Grenfell Towers

For me, it goes back as far as the days of Thatcher when 'social housing' became a dirty word. This country has been in an ever increasing housing crisis for many, many years and has only really became headline news in the past decade or less when things became ultra-critical. Successive governments have failed to address one of the very basic needs of the country, but it all started with Maggies 'right to buy' scheme which did not have the safety net of replenishment built in.

That, coupled with the fact that people have been reporting this issue to the local authorities, AND the fact that government ministers were due to gather information on, and make policy decisions based upon that information, prior fires in tower blocks; that was abandoned, and the problem was essentially ignored - the minister who was mainly responsible was named, but I cannot remember his name, sorry.

It even runs as far as the judicial system - on a number of prior coroners report stated that 'housing providers should consider installing sprinkler systems' - - I consider what to have for dinner! Sprinkler systems in blocks of this size should have been mandatory.

Cap the whole lot off with the way that Mrs May has behaved, and that is the reason that she is at the sharp end of peoples wrath.

 

There are various types of sprinkler systems @pete - some, as you say, douse the entire building when one area catches fire (the drop in pressure in one area causes the main pumps to fire up and bingo, you have a waterfall!); there are others where the action is localised - the heat of the fire itself melts the sprinkler glass and that area gets doused, nothing else. The fact that the building only has one staircase as well, does not help - in most other countries this would not be allowed. Then there was the switch in the cladding material - less than £7000 was saved on the entire job by changing the cladding type to save money; was the contractors profit affected? No.

And yes, I agree that London is a sh*tehole of the highest order, and I also agree that there are space constraints - however, there is actually quite a lot of wasted land in and around London, as well as empty buildings; the problem is, with land and property prices being so high, nobody (including councils) can afford to do anything with either. Add to this, the fact that housing that was social housing - those terraced homes right next to that tower for example - have now been bought and sold many times over and are now owned privately and are essentially only available to those who are rich - very rich.

In some ways, I almost wish that this situation does continue - eventually, only the rich will be able to live in the cramped conditions in London and will pay handsomely for the pleasure - - what will be fun is to see who empties their bins, sweeps their streets and drives their buses, as none of those jobs pays enough to commute into the city to do.

 

Aye, it is the same in that respect - personally, I am as close to the middle as I would want to be, and in reality I would rather be even more isolated.

It is a very contrasting area now - massive wealth in some parts, and real poverty right next door. A lot of the wealth is in property, and a lot of that sits empty for large periods of time - meanwhile, we have working class people who cannot get a home.

 

VERY easily - LATE or not, she was the one who started the process of right to buy, without backing the whole thing up with replacement housing. Following that, responsibility was moved from councils to housing associations (profit making enterprises for the most part), and the expectation was that everyone should own their own home. Fair enough, but it was never going to happen - particularly as bankers and rich people are involved. The rich get richer, and the rest of us can go forth and multiply. Rather than paying a reasonable rent on a council house, people were/are forced to pay exorbitant rents to private landlords (the rich making more profit) whilst the banks won't consider lending to buy a house in the area, or on the wages they earn, so they are stuck.

Predictably, there are many who cannot see the damage that this did - mostly those who benefited from it - and yet another case of "I'm alright Jack..."

Oh, and the bulls*it that you will get where you want to be if you work hard enough, is exactly that - bulls*it. I have worked since I was 15, and until very recently was working 70+ hours a week every week, I have paid in WAY more in tax than I have ever had back in services, and yet because I RENT a house I am somehow a second class citizen in the eyes of the banks and the government??

Don't get me wrong, I do not grudge anyone owning their own home, nor do I grudge anyone their wealth - except when that wealth has been made off the back of others who have considerably less, and when those people complain they are ignored or belittled.

 

Actually, no I wouldn't - I think the guy is an absolute disaster; there is currently NO politician, from ANY party that is worthy of being in charge of this country. They are a shower of sh*t, the lot of them. At the start of the election, I was going to vote Tory purely based on May and the fact that she was the least sh*t of the lot - by voting day, they all looked sh*t and I had to make my decision based on the local area (which is Tory by the way).

The relation of Thatcher to the tragedy at Grenfell Towers is a long one, admittedly, but my main bugbear with this country is that we are failing to get the absolute basics right, and much of it started when Maggie did what she did. I earn near on £40k a year, and most of that goes to a private landlord. To buy a house around here, I would need the thick end of £50k deposit, and even then the banks would almost certainly not mortgage me. Everyone is quite happy for me to pay MORE per month than I would on a mortgage though, and that is OK as long as someone is making a profit?

If I feel like a second class citizen, then how the hell does a person who can only get a flat in a tower block feel? They might well be working 40 hrs per week on the minimum wage, but that gets them the grand total of F-all here. Then they complain, and complain, and complain about the state of their 'social' housing, and nobody takes any notice. Then, that home is destroyed in hours and their neighbours incincerated, and as it transpires it is because of one of the very things they have been complaining about - but hey, its all OK because the housing association still make their profit!

This country is absolutely stuffed, and only those who currently 'have' can see it. If the government were a contractor, we'd have fired them years ago for breach of contract (and I include Blair and Brown in that as well, for clarity) - our roads are sh*t, our NHS is on its knees due to excessive immigration, the schools aren't much better, and there is nowhere near enough houses to go round; so, sorry, but you won't persuade me that successive governments have not made a right balls up of things.

One day, it will all come crashing down though - if nobody can buy in at the bottom, then eventually nobody will be able to sell at the top. If nobody can afford to live in an area on a binman's wages, then the bins won't get emptied.

 

Forgive me for stepping in, Guys and Gals, but this thread is about the incident at Grenfell Tower, the possibly up to 60 people who died, the injured, and the bereaved.
I don't think the thread is about what perceptions we have about about the lack of housing, or if past Politicians did ""this or that", or if paying rent residents are lower on the social scale to those who have a mortgage or own a house.....which is only true if you want to believe it to be so.
So, lets just recognise what this thread is truly about, a tragedy that has affect every home in the Nation. Yes, we want answers......how did the fire start?, what attributed and contributed to the swiftness and ferocity of the fire?, was lack of investment in fire alarm systems partly responsible for some of the deaths?, was the "Stay in your Apartment" policy wrong?, was the money spent on "refurbishing" the Tower done so in the right directions and for the right reasons?, will the Inquiry be open, unbiased and not attempting to hide any person or Organisations mismanagement, etc, is the Government directly responsible or is it the Council and the designated Management company that's directly responsible.
Yes, this is a controversial and emotional thread but I think out of respect to all those involved we need to keep to the essence of the thread and not use it to just get angry about it, or basically start looking in other directions for someone to blame

 

Aye, you are right @ARMANDII - these things will have to be debated and decided upon at some point in the future, but right now the most important thing is those poor people who are homeless.

Radical idea - not all that far from the site of Grenfell Tower, there is a large area of green space, Wormwood Scrubs Park. Purely as a temporary measure, could the council not acquire a load of large caravans - you know, the static types that are almost a small bungalow - site them on this piece of land and plumb them in with utilities. Less than ideal, and definitely not a long term solution, but it has to be better than people sleeping on leisure centre floors etc?

I remember as a kid, our town council used exactly this strategy when it was decanting people from their homes to renovate them, and it seemed to work just fine.