates the time taken to reach conclusions. To investigate why the fire spread so quickly would have to consider the suitability of the cladding.
There is no reason why a preliminary enquiry cannot report and the broader issues be studied subsequently. We do not want a repeat of the foot dragging Chilcot Report(6 years???)

Chasing the paper trail to uncover potential fraud as to specified versus actual materials used, lax inspection, advice given to residents during fires, single avenue of escape, deficient regulation, possible manslaughter charges, etc, etc would take time.

Getting these sort of results in and gift wrapped for christmas simply cannot happen in the time frame.
The residents are making a lot of noise and frankly if I was one of them, I would too. But realistically what input can they provide.
The arguments will revolve around such things as building codes, fire advice, sprinkler systems, route/s of escape during fires. These questions can only be addressed by experts in the various fields.

When all these questions have been resolved I would anticipate new legislation on all the above points and a far more rigorous inspection regime throughout the lifetime of the building, covering all aspects.

Subject: RE: Horrendous tower-block fire in W London
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Jul 17 - 08:56 PM

There's a massive criminal investigation going on, so there should be some trials coming up. I hope they don't hold off on that until the wider public inquiry is finished.

One worrying thing is that it's reported that they haven't been doing the normal stuff in a major investigation, such as removing computers to stop people trying to get rid of evidence. This is a mass homicide investigation, after all.

Subject: RE: Horrendous tower-block fire in W London
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Jul 17 - 07:48 PM

I think a degree of confusion has crept in here. The enquiry is not a trial. The head of the enquiry doesn't have to be a judge. It so happens that the person who has been selected IS a judge. That isn't surprising, as judges are well trained to examine evidence forensically and to not miss things. But obliging him to behave like a judge in a trial is to misunderstand the role he's been given and is entirely inappropriate. In a trial, a judge must apply the law dispassionately and impartially according to the book. He must not take into account his own opinion of the plaintiffs or defendants. In the case of this enquiry, a very large number of people have been subjected to trauma including bereavement. It was right that the head of the enquiry visited the scene today to see the effects on the victims for himself. Of course it's right that he starts off with a position of empathy for them. He wouldn't be human if he didn't. This is not a trial, I repeat. Without that empathy on show, the victims will quickly become alienated from the process and the enquiry will be a waste of time.

Subject: RE: Horrendous tower-block fire in W London
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Jul 17 - 06:31 PM

The judge chosen to hold the public inquiry has already declared that plans to limit the scope of it to looking at the causes of the fire starting and spreading.

That would suggest that issues about who was responsible for permitting the use of dangerous materials in building work, both in Grenfell Tower and right across England won't be addressed, nor whose responsibility it was that clear breaches of safety rules were widely permitted, or the extent to which warnings by tenants have been ignored.
Any number of other issues - how can it be that people with severe mobility problems have been housed in flats many stories above ground.

What's needed is a rapid inquiry focussing on Grenfell Tower in all its aspects, both at the time of the fire, and in the years building up to it, and a wider inquiry into the wider issues, which may take longer, but shouldn't be allowed to stretch on for ever like so many.

And the responsibility for setting it up and giving it its brief shouldn't be left to this minority government on its own. It should be a joint effort involving the opposition as well.

Subject: RE: Horrendous tower-block fire in W London
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Jul 17 - 04:20 PM

PFR....Lammy is a knob, an unreconstructed "Blairite", worse than the Tories in my book.......the Fifth Column always lurking in the shadows.

Subject: RE: Horrendous tower-block fire in W London
From: Iains
Date: 03 Jul 17 - 02:51 PM

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2006/01/fire-j09.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piper_Alpha


https://www.nuffield.ox.ac.uk/politics/aberfan/tri.htm

The first example is of a public enquiry that never was(Labour)
The second example is the Cullen report. I cannot recollect any criticism of it's findings. It lead to a step change in safety, not only offshore, but in other industries. It was largely responsible for the growth of an entire safety industry and no sane person would argue for its abolition.
The third example the Abervan Disaster was chaired by a S. Wales barrister with much experience of mining law. Many felt the enquiry would be a whitewash as so many other investigations into mining fatalities. In fact the coal board was held responsible and changes to legislation quickly followed modifying practices in quarries and on tips. Indirectly it advanced soil mechanics and ground investigation in general. Few disputed the findings.
    The chairman for the coming grenfell tower block inferno would also cover every aspect of the disaster. Do not forget all interested parties can contribute.

