Huge Fire In Block Of Flats
Discussion
kev1974 said:
Stupid woman, why hold your party today? Would it have hurt to have it tomorrow or next week.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5842005/Gr...
[cynical] Because this gets her more exposure[/cynical]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5842005/Gr...
Amidst all the talk of illegal immigrants, sub letting and false claims there are still as far as i can tell very few facts as to the occupancy of the flats in the public domain.
Of the 120 flats in Grenfell how many were privately owned? Did the owners/tenants of these receive offers to re house?
How many of those displaced were illegal immigrants?
How many of the flats were illegally sub let? What has happened to the tenants and the "Landlords"
I know anecdotally it was said there were lots of illegal immigrants, lots of sub letting etc but have the facts ever been put in the public domain.
Of the 120 flats in Grenfell how many were privately owned? Did the owners/tenants of these receive offers to re house?
How many of those displaced were illegal immigrants?
How many of the flats were illegally sub let? What has happened to the tenants and the "Landlords"
I know anecdotally it was said there were lots of illegal immigrants, lots of sub letting etc but have the facts ever been put in the public domain.
Thankyou4calling said:
Amidst all the talk of illegal immigrants, sub letting and false claims there are still as far as i can tell very few facts as to the occupancy of the flats in the public domain.
Of the 120 flats in Grenfell how many were privately owned? Did the owners/tenants of these receive offers to re house?
How many of those displaced were illegal immigrants?
How many of the flats were illegally sub let? What has happened to the tenants and the "Landlords"
I know anecdotally it was said there were lots of illegal immigrants, lots of sub letting etc but have the facts ever been put in the public domain.
I would hope any know facts about the occupancy will come out in the enquiry, away from the politics and points scoring.Of the 120 flats in Grenfell how many were privately owned? Did the owners/tenants of these receive offers to re house?
How many of those displaced were illegal immigrants?
How many of the flats were illegally sub let? What has happened to the tenants and the "Landlords"
I know anecdotally it was said there were lots of illegal immigrants, lots of sub letting etc but have the facts ever been put in the public domain.
V8 Fettler said:
CDM requires that designers identify and eliminate (as is reasonably practicable) foreseeable risks to the health or safety of any person using the building i.e. following completion of the construction works, when the building is in use.
Now I thought I knew the CDM Regs quite well, but that's a new one on me! Where in the CDM Regs are the designers duties extended to future residents, and require designers to exceed the accepted technical legislation to mitigate risks for people living in a residential tower?The Surveyor said:
Thankyou4calling said:
Amidst all the talk of illegal immigrants, sub letting and false claims there are still as far as i can tell very few facts as to the occupancy of the flats in the public domain.
Of the 120 flats in Grenfell how many were privately owned? Did the owners/tenants of these receive offers to re house?
How many of those displaced were illegal immigrants?
How many of the flats were illegally sub let? What has happened to the tenants and the "Landlords"
I know anecdotally it was said there were lots of illegal immigrants, lots of sub letting etc but have the facts ever been put in the public domain.
I would hope any know facts about the occupancy will come out in the enquiry, away from the politics and points scoring.Of the 120 flats in Grenfell how many were privately owned? Did the owners/tenants of these receive offers to re house?
How many of those displaced were illegal immigrants?
How many of the flats were illegally sub let? What has happened to the tenants and the "Landlords"
I know anecdotally it was said there were lots of illegal immigrants, lots of sub letting etc but have the facts ever been put in the public domain.
Is there any justifiable argument for not going after these benefit swindlers/cheats? Whilst cowering under the awful and huge shadow of this disaster, surely some good can come from prosecuting these crims/cheats and deterring other similar behaviour? Or can I see the headlines now:
"Only poor people get prosecuted post Grenfell" or
" Fat cats escape whilst witch hunt continues"
Slaav said:
Whilst the actual tenants of illegally tenanted council/LA flats may be victims in all this, I do wonder why LA/Council tenants who illegally let/sub let their LA funded/subsidised housing at full market rents get any leeway whatsoever? Their isn't a heart string or sympathy card for them to pluck/play?
Is there any justifiable argument for not going after these benefit swindlers/cheats? Whilst cowering under the awful and huge shadow of this disaster, surely some good can come from prosecuting these crims/cheats and deterring other similar behaviour? Or can I see the headlines now:
"Only poor people get prosecuted post Grenfell" or
" Fat cats escape whilst witch hunt continues"
To date we don't know if there was any subletting or illegally tenanted flats though.Is there any justifiable argument for not going after these benefit swindlers/cheats? Whilst cowering under the awful and huge shadow of this disaster, surely some good can come from prosecuting these crims/cheats and deterring other similar behaviour? Or can I see the headlines now:
"Only poor people get prosecuted post Grenfell" or
" Fat cats escape whilst witch hunt continues"
it seems clear the Council did not have a clue who was living in the flats though, otherwise they would know who was committing fraud etc.
My ex lives in a low-rise 5 storey block but I have been there when the fire brigade have been round, checking how many people live in the property and if they have any mobility problems
My ex lives in a low-rise 5 storey block but I have been there when the fire brigade have been round, checking how many people live in the property and if they have any mobility problems
SydneyBridge said:
it seems clear the Council did not have a clue who was living in the flats though, otherwise they would know who was committing fraud etc.
......
Why does it even matter though?......
It's social housing, and just like any other housing people are free to come and go as they please, have mates around, have parties, or go on holiday. Any attending fire fighters will know that there is absolutely no certainly of who was in that building during the fire, regardless of how effective or not the council records.
In the context of the fire, whether it was a known resident, a visitor, a squatter, or somebody delivering a pizza who perished is totally irrelevant. It only matter to those trying to milk the tragedy for political gain, whether that be to exaggerate the tragedy or otherwise.
SydneyBridge said:
it seems clear the Council did not have a clue who was living in the flats though, otherwise they would know who was committing fraud etc.
My ex lives in a low-rise 5 storey block but I have been there when the fire brigade have been round, checking how many people live in the property and if they have any mobility problems
I thought the terrible confusion about who was here and who was even meant to be living there was one big cluster f**k as there was sub letting going on and people permanently on sofas etc? I think the 'ground zero' flat had two girls (from the enquiry) in the two bedrooms and the chap was living in the living room? That doesn't sound like a typical LA/Council/HA arrangement to me?My ex lives in a low-rise 5 storey block but I have been there when the fire brigade have been round, checking how many people live in the property and if they have any mobility problems
Also, in theory, this was a Council block! Some flats were (I believe) sold off to private owners presumably under Right to Buy at some point; those then become Leaseholders and there will have been a simple list for them - way in the minority I believe. It seems several HA were also responsible for some flats. Leaseholders were free to tenant or otherwise their own flats - but surely have a record if all legit? As Leaseholders, the Managing agent/freeholder will know who the hell owns the Lease.
Nobody (to this day I believe although will wait for the enquiry in case it uncovers a definitive list) seems to know for sure who was 'meant' to be living in Grenfell; not unusual as I cant tell you the names of my next door neighbours in London!! Not acceptable though when the vast majority were Council flats with registered tenants?
There is no doubt it is/was all a cluster f**k but to even remotely believe there was no sub letting going on is at best naïve?
But as someone else has stated, time will tell.....
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-44395591
I thought none of the flats were bigger than two bed. What seems to have been commonplace is that many were seriously overcrowded, again the market being what it is: that would never be resolved, because where would anyone move too that wasn't in the fabulous amazing village and tribal area of Grenfell ?
I say tribe, because after 2 mins of watching the BBC prog last night and watching some chap talking about their "tribe" of Grenfell, roots of Grenfell blah blah, I had to put my foot through the TV and send the BBC the bill.
Joking aside, its somewhat of an issue IF the landlord is tolerating people living in such conditions and the risks that overcrowding causes: eg impacts on health and well being, mental health and, fire of course.
I thought none of the flats were bigger than two bed. What seems to have been commonplace is that many were seriously overcrowded, again the market being what it is: that would never be resolved, because where would anyone move too that wasn't in the fabulous amazing village and tribal area of Grenfell ?
I say tribe, because after 2 mins of watching the BBC prog last night and watching some chap talking about their "tribe" of Grenfell, roots of Grenfell blah blah, I had to put my foot through the TV and send the BBC the bill.
Joking aside, its somewhat of an issue IF the landlord is tolerating people living in such conditions and the risks that overcrowding causes: eg impacts on health and well being, mental health and, fire of course.
k me you'd declare yourself bankruptaustinsmirk said:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-44395591
I thought none of the flats were bigger than two bed. What seems to have been commonplace is that many were seriously overcrowded, again the market being what it is: that would never be resolved, because where would anyone move too that wasn't in the fabulous amazing village and tribal area of Grenfell ?
