Stormzy’s attack on TM, justified or not?
Discussion
mx5nut said:
BJG1 said:
wow.
Their houses burned down, their friends and family died, because the government and council didn't care enough about the safety of poor people. The Government is a proxy of society and the people in it, I think most of its participants want to help those who've been so badly failed.
Their houses burned down, their friends and family died, because the government and council didn't care enough about the safety of poor people. The Government is a proxy of society and the people in it, I think most of its participants want to help those who've been so badly failed.
Some here seem to completely lack any empathy whatsoever - because they simply can't imagine themselves or loved ones in the same situation.
BJG1 said:
because the government and council didn't care enough about the safety of poor people.
I've sympathy and empathy, but it's got little to do with the govt.'caring' or not. They just spent a s
t load on the tower to make it more efficient and look better, like lots of other towers across the country. This is just emotional unreasoned rubbish that only distracts from the root problems for political point scoring. Think about what you're saying.andy_s said:
I've sympathy and empathy, but it's got little to do with the govt.'caring' or not. They just spent a st load on the tower to make it more efficient and look better
t load on the tower to make it more efficient and look betterNot-The-Messiah said:
Why do you expect the working public to pay for building fire safety protection
The fact that we're even discussing whether families who burned to death deserved money to be invested in adequate fire protection in their homes, even with the full hindsight of what actually happened, is a rather poor reflection on our society.andy_s said:
I've sympathy and empathy, but it's got little to do with the govt.'caring' or not. They just spent a st load on the tower to make it more efficient and look better, like lots of other towers across the country. This is just emotional unreasoned rubbish that only distracts from the root problems for political point scoring. Think about what you're saying.
They didn't pay to make it look better for the residents, they did it so it was less of an eye-sore for the people inhabiting the multi-million £ homes in the borough. They skimped on the cost of doing so and it cost the lives of dozens of people.t load on the tower to make it more efficient and look better, like lots of other towers across the country. This is just emotional unreasoned rubbish that only distracts from the root problems for political point scoring. Think about what you're saying.Not-The-Messiah said:
Why do you expect the working public to pay for building fire safety protection they don't have or couldn't afford themselves on there own property?
My house is better protected than Grenfell was and I'm happy for my taxes to pay to make sure people less fortunate than myself who rely on social housing don't burn to death.BJG1 said:
Not-The-Messiah said:
Why do you expect the working public to pay for building fire safety protection they don't have or couldn't afford themselves on there own property?
My house is better protected than Grenfell was and I'm happy for my taxes to pay to make sure people less fortunate than myself who rely on social housing don't burn to death.
Seconded.
The fact that this is even up for debate in the modern world is awful.
BJG1 said:
Not-The-Messiah said:
Why do you expect the working public to pay for building fire safety protection they don't have or couldn't afford themselves on there own property?
My house is better protected than Grenfell was and I'm happy for my taxes to pay to make sure people less fortunate than myself who rely on social housing don't burn to death.Or even that none of us know if we, or any of our kin,may need social housing
one day.
BJG1 said:
andy_s said:
I've sympathy and empathy, but it's got little to do with the govt.'caring' or not. They just spent a st load on the tower to make it more efficient and look better, like lots of other towers across the country. This is just emotional unreasoned rubbish that only distracts from the root problems for political point scoring. Think about what you're saying.
They didn't pay to make it look better for the residents, they did it so it was less of an eye-sore for the people inhabiting the multi-million £ homes in the borough. They skimped on the cost of doing so and it cost the lives of dozens of people.t load on the tower to make it more efficient and look better, like lots of other towers across the country. This is just emotional unreasoned rubbish that only distracts from the root problems for political point scoring. Think about what you're saying.The whole idea behind refurbishing tower blocks and other social housing originated back in the Labour/Blair years as part of the Decent Homes programme, and many blocks (towers/low rise) and houses benefited from the same type of work carried out at Grenfell.
The idea that the building was refurbished just to make it look better to the rich neighbours in the area is total nonsense.
The enquiry is in place to determine what went wrong with the cladding, and many blocks which were renovated using the same materials as found on Grenfell were used on blocks which were predominantly refurbished whilst Labour were in power.