Subject: RE: Horrendous tower-block fire in W London
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 03 Jul 17 - 02:27 PM

Allowing for the fact I can't remember if Lammy is one of the 'better' labour MPs... or a bit of a knob,
I simply gave him some benefit of the doubt in having a guess at his motivation for a comment
that has got you so up in arms...again... 😜

Subject: RE: Horrendous tower-block fire in W London
From: Iains
Date: 03 Jul 17 - 02:19 PM

pfr. Do you seriously think the public would allow a partisan report to be published unchallenged. The enquiry is entirely public and the results are public. The only public enquiry that has been total travesty
was that into the death of Dr. David Kelly. Another Labour success story.
So stunning in fact that Dr kelly's medical reports were locked up for 70 years. Now that was a government cver up.

Subject: RE: Horrendous tower-block fire in W London
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 03 Jul 17 - 01:51 PM

Perhaps Lammy is hinting that a tory govt appointed judge might not be so impartial...
for obvious reasons...

hint.. which tory hardnuts at mudcat have made it soooo clear they are absolutely devoid of empathy, verging on sheer hostility to those less fortunate...???? 😣

Subject: RE: Horrendous tower-block fire in W London
From: Iains
Date: 03 Jul 17 - 01:21 PM

The labour mp David Lammy has attacked the appointment of the judge who is to chair the public enquiry on the grounds that The job is not just to be independent and judicious, it is also to be empathetic and walk with these people on this journey.

Wrong.The job is to be independant, judicious and impartial. To have empathry as a requirement to be chair rather negates the concept of showing no favour and would raise many eyebrows as to the impartiality of the chairmen.
The latter assumption is implicit in the appointment of a judge to head up this major public enquiry.

This same mp is a barrister-one would think he would know better, or could he be stirring political waters?

Subject: RE: Horrendous tower-block fire in W London
From: DMcG
Date: 03 Jul 17 - 12:33 PM

I have also read "The Winslow Boy". For those who haven't it concerns a young man accused of stealing a fairly trivial sum (5 or 15 shillings, I forget which.)

The father fights long and hard, *not* about the sum, but to ensure the boy is not branded a thief, both legally and socially. Let me repeat that in different words: the fight is about a life-long penalisation of the young man. The sum is not the point. Hence in cost-benefit terms, it is well worth a prolonged fight.

Now, it should be apparent that is a very poor analogy for my daughter's case: there is no such social or legal penalty and the sum of money is all that is involved. In cost-benefit terms, only a very limited fight is justified on personal economic grounds.

So to justify such a fight it needs to be based on a general good (as I have been saying all along), not a specific one. And on those grounds, anyone who feels UK citizens are being defrauded is perfectly at liberty to take it up with the relevant departments, since the fight is for a social good, not a specific case. But for me, I see other issues that are more important.

Subject: RE: Horrendous tower-block fire in W London
From: Senoufou
Date: 03 Jul 17 - 12:09 PM

The whole Benefits system is fraught with obstacles and red tape (whether deliberately or due to bad organisation I'm not in a position to know.)

I well remember helping newly-released prisoners wade through it all. Their Probation Officers weren't terribly bothered. As a Volunteer/Prison Visitor, I was happy to go with them after release here and there to try and sort out the officialdom. Some needed support with staying off drugs, others were really not well enough to work (I had one lad with Hepatitis B whose liver was in a poor state and his face was very jaundiced. The hospital was miles away for his treatment and he had no money for the fare) The delays were frightening. How they were expected to exist on thin air for 'a few weeks' and how to find accommodation etc was quite beyond them.
It was never a surprise that they ended up getting 'employed' as drug runners for the big dealers, dossing on the floor of appalling slums and going back into jail after a short while.

