Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2018 10:00:00 GMT
Nick seems to be stating that the two are mutually exclusive.
I believe that the 'grief fest' will be a part of the whole enquiry, which will hopefully identify causes and recommend preventative measures.
Allowing wider 'victims' to participate need not exclude a scientific outcome.
Rog
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on May 23, 2018 10:08:53 GMT
Nick seems to be stating that the two are mutually exclusive. I believe that the 'grief fest' will be a part of the whole enquiry, which will hopefully identify causes and recommend preventative measures. Allowing wider 'victims' to participate need not exclude a scientific outcome. Rog Not entirely mutually exclusive, obviously. But with the former significantly diluting and distracting from the latter. At the heart of my resentment is I suppose the trend to allow the “man in the street” to determine how these things are run. A sure recipe for fickleness, confusion, disagreement, lack of clarity and to become generally dysfunctional as the child abuse enquiry has. The irony is that the “powers that be” will probably be delighted!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2018 10:34:42 GMT
It took a lot of effort following the Hillsborough disaster to get the authorities to listen to the 'man in the street' - I believe that it is a good thing that this inquiry has been set up the way it has been. For people who don't like the grief/commemorative stuff, just ignore the first 2 weeks, you have another 3.5 months of the more logical stuff and perhaps those months will run smoother due to having had the opening two weeks.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on May 23, 2018 10:54:43 GMT
What a farce. The inquiry will come up with a list of recommendations. These will not be implemented. Tenants will continue to pay rent to the local borough, whilst creaming 50% extra off those they have found to actually live in those concrete slum blocks. Stack 'em high, make them cry.
|
|
|
Post by peterboat on May 23, 2018 11:04:44 GMT
It took a lot of effort following the Hillsborough disaster to get the authorities to listen to the 'man in the street' - I believe that it is a good thing that this inquiry has been set up the way it has been. For people who don't like the grief/commemorative stuff, just ignore the first 2 weeks, you have another 3.5 months of the more logical stuff and perhaps those months will run smoother due to having had the opening two weeks. I know 2 firemen and one other that were at Hillsborough and how they remembered it wasnt as the fans did!! He who shouts and wails the loudest gets listened to that is what people have learned! The truth well that gets buried and sometimes the innocent take a fall
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2018 11:18:47 GMT
What a farce. The inquiry will come up with a list of recommendations. These will not be implemented. Tenants will continue to pay rent to the local borough, whilst creaming 50% extra off those they have found to actually live in those concrete slum blocks. Stack 'em high, make them cry. You might be right apart from the fact that Grenfell was far from a slum block). The public inquiries that I know most about are the Southall/Ladbroke Grove rail accidents. Lots of recommendations which were all implemented (ok it took some time to implement some of them), many other things came to light that were not directly within the terms of the inquiries which also resulted in recommendations within the industry and were implemented. It also helped lead to the prosecution of Thames Trains and Railtrack/Network Rail.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2018 12:37:20 GMT
Just looked on CWDF. Anyone want to wind mjg up and tell him it's an Inquiry not an Enquiry.
|
|
|
Post by Graham on May 23, 2018 13:29:31 GMT
Nick, not for the first time, I believe you are looking at the situation in a very one dimensional way. Yes the inquiry does need to look logically at the facts but to expect the people caught up in the disaster to act purely logically less than a year after the event is in my opinion both illogical and harsh. Part of working out what happened and more importantly what needs to be done to stop it happening again does need to look at not just the technicalities of the fire but the complaints made by residents about fire safety and why they seem to have been ignored, hence the decision to hear from the residents (at least in part). If the chair cannot gets to grips and sort out what is pertinent and what is an expression of grief/anger in a reasonably compassionate way then they should never have agreed to take the chair. I think you are conflating several things. Yes of course the previous residents’ complaints should be heard and taken into account. Pretty damning! But that is in no way related to all the mawkish sentimental stuff that has been platformed. Of course these people have suffered loss and grief, but as I said, the enquiry isn’t the place to spend a long time venting it. It is a degeneration into “enquiry by sentiment/public/media rule” which, in my opinion, is a seriously worrying development. You talk about the "previous residents" as if the people appearing at the inquiry are relations of people who lived in the block. The people appearing with few if any exceptions lived in the block and escaped the fire, had been complaining for quite a while about fire safety etc. These people are the previous resident, these people walked down those stairs through thick smoke, these people stayed too long in their flats because that is what they were told to do. If the building had been cleared on the first alarms (I understand the fire alarms failed) there would probably have been no deaths.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on May 23, 2018 15:08:13 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on May 23, 2018 15:10:53 GMT
I think you are conflating several things. Yes of course the previous residents’ complaints should be heard and taken into account. Pretty damning! But that is in no way related to all the mawkish sentimental stuff that has been platformed. Of course these people have suffered loss and grief, but as I said, the enquiry isn’t the place to spend a long time venting it. It is a degeneration into “enquiry by sentiment/public/media rule” which, in my opinion, is a seriously worrying development. You talk about the "previous residents" as if the people appearing at the inquiry are relations of people who lived in the block. The people appearing with few if any exceptions lived in the block and escaped the fire, had been complaining for quite a while about fire safety etc. These people are the previous resident, these people walked down those stairs through thick smoke, these people stayed too long in their flats because that is what they were told to do. If the building had been cleared on the first alarms (I understand the fire alarms failed) there would probably have been no deaths. I talk about the “previous residents” as if they were people who used to live in the block but no longer do. Which, oddly enough they are, bearing in mind the block is uninhabitable. It includes anyone and everyone who was there at the time, except perhaps a few visitors. Sorry if the concept of people who once lived somewhere and no longer do, confuses you.
|
|
|
Post by Graham on May 23, 2018 22:18:31 GMT
You talk about the "previous residents" as if the people appearing at the inquiry are relations of people who lived in the block. The people appearing with few if any exceptions lived in the block and escaped the fire, had been complaining for quite a while about fire safety etc. These people are the previous resident, these people walked down those stairs through thick smoke, these people stayed too long in their flats because that is what they were told to do. If the building had been cleared on the first alarms (I understand the fire alarms failed) there would probably have been no deaths. I talk about the “previous residents” as if they were people who used to live in the block but no longer do. Which, oddly enough they are, bearing in mind the block is uninhabitable. It includes anyone and everyone who was there at the time, except perhaps a few visitors. Sorry if the concept of people who once lived somewhere and no longer do, confuses you. So why not call them residents - because that is what these unhomed people are
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on May 24, 2018 7:24:41 GMT
I talk about the “previous residents” as if they were people who used to live in the block but no longer do. Which, oddly enough they are, bearing in mind the block is uninhabitable. It includes anyone and everyone who was there at the time, except perhaps a few visitors. Sorry if the concept of people who once lived somewhere and no longer do, confuses you. So why not call them residents - because that is what these unhomed people are Wow I didn’t realise English was such a struggle for you. A resident of Grenfell is someone who lives there. As far as I know, nobody is in that category. A former or previous resident is someone who used to live there before it burnt out. They are now resident somewhere else, even if in temporary accommodation. Do you get it yet? Why not call them Residents? Well I could, but equally I could call them hippopotamuses. But since they are neither, I’ll stick with previous residents.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on May 24, 2018 15:17:53 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Andyberg on May 24, 2018 16:11:17 GMT
I've just searched that site to see if there are any entries for Nick Norman...unbelievably, there isn't! 🙁
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on May 24, 2018 19:53:08 GMT
I've just searched that site to see if there are any entries for Nick Norman...unbelievably, there isn't! 🙁 naughty but funny.
|
|