Stormzy’s attack on TM, justified or not?

[T6 vanman]

davepoth said:

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.

No she should be lawyering up and asking for a retraction of the 'Savages' & 'Tories stole the money' slurs made by Stormzy on the Brits just like Corbyn did to the Tory MP over the handing over secrets comment

[Randy Winkman]

Jimboka said:

Randy Winkman said:

BJG1 said:

Jimboka said:

Sorry never heard of him
Attention seeking nobody

Attention-seeking post from an actual nobody right here.

Nope, still never heard of him. No doubt I could google & find out all about Stormzys beliefs. But don't give a fig.

Either way, thanks for your contribution.

[mx5nut]

Not-The-Messiah said:

Fine but what do you suggest we make cuts on to pay for it, healthcare, policing, transport?

You could apply this weak argument to literally anything the government needs, but doesn't want, to spend money on.

There are many things that could be cut to make "stop children burning to death en masse because their parents don't earn enough at work" more of a priority.

[The Surveyor]

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?

There is no requirement to upgrade fire safety in hotels, or in anything else in the Building Regs, there never has been a requirement for retrospective improvement. The duty is on the owners to do their own risk assessments and that applies to all non-domestic buildings. Its too simple to just look at the cladding, the money, and apply blame, the errors and negligence run much deeper, errors in design, procurement, management, and Building Regs sign-off along with overly complex regulations, and overly simple interpretation at local, national, and global levels. As you say, there have been others around the world.

It's not a Tory v Labour thing, the problem has been brewing for decades. Using the deaths of the Grenfell occupants for political point scoring is as distasteful as it is inaccurate.

[edh]

The Surveyor said:

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?

There is no requirement to upgrade fire safety in hotels, or in anything else in the Building Regs, there never has been a requirement for retrospective improvement. The duty is on the owners to do their own risk assessments and that applies to all non-domestic buildings. Its too simple to just look at the cladding, the money, and apply blame, the errors and negligence run much deeper, errors in design, procurement, management, and Building Regs sign-off along with overly complex regulations, and overly simple interpretation at local, national, and global levels. As you say, there have been others around the world.

It's not a Tory v Labour thing, the problem has been brewing for decades. Using the deaths of the Grenfell occupants for political point scoring is as distasteful as it is inaccurate.

When politicians make promises and fail to keep them I think it's reasonable to hold them to account.

Many Grenfell families still in hotels, not quite what was promised.

K&C's response was dreadful, one of the richest councils in the UK.

[gooner1]

davepoth said:

For Grenfell, it was £300k out of £8.7m.

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.

Thanks Dave, I think that £300k saving has been well and truly wiped out.
This Tea Party, will JRM be acting as interpreter for both party's.

[Pan Pan Pan]

The changes made to the exterior of Grenfell Tower were made to comply with the requirements of Approved Document L1/A of the Building Regulations, to make the apartments more energy efficient. The fact that the upgrade to the thermal performance of the exposed walls also enabled an improvement to the appearance of the tower block was just coincidental.
Where building refurbishments covering more than a specified area of a building are to be made. the building owners are required by law to upgrade the thermal performance of the building..

Edited by Pan Pan Pan on Monday 26th February 15:29

[andy_s]

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 into the bargain, 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.

I've added what I thought was fairly obvious, as per the previous posters, but interesting it was the part you leapt upon.

There's, for me, a systemic regulatory problem but I'll hang on for the enquiry before jumping to the conclusion Maggie was somehow involved or the Earl of Westminster wanted to burn some serfs, but keep drinking the KoolAid...

[BJG1]

I don't know why you're trying to portray me as Tory-hating.

[andy_s]

BJG1 said:

I don't know why you're trying to portray me as Tory-hating.

Apologies if that's not the case - it was my interpretation of 'government', 'do not care' and 'poor people'.

[BJG1]

andy_s said:

Apologies if that's not the case - it was my interpretation of 'government', 'do not care' and 'poor people'.

I didn't say government (plenty of parties involved in refurbing Grenfell) and successive governments obviously contribute to this.