I also donate to our local food bank, which has no end of desperate people being referred for basic food items in a couple of carrier bags. But this is only for about 3 days, so as not to render them too dependent. To think in these days that folk have no food at all in their cupboards is so very sad.

I realise that Benefits staff have a rotten time of it, but the attitudes I came across were infuriating. They were overtly disdainful and obviously despised their clients. I would never have accepted being spoken to like that. Disgraceful.

Subject: RE: Horrendous tower-block fire in W London
From: Pete from seven stars link
Date: 03 Jul 17 - 11:14 AM

I've seen the Winslow boy . In the film at least , the father was a capable and persistent advocate for the boy . And it involved a lot of meetings and journeys to get justice as I recall . When it comes to the average joe the system seems daunting , I remember feeling the same when it was less complicated. My daughter has always needed benefits , and when there was any change of circumstances payments were invariably delayed. . I don't know how others without parents bailing them out get by , though I have to admit often there is a chronic lack of financial sense in those depending on benefits , but I don't think that is entirely the problem

Subject: RE: Horrendous tower-block fire in W London
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Jul 17 - 03:00 PM

"Mistakes have been made" certainly does not constitute an apology. It is a way of avoiding an apology. It's rather like the other one "I'm sorry if you have been offended."

Daniel Blake in the film is actually on the point of winning his appeal when he died. His earlier attempts to fight the mistaken decision to deny him benefit were frustrated because he was unable to cope with doing it on line. I've had to deal with that kind of thing, and it's pretty difficult even you you are used to dealing with official forms, and with computers, and have your own machine which doesn't time out.

We were shown a job centre worker trying to be helpful and being harassed in that by a senior. I Daniel Blake wasn't exaggerated there. It represented what it's really like for many many people.

If you've been luckier in any dealings you've had with the system, Teribus, congratulations. And I'm glad you recovered from your heart trouble, Teribus, the same way I did (and it took a long time in my case). And "feeling better" isn't in itself that significant. I felt great the day I had a cardiac arrest, when I dropped down dead with no warning. I gather neither of us have dropped down dead since. What a stupid bloke Daniel Blake must have been to do that...

I Daniel Blake was well researched and extremely accurate, as many people who have worked inside the system have confirmed, in job centres or as social workers or as legal advocates as well as claimants.

Here is a piece from The Independent (which in the 2010 election afvised voting for the Conservatives - not exactly a hard left publication) which looks at this matter The deaths, sanctions and starvation that prove I, Daniel Blake is accurate – despite what some critics say

Subject: RE: Horrendous tower-block fire in W London
From: Peter the Squeezer
Date: 02 Jul 17 - 09:11 AM

Another one today at the opposite side of London.

Evening Standard Report

Thankfully, this block was unoccupied.

Subject: RE: Horrendous tower-block fire in W London
From: DMcG
Date: 02 Jul 17 - 06:28 AM

Sorry for the cut'n'paste error. I only meant to include the ones addressed to me.

Subject: RE: Horrendous tower-block fire in W London
From: DMcG
Date: 02 Jul 17 - 06:24 AM

Subject: RE: Horrendous tower-block fire in W London
From: Teribus - PM 
Date: 02 Jul 17 - 06:11 AM 

MGOH - "Mistakes have been made" - IS both an admission of fault and an apology.

"I Daniel Blake" was right to be slated. The whole premise is ridiculous to anyone who has suffered a heart attack.

Synopsis:
Daniel Blake suffers a heart attack at work and is told by his Doctor and the Heart Consultant that he cannot work and that he must rest - (This advice is universal right across the board - believe me I know this from personal experience)

Daniel Blake then toddles off down to the "Welfare" to get his disability and is knocked back because they say that he is fit enough to work.

Daniel Blake then goes to an Appeal hearing gets knocked back again and then dies.

And this everybody claims is reality.

Now from someone who has suffered not one but two heart attacks:

1: The Doctors tell you not to work (Note that - they don't tell you that you cannot work) and rest - that is good advice as you require a period of recuperation depending upon the procedure you have been through ( In my instance the first required no such recuperation and I went straight back to work. The second involved open heart surgery and I did need a period of recuperation and rest)

2: After treatment you actually do feel a great deal better (In my case more so after the surgery the second time). I went back to work after two months and continued working for another ten years and I felt fine - still do.

3: The Appeal Hearing: Where was Blake's Doctor? Where was his Heart Consultant? Why did Blake not contact then and make them aware of his situation? In short Ken Loach deliberately portrays Daniel Blake as a clueless, pathetic idiot just to tilt the scale in the desired direction. I mean honestly you have been knocked back once and you are given the opportunity to appeal so you seriously just go back in with what you had when they knocked back before?? Come on it just does not make sense. Jesus-H-come-dancing-Christ here's all you advocates and worshippers of the "working-class-hero" class warrior type - it would appear that none of you have any fight in you at all - you are all to busy concentrating on, and revelling in, the status of being "victims".

By the way DmcG if you do not fight for what is rightfully yours when it directly affects you - you are a complete and utter bloody idiot and deserve everything that comes your way. What change in law? - what you were describing was an arbitrary decision by some very minor Civil Servant who had no right making that decision in the first place ...

Wow, are you over excited!

I will choose what things to fight for by myself, if that is ok with you. I would think this a wonderful world indeed if this was its most serious problem.

Subject: RE: Horrendous tower-block fire in W London
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Jul 17 - 06:11 AM

MGOH - "Mistakes have been made" - IS both an admission of fault and an apology.

"I Daniel Blake" was right to be slated. The whole premise is ridiculous to anyone who has suffered a heart attack.

Synopsis:
Daniel Blake suffers a heart attack at work and is told by his Doctor and the Heart Consultant that he cannot work and that he must rest - (This advice is universal right across the board - believe me I know this from personal experience)

Daniel Blake then toddles off down to the "Welfare" to get his disability and is knocked back because they say that he is fit enough to work.

Daniel Blake then goes to an Appeal hearing gets knocked back again and then dies.

And this everybody claims is reality.

Now from someone who has suffered not one but two heart attacks:

1: The Doctors tell you not to work (Note that - they don't tell you that you cannot work) and rest - that is good advice as you require a period of recuperation depending upon the procedure you have been through ( In my instance the first required no such recuperation and I went straight back to work. The second involved open heart surgery and I did need a period of recuperation and rest)

2: After treatment you actually do feel a great deal better (In my case more so after the surgery the second time). I went back to work after two months and continued working for another ten years and I felt fine - still do.

3: The Appeal Hearing: Where was Blake's Doctor? Where was his Heart Consultant? Why did Blake not contact then and make them aware of his situation? In short Ken Loach deliberately portrays Daniel Blake as a clueless, pathetic idiot just to tilt the scale in the desired direction. I mean honestly you have been knocked back once and you are given the opportunity to appeal so you seriously just go back in with what you had when they knocked back before?? Come on it just does not make sense. Jesus-H-come-dancing-Christ here's all you advocates and worshippers of the "working-class-hero" class warrior type - it would appear that none of you have any fight in you at all - you are all to busy concentrating on, and revelling in, the status of being "victims".

By the way DmcG if you do not fight for what is rightfully yours when it directly affects you - you are a complete and utter bloody idiot and deserve everything that comes your way. What change in law? - what you were describing was an arbitrary decision by some very minor Civil Servant who had no right making that decision in the first place - someone in the Department for Work and Pensions does NOT decree who is and who is not a British Citizen - your daughter should have taken her passport down to the Office and showed it to the person involved and then told him/her to take it up with the Home Office, while reminding that said Civil Servant at the same time that the Passport, issued by the British Government is THE MOST official document that anybody can carry detailing their citizenship status - that official document taking precedence over all others.

