#426

Though I didn’t know this, which according to a reliable socialist site is true:

19260499_834932206665701_6832259341294297034_n.jpg749×934 106 KB

3 Likes
#427

It means it’ll report directly to her and she’ll be responsible for implementing the recommendations. Normally it would be the relevant Secretary of State.

In relation to the second point, I thought they’d already said that residents would be rehomed locally? If so, the question doesn’t arise. Surely there’d be a massive outcry if they tried moving them out of London?

#428

They said they’d try, which could mean anything.

I think they’re probably quite stupid, but who knows. They’ve already forcibly put someone in a care home so it doesn’t look like they’re going for PR damage limitation.

#429

Guy on this video saying people are already being offered accommodation in others cities and if they refuse then they are 'intentionally homeless '. Not that it’s a new thing of course.

#430

i can see the tabloid headlines already… freeloaders refuse free house cos it’s not in posh central london etc.

:disappointed:

#431

Do they explain how the statistics rules have changed, I’ve worked with those statistics before and the definition is something like deaths that would not have occurred had there not been a fire, don’t see how these would not count

#432

I don’t think this is true. If it was, I’d have expected it to have been said by someone before today:

#433

As far as I recall seeing the other day, deaths in hospital resulting from things like smoke inhalation etc are no longer counted in the figures - may be a nuance in there that I didn’t pick up though.

I read late last night that the government were saying that current guidance says this material “should” not be used on blocks over 20m. Of course the word “should” has no legal standing.

#434

These are the definitions from the latest update, which definitely includes indirect later deaths (and really think smoke inhalation is the main cause of death)

Unless they have literally just changed it in the past couple of months

3 Likes
#435

Not saying this to depoliticise this or anything, clearly this was an avoidable tragedy, just think anything critical is taken at face value which will muddied the waters once the real truth emerges (though could be totally wrong on the fire death statistics, maybe they have been changed for next years release or something)

#436

Cheers - I think all I saw was from a short bit on twitter, so it may have been wrong or I might have misrepresented it. Would be interested in knowing what the FBU take on figures is - might look it up later if I get a chance.

1 Like
#437

I’ve just read the Guardian report on it. It says:

Hammond was referring to a statement issued by the department for communities at the end of last week when it was asked to clarify the legal position. It said: “Cladding using a composite aluminium panel with a polyethylene core would be non-compliant with current Building Regulations guidance. This material should not be used as cladding on buildings over 18m in height.”

I see what they’re getting at now.

This is a decent article on it, especially the comments below:
http://m.bdonline.co.uk/5088261.article?mobilesite=enabled

#438

:confused:

http://www.lbc.co.uk/news/london/west/kensington-chelsea/grenfell-tower-fire/rachel-johnson-theresa-may-is-a-victim-of-grenfell/

#439

This is good on one of the things that angers me the most: politicians and political journalists treating politics like a consequence-free parlour game.

#440

agree with the sentiment but its a huge case of wishful thinking,

whilst they* might hold back from the “Oxford Union-style game. There’s jockeying for position, gossip and backbiting” for a bit, the sad truth is that (e.g) housing legislation just isn’t very interesting on a day to day basis. People (of all backgrounds) would rather know if gove and boris are fucking each other or fucking each over this particular week.

*marr peston oneill et al.

#441

If this is true…

1 Like
#442

Please read this (potential trigger warning)

4 Likes
#443

the account of going into the burning building was absolutely harrowing

so much respect for firefighters

#444

Fucking hell Gove, don’t make me side with Piers Morgan. What a c*nt you are.

#445

I know a lot of that opening to be spot on.

My step dad is one of only 2 people from his watch still alive since he retired 4 years ago. Mixture of respiratory issues, cancer etc. Used to be part of the job was knowing you wouldn’t get much retirement so you can leave around 50 and enjoy it. He had to carry on working for several years past that and knowing the pension he paid every month would never likely go to him or another firefighter, due to the policy changes.

The part he hated in all these cuts was forcing stations to keep a 3 minute response time when it often wasn’t physically possible to get somewhere on their patch at top speed. And when every other station went retained (volunteer basically) or shut altogether, many responsetimes meant that they’d no longer be turning up to save people, but rather save buildings structurally.

1 Like