The whole issue is a failing by Govt, be it Labour or Tory.
Not-The-Messiah said:
F u my dad burned to death in a house fire when was 15, we didn't get any sort of payout nor would I ever expect one.
I'm sorry to hear that, I don't know the circumstances of your dad's death but if you lived on a street where at the end of your road a new housing development had been built & the council decided that due to these new homes looking all spangly that yours & all you neighbours homes would have a cladding put on them in the name of gentrification, I'm sure you'd be fine with it after all it raises the appearance of your home.Now if a fire broke out & your dad had died along with a lot of neighbours in a fire that had been helped in its intensity by the very same cladding the council (I disagree with Stormzy that it's TM's fault I feel this was a decision made at a local level, but have no problem with him putting a shot across her bows) had insisted putting on your home, I'm pretty sure you would seek some recompence not that any amount of money can replace a loved one.
BJG1 said:
Not sure where I said this was purely the fault of Tories. I am not, and never have been, Stormzy.
I didn't say you did, however you did say the block was only refurbished to make it look attractive for the the rich neighbours.Which was and is nonsense, the aesthetic was a consequence of the refurbishment, the refurbishment was designed to improve the standard of living over and above what the resident/s previously had. (For the details see the original policy where the refurbishment of Grenfell originated from - Decent Homes Programme).
The design at Grenfell followed on from other schemes, notably The Chalcots Estate, a PFI project carried out under Labour.
It goes without saying that the fire at Grenfell was not part of the original design.
gooner1 said:
BJG1 said:
Not-The-Messiah said:
Why do you expect the working public to pay for building fire safety protection they don't have or couldn't afford themselves on there own property?
My house is better protected than Grenfell was and I'm happy for my taxes to pay to make sure people less fortunate than myself who rely on social housing don't burn to death.Or even that none of us know if we, or any of our kin,may need social housing
one day.
I think the argument is instead of spending the money on making the building look nicer they should have spent it on safety upgrades for that very unlikely event such a fire occurred and left the building looking like a dump. If you think that then fine I understand the argument but I think many people think that both should have been done. So again it goes back to my original question where is the money coming from?
Not-The-Messiah said:
Fine but what do you suggest we make cuts on to pay for it, healthcare, policing, transport?
I think the argument is instead of spending the money on making the building look nicer they should have spent it on safety upgrades for that very unlikely event such a fire occurred and left the building looking like a dump. If you think that then fine I understand the argument but I think many people think that both should have been done. So again it goes back to my original question where is the money coming from?
How much money has been saved by not spending it on safety upgrades?I think the argument is instead of spending the money on making the building look nicer they should have spent it on safety upgrades for that very unlikely event such a fire occurred and left the building looking like a dump. If you think that then fine I understand the argument but I think many people think that both should have been done. So again it goes back to my original question where is the money coming from?
Not forgetting this was at least the 2nd Tower block fire where the cladding
is under suspicion , and where fatalities occured. Worldwide, there have been many more.
If Government building regs require, say a hotel,to upgrade it's safety upgrades, do they
care whether the hotel can afford it or not?
gooner1 said:
How much money has been saved by not spending it on safety upgrades?
Not forgetting this was at least the 2nd Tower block fire where the cladding
is under suspicion , and where fatalities occured. Worldwide, there have been many more.
If Government building regs require, say a hotel,to upgrade it's safety upgrades, do they
care whether the hotel can afford it or not?
For Grenfell, it was £300k out of £8.7m. Not forgetting this was at least the 2nd Tower block fire where the cladding
is under suspicion , and where fatalities occured. Worldwide, there have been many more.
If Government building regs require, say a hotel,to upgrade it's safety upgrades, do they
care whether the hotel can afford it or not?
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/30/gr...
Bearing in mind it was a recent refurb, they would have done something a bit less shiny elsewhere if someone had recognised that the correct material was more expensive. It wasn't a money issue at all, but terrible management. In a way, that probably makes it more shocking not less.
Theresa May should invite Stormzy around for tea. Privately, not letting the press know, so she can talk to him without any media grandstanding. I think if he understood the issues a little he might stop shouting quite so loudly.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff