Horrendous tower-block fire in W London

Subject: RE: Horrendous tower-block fire in W London
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 29 Jun 17 - 06:39 AM

Btw.. We finally got round to watching Ken Loach's "I,Daniel Blake" last night..

Of course our resident tory right propagandists will automatically dismiss this film
as a grossly exaggerated lefty distortion
of the happy fulfilled real lives of work-shy scrounging northern 'chavs 'n' oiks'... 🙄

Subject: RE: Horrendous tower-block fire in W London
From: Iains
Date: 29 Jun 17 - 07:10 AM

PfR
unlike those you describe I anticipated Mr Tebbits most excellent advice some years before he actually gave it. On my first redundancy I got on my bike to find work, or in my case a jet. The next five years I was away from home. Subsequently I indulged in inter continental commuting to work, frequently in what would be considered hazardous environments.
So I am afraid any argument that people should stay in one place, and sit on their arse bleating about how hard done by they are while shovelling away benefits like a trojan, cuts very little ice with me.
Go try your arguments on someone with more sympathy than me - I have zero.

Subject: RE: Horrendous tower-block fire in W London
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 29 Jun 17 - 07:56 AM

Iains - we already realised that about you..

My dad did get on his bike.. literally..

In his late 50s, on his 1950s bike, cyling miles up and down the busy dangerous dual carriage way in all weathers and seasons
seeking any kind of employer that would accept an aging unqualified factory worker with a history of active trades unionism..

He finally found one in a shite evil hot metal casting factory with no care or compassion for it's workers..
The much younger under educated thuggish workers on the shop floor treated him cruelly as a laughing stock,
and management dismissively told him like it or lump it.
..the total opposite of the relatively benign factory that he had spent most of his working life devoted to.

This daily exhausting cycling, and harsh hostile factory work conditions and macho bully management ethos rapidly hastened his physical and mental decline....

So don't worry Inanes..
you and your kind of toryism serve a purpose to strengthen my resolve & resilience, and focus my resistance..

thanks...

Subject: RE: Horrendous tower-block fire in W London
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 29 Jun 17 - 08:08 AM

Inanes - btw.. learn to read..

I stated the community declined and fragmented..

what kind of blinkered twisted rightwing blockhead can misread that as

"people .. stay in one place, and sit on their arse bleating about how hard done by they are while shovelling away benefits like a trojan"...!!!???

How the f@ck could the families who lost their homes on the estate
when the town's main employer went bust have been staying there...???

Subject: RE: Horrendous tower-block fire in W London
From: DMcG
Date: 29 Jun 17 - 08:20 AM

I am not sure why so many people seem to think getting benefits is easy. Here is a little for the "get on your bike and look" brigade. This is anecdotal but worth saying all the same. My daughter worked abroad for a couple of years, most recently for around 3 months in Portugal. She then came back to the UK and immediately took a temporary job ovwr the Christmas period for around three months as well. As that ended she applied for a number of jobs and for job seekers allowance.

She has a British passport, was born and raised in the UK and lived and paid taxes here conrinuously except for around two years when she had a job abroad.

She was declined jobseekers allowance on the grounds she woŕked in Portugal and therefore was considered an EU citizen not a UK one. That he most recent job was in the UK was of no interest.

(She has another job now, btw)

Subject: RE: Horrendous tower-block fire in W London
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 29 Jun 17 - 08:29 AM

Our resident hardcore tories are such preposterous stereotypes,
you'd be forgiven for thinking they were sit-com caricatures written by Ben Elton... 😜

Subject: RE: Horrendous tower-block fire in W London
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Jun 17 - 09:13 AM

What was the factory that went bust pfr?

Was it the benign factory that he [Your Dad] had spent most of his working life devoted to. - "devoted to what? Engaged as you yourself describe as "active trades unionism" - in the Britain of the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s I am fully aware of what "active trades unionism" meant.

Here is a little story for you pfr about "active trades unionism" for you.

The company, wholly owned by it's Chairman, was one of the largest manufacturers of knitwear in the UK and possibly Europe at the time. On arriving at work one morning he was told that the immigrant workers employed in the factory were going to go on strike as they did not feel that there were enough of "their own" foremen - Solution proposed was promote the required number from that group, which was done. At lunchtime he was told that the British workforce were going to go on strike as they were not prepared to be ordered about or work under the newly made-up foremen. He then called a meeting to be held in the Boardroom between union representatives of all groups threatening strike action and himself at four o'clock that afternoon. At that meeting both sides outlined their cases, which the Chairman summed up as follows:

Group A will call a strike because they feel unrepresented in terms of foremen on the shop floor - I am perfectly willing to promote men to those positions - However if I do allow that to happen, Group B will go on strike as those they represent will not work under those foremen. The representatives agreed that that was an accurate summation of the problem. On hearing this the Chairmen then told those present the following and I paraphrase:

"Gentlemen, I have a message I would like you to relate to those you represent. This business is without any shadow of doubt the largest employer in this area. It is a business that I have built up over the past decades and I own it lock, stock and barrel. Every nut and bolt of every machine, every brick and every pane of glass. I have made my money from this business and can retire whenever I wish. I will give those present in this Boardroom now until nine o'clock tomorrow morning to come up with a mutually agreeable solution to both parties without any strike being called. If for whatever reason you cannot do that, I will retire and shut the business down forthwith and then all of you can go and explain to the groups you represent why 5,000 people are now out of work. Good-day Gentlemen, this meeting is now over."

Needless to say he never heard another word about any strike being called - what that Chairman was facing was the sort of "active trades unionism" that was prevalent in the Britain of the 1950s, 1960s and much of the 1970s.

Subject: RE: Horrendous tower-block fire in W London
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 29 Jun 17 - 09:54 AM

Terry - As I clearly stated, my dad was a moderate shop steward who actively did his best to negotiate and avoid disruptive action by shop floor 'hot heads'...

Was my dad a management stooge to be ashamed of..???

That's a question I've had to contend with...

But... the factory was family owned by devout Quakers.
They sincerely believed in providing the best 'modern' [post war] conditions possible for their workforce.

New factory & machines, canteen, social club, educational lectures..
a full active community life..
and most importantly, a new build 'model' estate to house them...

This was the job my dad settled down to after national service and getting married.
The Quaker family inspired my dad's confidence and loyalty,
and as a worker and shop steward he proved himself as an asset
from before I was born in the late 50s
to the factories sudden shock closure in the 80s'

This factory estate was a real tangible good example stable friendly society.

Maybe it was an idyllic bubble in an other wise divided and fractious nation...???
The workers could not be blamed for believing they had job security and homes for life....

No coincidence the estate primary school annually sent enough of us on to grammar school in the nearest big town to justify the daily school bus..

Now I look back, I realise as never before how fortunate we were before thatcher...

Subject: RE: Horrendous tower-block fire in W London
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Jun 17 - 10:00 AM

DMcG - 29 Jun 17 - 08:20 AM

Interesting story. I assume that your daughter is a British citizen - It actually states that in her British Passport.

No idea what the person in the Job Centre was waffling on about - your citizenship is not defined by where you have recently worked. Whoever it was in the Job Centre they should have been informed having stated what they said was that the question would be referred to the Home Office who would formally ask the Department of Work and Pensions why they were stripping a British Citizen of their nationality.

Subject: RE: Horrendous tower-block fire in W London
From: Iains
Date: 29 Jun 17 - 10:20 AM

To blame the decline of the textile industry on Thatcher is ridiculous.
The industry had been in decline for decades before. On both machinery complexity and price it could not compete with competitors overseas. Consequently it lost market share, declined and was closed down.
Five minutes research on the internet will confirm this view repeatedly.

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.

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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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 - 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 - 02:51 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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.