I take it that you have not read or seen Terence Rattigan's "The Winslow Boy" then DMcG?

Subject: RE: Horrendous tower-block fire in W London
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Jul 17 - 09:14 PM

I take it Teribus would object to anyone who had the temerity to say "It never rains but it pours".

I concede that when I said "never" I meant "hardly ever". which is in practice how we tend to use the word most of the time. "Never say never".

I freely accept that it may in fact be possible to find some rare instances of government departments backing down and apologising, since there is nothing intrinsically impossible in that happening. Teribus comes up with a case where they have admitted that a mistake has been made. Whether that involved an actual apology is another matter.

My experience is that even when it becomes impossible to avoid backing down after a mistake is made there is hardly ever (if ever) anything that amounts to an apology. "Mistakes were made" is an example of a typical formula used to avoid apologising.

Subject: RE: Horrendous tower-block fire in W London
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 01 Jul 17 - 09:35 AM

It's pointless [though entertaining] playing these 'empathy' games with teribus...

If and when he personally is faced with a severe drop in living standards
to the point of suicidal desperation,
due to the actions / inactions of a Govt welfare dept..

..well then he'll truly know and understand.....????

Subject: RE: Horrendous tower-block fire in W London
From: DMcG
Date: 01 Jul 17 - 09:21 AM

I wasn't moaning; I introduced that little story by saying getting benefits can be more difficult than you might imagine. We are forever hearing tales of people living in vast houses paid for by the government, to "Benefits Street" and so on. Coupled with that we hear from some.of the press opinions that "I Daniel Blake" are wild exaggerations. So I gave an example from my experience.

As to whether my daughter and others are being defauded of what is right fully theirs: that is your interpretation. I grant you that it sounds odd, but as to whether the refusal is right (ie in full compliance with the law) I have no idea. And I dont think whether a person shojld fight for a change in the law should be driven by whether they are personally affected.

Subject: RE: Horrendous tower-block fire in W London
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Jul 17 - 06:03 AM

DMcG - ever read, or see "The Winslow Boy"?

But thanks anyway for explaining that your daughter and possible thousands of others found themselves defrauded of what was rightfully theirs by EU regulations.

Perspectives:
- Your side
- Their side
- The whole picture

In this particular instance you caved and let them get away with it, they will therefore continue to get away with it - so you now have no right whatsoever to moan about it - which is what I think you were doing when you first introduced the story (DMcG - 29 Jun 17 - 08:20 AM).

Subject: RE: Horrendous tower-block fire in W London
From: DMcG
Date: 01 Jul 17 - 03:36 AM

As the one who startled this particular hare, let me explain why I said it would be pro bono - by which I mean of public good but not actually in my own interest - and also why I think it would be immensely difficult. Writing a few letters is easy but I do not think that would achieve anything.

The sums we were denied - because my daughter found a job quite quickly - are less than the train fare to London. So if we had to meet anyone in a department, as opposed you just our local MP, we would be out of pocket on that alone. Have several meetings with different people and we are racking up costs to no personal benefit.

Now, instead of looking at things from my point of view, let's look from the department's. The decision was taken by the computer. If we accept the decision was wrong, we have little alternative to have the programme amended and reinstalled. Optimistically, that is probably several thousands. Our other alternative is to risk the knowledge getting out and facing an unknown number of legal challenges. If we do get an update out on the other hand, we face an equally unknown number of claimants who were underpaid.

And that is assuming just a programming error. Now suppose the programme is correct and that the rules are themselves wrong. These stem from EU rules which are due to complex negotiations. The 'least cost' way of fixing them would be to wait until Brexit is over one way or the other and then we may be able to adjust them without having to negotiate with lots of other people. Even if we decided not to leave at all in the end, it still makes sense to wait. But as before these costs are on top of those of getting the programme amended and rolled out everywhere.

So: it may look like a few tens of pounds from our side of the fence, but it looks like many tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands from theirs.

As with my usual position, I have stated and explained, so that's as far as I go.

Subject: RE: Horrendous tower-block fire in W London
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Jul 17 - 02:10 AM

That is rather a long winded way of saying that your original "Government Departments never back down and apologise, even when they've done something outrageous." was indeed just your own personal opinion based on nothing.

Your requested example (Oddly enough from the Department for Works and Pensions):

In August 2015 the department admitted using fictional stories from made-up claimants on leaflets advertising the positive impact of benefit sanctions, following a Freedom of Information request from Welfare Weekly, claiming that they were for "illustrative purposes only" and that it was "quite wrong" to pass these off as genuine quotes.

Sources verifying the above:
- Dial2Donate. 26 August 2015.
- The Guardian Kevin Rawlinson; Frances Perraudin 18 August 2015.
- The Guardian Kevin Rawlinson 21 August 2015.
- The Guardian - The Minister for Work and Pensions, Iain Duncan-Smith, admits a leaflet about benefits containing fake quotes from fictitious claimants was 'wrong' Andrew Sparrow (24 August 2015).

Subject: RE: Horrendous tower-block fire in W London
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Jun 17 - 11:21 PM

If you've got any examples of goverment departments backing down and apologising it'd be interesting to hear them.

There are precious few "verifiable absolutes" in this world. Maybe the maximum speed of light might qualify, but I wouldn't even be certain about that. "Never" is virtually always a rhetorical overstatement meaning "rarely", but I think in this case it's a pretty fair approximation.

Subject: RE: Horrendous tower-block fire in W London
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Jun 17 - 05:19 PM

"Government Departments never back down and apologise, even when they've done something outrageous." - MGOH

Is that a verifiable absolute Kevin, or merely an assumption of your own?

I believe I mentioned recommending DMcG writing three letters:

- Home Office (They issue Passports and make decisions on Citizenship)
- Department of Work and Pensions (Junior by a long shot - they do not have anything to do with Passports or Citizenship - for them to do so they would be standing on the toes of the Home Office)
- DMcG's MP (He/she could get the ball rolling - The Civil Servants in the Home Office cannot ignore questions from a Member of the House of Commons)

Government Departments tend to be very territorial and the Home Office would have no hesitation at all in telling the Department of Work and Pensions where to get off making declarations about who and who is not a British Citizen especially when the Home Office has issued that person an official document that states quite clearly that that person is a British Citizen.


Government Departments and Ministry's have a definite pecking order (Ask Jom about those, he knows all about pecking orders) The Home Office carries a great deal more weight than

Subject: RE: Horrendous tower-block fire in W London
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Jun 17 - 05:28 PM

Government Departments never back down and apologise, even when they've one something outrageous. They persist in justifying themselves way past the time it's become ridiculous, knowing that a lot of the time the people they're dealing with will get discouragedm, give up in despair, or with luck drop dead.

The smaller the amount the more they resist, because people are more likely to shrug and abandon a small claim.

Subject: RE: Horrendous tower-block fire in W London
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 29 Jun 17 - 01:07 PM

DMcG - We grabbed a chance to watch it for 99p in HD on Amazon Prime..

It's by turns hilarious and heartbreaking...

A similar film of petty officialdom gone mad is the Romanian black comedy "The Death of Mr. Lazarescu"

Subject: RE: Horrendous tower-block fire in W London
From: DMcG
Date: 29 Jun 17 - 12:49 PM

If those were all the costs etc involved, Terebus, I would not hesitate. But there will be face to face meetings (days off work, travel costs); the rules are as they are because of agreements all EU citizens are treated equally and they effectively classed her as equivalent to an EU citizen arriving without a job; misclassified maybe but there is a mountain of legislation behind that - I don't anticipate a simple "admon error, sorry" here.

But this is just one story of one person trying to claim benefits. I can tell you another case I know personally who was told to turn down a job interview because it clashed with a sign-on date that could not be changed: no sign on, no money. I can tell you of disabled friends where their benefits are cut again and again ...

And I am sure many people know similar things from theirq personal experience. I haven't seen "I Daniel Blake" but from what I have heard I know people who have lived aspects of it.

Subject: RE: Horrendous tower-block fire in W London
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Jun 17 - 11:12 AM

"We could and probably should fight it. But it would be entirely pro bono; I predict many months of argument and the benefit to us would be tiny compared our costs"

Damn right you should fight it - it was totally outrageous - as to time effort and costs - two letters, three if you involve your MP then it is an inter Government Department issue - on second thoughts definitely get your MP involved you can prod him to prod them along should they try and delay in the hope that it will just go away. It is worth doing so that it does not happen again.

Subject: RE: Horrendous tower-block fire in W London
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 29 Jun 17 - 11:06 AM

..but.. too much time dwelling in the past...

2017.. let's at least see our current government rise to the challenge
of positively tackling the present day social housing crisis,
brought more clearly into focus by this terrible Tower block tragedy...

Of course I'd judge the quality of social housing by the 'model' council estate I was fortunate enough to grow up on...


But I used to have a mate living in a tower block in Dagenham, that was a shithole [literally - the stench in the lifts],
with constant atmosphere of threat from other occupants..
Oddly enough he was fairly happy, he was in his 20s, it was an affordable home, it was what he was used to, it was close enough to the music venues and his social life in the city...
Maybe a nice council house with big gardens in the provinces would have driven him nuts..

So in that respect i can understand Grenfell survivors not wanting to be shipped out of London
and dispersed all over the country...

Subject: RE: Horrendous tower-block fire in W London
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Jun 17 - 10:58 AM

At this point of course we are all still EU citizens, and we will be until we lose that status, and all the rights it entitles us to, when Brexit finally kicks in. (As an Irish citizen born and living in England of course I retain all three citizenships...)
......
The claim that under Thatcher more council houses were built than under Blair is true, but it's misleading. Council house building was reduced steadily throughout Thatcher's years. By the time Major replaced her it had been virtually eliminated in England. Such social housing as continued to be added was through housing associations. When Labour came to power it continued to rely on housing associations to provide social housing and increased significantly the rate at which these were provided.

There was no move back towards council housing during the Blair Brown years. I believe that it was a serious mistake by those Labour governments not to restore the provision of council houses, or at least to ensure that houses sold by councils were replaced by building new ones, or repurchasing existing properties, on a one-for-one basis. But that's the kind of Labour government it was, the kind now called "moderate".

Jeremy Corbyn of course fought consistently against that policy. That was presented as being "hard left", though the policy he advocated was one which had been held in common with Conservatives before Thatcher came along, under such quasi-Marxists as Churchill, Eden, Macmillan, Alec Douglas-Hill and Heath.

Subject: RE: Horrendous tower-block fire in W London
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 29 Jun 17 - 10:44 AM

Inanes - did I mention textiles...???

..and even if that Factory & it's parent company were no longer competitive,
if younger directors and managers in that Quaker family made stupid decisions ?
It's closure and the sudden shock impact to the community need not have been so brutal and callous,
as was allowed and encouraged by thatcher's harsh regime and ideological culture of survival of the fittest...

.. oh well.. at least my dad had a rusty old bike in the shed to get on..

He should have kept his tandem from his courting years,
then the whole family could have strapped on to it with bundles of possessions and furniture,
and cycled off into a glowing future of new opportunity over the rainbow... 🙄

Subject: RE: Horrendous tower-block fire in W London
From: DMcG
Date: 29 Jun 17 - 10:30 AM

That's probably true, Terebus. But the person at the job centre wasn't waffling on: they were using a computer system and the first few questions were aimed at identifying EU citizens to filter them off somewhere else. That the program wasn't sophisticated enough to be sensible or that it perhaps correctly implements rules that are themselves poorly thought out were way beyond what anyone at the job centre had any control of. They had no means of authorising anything outside the computer, and it said no.

We could and probably should fight it. But it would be entirely pro bono; I predict many months of argument and the benefit to us would be tiny compared our costs. The timing was also bad: I would have tried to get our MP involved but as there was an election on at the time we did not have one.