It's just you embody the typical PH attitude of "anyone who disagrees with me must be some Tory-hating lefty" that's led you to interpret that.

[andy_s]

BJG1 said:

andy_s said:

Apologies if that's not the case - it was my interpretation of 'government', 'do not care' and 'poor people'.

I didn't say government (plenty of parties involved in refurbing Grenfell) and successive governments obviously contribute to this.

It's just you embody the typical PH attitude of "anyone who disagrees with me must be some Tory-hating lefty" that's led you to interpret that.

No; it was actually your quote that led me to that:

BJG1 said:

because the government and council didn't care enough about the safety of poor people.

But if you retract and now say 'governments' then all is good, but my point still stands it had little to do with 'caring' but more to do with systemic regulatory failure - or so I suspect; but let us, including Mr Stormzy, wait until the enquiry perhaps...

[Rich_W]

edh said:

Many Grenfell families still in hotels, not quite what was promised.

When certain families are rejecting offers of new accommodation because it happens to be 1 mile further down the road in Westminster and "I don't want to have to go further to work" You'll find people lose sympathy for them! Anyone on full benefits, and not working IMO loses any right to decide where they live. We can't all live in nice parts of the world!

edh said:

K&C's response was dreadful, one of the richest councils in the UK.

The eyes of envy. The fact that K&C has a lot of wealthy people living in it, doesn't mean the council is any richer. The roads are not washed with Evian and lined with Gold. Remember for every Billionaire who costs the council very little, they were supporting a family in Grenfell. Where do you think the councils money goes each month?

In fact looking at the bands for K&C

https://www.kfh.co.uk/west-london/kensington-and-c...

I pay MORE than A-D and I'm out in Zone5

[citizensm1th]

Rich_W said:

edh said:

Many Grenfell families still in hotels, not quite what was promised.

When certain families are rejecting offers of new accommodation because it happens to be 1 mile further down the road in Westminster and "I don't want to have to go further to work" You'll find people lose sympathy for them! Anyone on full benefits, and not working IMO loses any right to decide where they live. We can't all live in nice parts of the world!

edh said:

K&C's response was dreadful, one of the richest councils in the UK.

The eyes of envy. The fact that K&C has a lot of wealthy people living in it, doesn't mean the council is any richer. The roads are not washed with Evian and lined with Gold. Remember for every Billionaire who costs the council very little, they were supporting a family in Grenfell. Where do you think the councils money goes each month?

In fact looking at the bands for K&C

https://www.kfh.co.uk/west-london/kensington-and-c...

I pay MORE than A-D and I'm out in Zone5

K&C has depending on who you believe between 260 and 300 million pounds in reserve

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4617460/Gr...

http://metro.co.uk/2017/06/20/council-responsible-...

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/19/ke...

Not a rich council my arse

[Rich_W]

citizensm1th said:

K&C has depending on who you believe between 260 and 300 million pounds in reserve

...

Not a rich council my arse

Dorsets councils have more

http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/15036608.Dor..._330m_in_reserves_so_why_are_they_cutting_services_/

Lets send all those made homeless in Grenfell to Dorset. Bit of sunshine and a quiet life. Surely that's better than living in some st hole tower block

[citizensm1th]

Rich_W said:

citizensm1th said:

K&C has depending on who you believe between 260 and 300 million pounds in reserve

...

Not a rich council my arse

Dorsets councils have more

http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/15036608.Dor..._330m_in_reserves_so_why_are_they_cutting_services_/

Lets send all those made homeless in Grenfell to Dorset. Bit of sunshine and a quiet life. Surely that's better than living in some st hole tower block

Remind me have dorset council had a load of their tenants burn to death in a tower block of late?

Did they then hide away and leave it to other members of the community to rally around instead of dipping into the hundreds of millions of pounds kept in reserve to deal with emergency contingencies?

Remove your political blinkers for just a second and admit that K&C did a piss poor job in responding to the immediate aftermath of the fire..

[edh]

Rich_W said:

edh said:

Many Grenfell families still in hotels, not quite what was promised.