I say tribe, because after 2 mins of watching the BBC prog last night and watching some chap talking about their "tribe" of Grenfell, roots of Grenfell blah blah, I had to put my foot through the TV and send the BBC the bill.
Joking aside, its somewhat of an issue IF the landlord is tolerating people living in such conditions and the risks that overcrowding causes: eg impacts on health and well being, mental health and, fire of course.
In answer to a couple of your points.I thought none of the flats were bigger than two bed. What seems to have been commonplace is that many were seriously overcrowded, again the market being what it is: that would never be resolved, because where would anyone move too that wasn't in the fabulous amazing village and tribal area of Grenfell ?
I say tribe, because after 2 mins of watching the BBC prog last night and watching some chap talking about their "tribe" of Grenfell, roots of Grenfell blah blah, I had to put my foot through the TV and send the BBC the bill.
Joking aside, its somewhat of an issue IF the landlord is tolerating people living in such conditions and the risks that overcrowding causes: eg impacts on health and well being, mental health and, fire of course.
There were plenty of four bedroom flats in Grenfell. It was far from overcrowded. There were 129 flats and 293 people were in them that evening, about 2 people per flat.
As regards the area? It actually is in a FANTASTIC location. Yes, there are no green fields and rolling hills but it's within a 5 minute walk of a tube, it's 5 minutes to Portobello Road, 10 minutes from Holland park and Kensington, a mile from the west end. it's 400 m to the M40 so you can be at Heathrow in 30 minutes or oxford in an hour.
Grenfell was a real community, people loved living there, that's one of the reasons they are holding out for rehousing in the immediate area.
Go to the area, walk around and you'll see the appeal, not in a property pawn way but you see real people enjoying life.
It IS NOT a slum, it IS NOT crime ridden, It IS NOT a place of despair.
FAR FROM IT.
Another point to note is that there was NO AMNESTY ever given for illegal immigrants residing in the Tower. All were subject to the usual checks, this was originally talked about but the PM did not endorse it.
The facts are so far removed from the reality it's a product of the need to have an opinion and fill news i guess.
Edited by Thankyou4calling on Thursday 14th June 17:24
The Surveyor said:
SydneyBridge said:
it seems clear the Council did not have a clue who was living in the flats though, otherwise they would know who was committing fraud etc.
......
Why does it even matter though?......
It's social housing, and just like any other housing people are free to come and go as they please, have mates around, have parties, or go on holiday. Any attending fire fighters will know that there is absolutely no certainly of who was in that building during the fire, regardless of how effective or not the council records.
In the context of the fire, whether it was a known resident, a visitor, a squatter, or somebody delivering a pizza who perished is totally irrelevant. It only matter to those trying to milk the tragedy for political gain, whether that be to exaggerate the tragedy or otherwise.
Where the cladding is definitely outside the windows , does it need to be removed?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-44457813
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-44457813
kev1974 said:
The council having a clue who legitmately lived there would have put a lid on the ridiculous fraud claims that have been going on, for one thing ... not by Grenfell residents, but utter scum chancers who have run up hundreds of days hotel bills each and been handed hundreds of thousands in cash, each, just by saying they lived there. Must be heading for 20 cases of that scale by now.
As noted elsewhere, most of the flats were in private or housing association landlord hands, other entities who may control 5, 10, 15 or more individual flats. The council wouldn't be responsible for knowing who is a tenant of each and every landlord, and certainly not who was staying in privately owned flats.As I said, in the context of the fire itself it doesn't matter, but you are right when it comes to compensating those claiming from the fund.
The Surveyor said:
As noted elsewhere, most of the flats were in private or housing association landlord hands, other entities who may control 5, 10, 15 or more individual flats. The council wouldn't be responsible for knowing who is a tenant of each and every landlord, and certainly not who was staying in privately owned flats.
As I said, in the context of the fire itself it doesn't matter, but you are right when it comes to compensating those claiming from the fund.
Where did you get the information that most of the flats were private or housing association?As I said, in the context of the fire itself it doesn't matter, but you are right when it comes to compensating those claiming from the fund.
I’ve not seen that.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff