There is the general notion that year by year everything and everyone should ‘progress’ so the fall in home ownership is seen as a backward step and those that cannot afford to buy are almost treated as second-class citizens. It will take many years and a culture change before renting is seen as the norm again.
1 Like
I am in almost complete agreement with your two first propositions, Tim: that progress is a universal ‘given’, and people who aren’t property-owners are scrounging scumbags.
What I am less sure of is the notion that change will be slow, and not radical or revolutionary. When people are dopey and complacent is the time for the “sudden blow”… people have often underestimated and discounted the peoples’ capacity for intelligence, determination, organisation and ruthlessness. We shall see, maybe even I may live to see it, and play my part.
Not every one sees the need to own a home.
My parents rented all their lives.
They called it home.
1 Like
Long, but to my mind well worth reading.
I can’t help thinking that if Grenfell was a high-end property full of rich tenants in luxury “appartments” then the whole thing would have been written off as the tragic accident that it was & we would not be seeing anything like as much publicity as it now gets.
Perhaps we are seeing political correctness taken to extremes here as we are in so many walks of life.
I cannot see that anyone would deliberately specify the use of materials which a) are not permitted & b) with the intention that they could cause harm. I think that “the council” tried to make their budget go as far as possible although it was the building’s management company who made the decisions. After all, a quick look around my house reveals that a fair proportion of it is constructed with the very same material I burn for heating! How is that allowed if we apply the same criteria to our own homes?
I cannot fault anyone who tries to save money by buying cheaper where possible. We all do it & it is often a case of compromise. Look at the cars we drive. If money was no object we would all have the latest, safest cars on the market.
So let’s cut the crap & acknowledge that sh*t happens to anyone whatever their background.
1 Like
But was it a preventable accident and surely it’s right and proper that the rapid spread of the fire is investigated so that lessons can be learnt?
Absolutely! As it is with many accidents. Only the others are not usually accompanied by so much public opinion.
Does it really!
Cutting down on quality ingredients is about making money and if people can get away with it …t seems that they will.
I have a friend who has recently joined Ken and Chelsea admin so; perhaps I will ask him what he thinks.
Congratulations Mark, you have done your bit to ensure that the Grenfell situation stays in people’s minds and is not swept under the carpet. Your campaign has had a good result. Even coverage on expat forums is better than no coverage at all.
congratulations? Sarcasm!
This is a tragedy which can not be brushed under the carpet.
Exactly. As I said Mark’s OP has kept the topic in SFN users’ minds.
I can not forget!
This all happened just “up the road” from where I lived for a long, long time. London was a place
for the rich and the poor and everyone with or without a shilling in their back pocket. But it is no longer that place.
It is important that there needs to be a thorough investigation as there is with all incidents involving major loss of life. The problem is that the press & therefore the public have already decided the outcome of any investigation. Jane Jones has already decided who was to blame despite that the official enquiry has not even started to fact find.
But there are anomilies here which are being permitted that other enquiries do not allow. Why?
In any other enquiry such as an air disaster the thing is handled by experienced, trained professionals with no axe to grind. They sift through the wreckage & forensically analyse every piece to find out what went wrong, With this enquiry we have seen demands from residents to replace the chairman of the enquiry as he is “not our kind of people” (I’m sure that was not at all racist!) & that residents should be part of the committee. It is after all a public enquiry & unqualified people do not need to be involved in a process that they have no experience in. Can you imagine the AAIB allowing relatives & friends to walk over a crash scene poking about & moving stuff?
Let the enquiry do what it needs to do, cut the paranoia & wait until the findings, based on fact rather than passion, are published.
It is a little different story when we compare an air disaster with a building which becomes a towering inferno.
Why because you have the question of “economising on construction materials and where is the blame to lie…with the local gov or somewhere else.”
Is th ere a bigger picture with tower blocks and the nonchalant attitude which some times goes hand in hand with “saving money”;
Please do not be sure we have the same circumstances to deal with as air crashes as you have in this situation.
My other half agrees with you Mark but when we know what really happened …it may be time to hear less about the tragedy. It is always easier when you are not directly affected.
Did you even bother to look at the LRB piece, and particularly the second section on the facts of the building and the previous fires? Seems not.
I have just been reading this morning about some necessary ventilation work which was required to take place was ignored. The sum of 3.600 pounds plus vat was deemed worthy of ignoring and this apparently took place 8 days before the tragedy.In modern day buisness it seems to be “cool” to ignore something or someone with ideas which do not appeal!
Making money and running a buisness does not have to destroy lives.