When certain families are rejecting offers of new accommodation because it happens to be 1 mile further down the road in Westminster and "I don't want to have to go further to work" You'll find people lose sympathy for them! Anyone on full benefits, and not working IMO loses any right to decide where they live. We can't all live in nice parts of the world!

edh said:

K&C's response was dreadful, one of the richest councils in the UK.

The eyes of envy. The fact that K&C has a lot of wealthy people living in it, doesn't mean the council is any richer. The roads are not washed with Evian and lined with Gold. Remember for every Billionaire who costs the council very little, they were supporting a family in Grenfell. Where do you think the councils money goes each month?

In fact looking at the bands for K&C

https://www.kfh.co.uk/west-london/kensington-and-c...

I pay MORE than A-D and I'm out in Zone5

Bit confused here.... anyone on "full benefits" (whatever that means) wouldn't be complaining about having further to travel to work?

Do you dispute that K&C"s response was dreadful? So bad they had to be removed from the scene.

Envy? LOL...

[andy_s]

citizensm1th said:

Remove your political blinkers for just a second and admit that K&C did a piss poor job in responding to the immediate aftermath of the fire..

I don't think it's a political thing though, that's just incompetent councils, many of which of all colours can be found everywhere.

[citizensm1th]

andy_s said:

citizensm1th said:

Remove your political blinkers for just a second and admit that K&C did a piss poor job in responding to the immediate aftermath of the fire..

I don't think it's a political thing though, that's just incompetent councils, many of which of all colours can be found everywhere.

I agree but RW seems to think that K&C doesn't have the resources to cope with an emergency the size of grenfell even though the (councils) streets are paved with gold to the tune of 260 million.

And as usual on here RW cannot be seen to be wrong so won't admit he was talking out of his arse when he said K&C were not a rich council with more than adequate funds sitting in a bank to be able to deal with it far more competently than they did.

The prime job of a council (and indeed government) is to look after the people who live in the areas they control, politicians and indeed some on here would do well to remember what the role of those who presume to govern us is.

[Rich_W]

citizensm1th said:

Remove your political blinkers for just a second and admit that K&C did a piss poor job in responding to the immediate aftermath of the fire..

In respect of putting up all those affected in luxury hotels and giving them a lump sum of cash?

Yeah they were st weren't they!

What else would you have them do in the immediate aftermath? Not in the months after. The first few days?

Political Blinkers is what YOU do.

andy_s said:

I don't think it's a political thing though, that's just incompetent councils, many of which of all colours can be found everywhere.

Indeed.

citizensm1th said:

And as usual on here RW cannot be seen to be wrong so won't admit he was talking out of his arse when he said K&C were not a rich council with more than adequate funds sitting in a bank to be able to deal with it far more competently than they did.

Projecting much? ALL you ever do is lecture and patronise! If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I accept it far more than you. But FYI "your opinion" doesn't mean everyone else is wrong

I said they were no more rich than the ones elsewhere in the country. And it wasn't a funding issue that was their problem it was the usual council not having a clue how to deal with something. Surely though if the council could have spent some of that money to make the whole problem resolved in 6 months they would have? But they didn't which suggests there are reasons.

edh said:

Bit confused here.... anyone on "full benefits" (whatever that means) wouldn't be complaining about having further to travel to work?

And you've joined 2 groups of people into 1

1) People on (full) benefits who don't work. Receive everything from the state.
2) People who complained they'd have to go an extra mile to work so would be rejecting the offer from the council. I mean Westminster is such a terrible place isn't it?

Either way. In both examples if they want to have control over where they are housed when they have free/ heavily subsidised accommodation. They can always do what the rest of us do, and rent privately or buy in an area they want to live in. Otherwise. STFU and be GREATFUL that this country continues to help people like them! Entitlement attitude has never been a good look.

edh said:

Do you dispute that K&C"s response was dreadful? So bad they had to be removed from the scene.

I dispute it. On the basis that it wasn't dreadful. (just disorganised) And mainly because the decision to remove them was a political decision to try and appease social media gobstes.