Jun 17, 2017 at 9:51 PM by tomo

There are quite a few comments underneath the original twelve statements, some of which question their truthfulness. They may have a point, but I can see for example that the response for No 12 only calls for more investigation. Yes, it would have been better to have had some dates to show that, yes, she was on the board, but had "... resigned from the board long before Refurb was passed", all allegedly.

12 Emma Coad elected Labour MP was on the board of the Tenant Management group who are being accused of not listening to tenants.

But even though she wasn't on the board during the 'critical years', unless she left the neighbourhood and had not left a phone number, she could easily have help those protesting at the board's incompetence. It is what many people do when they retire from a committee: they don't want to get involved, but are willing to support and advise the potential complainants on the best course of action. It reduces wasted resources all round. So, still worth following up.

And statement 12 is true, which is much more than what is called News and Current Affairs. Propagating the narrative that Theresa May is responsible for everything that has gone wrong only demeans journalism.

What is of interest is the position of the KCTMO. In many areas of the country, council housing has been transferred from council ownership to other organisations. In one such local example, for me, it is a Housing Association. My impression (and I may be wrong) is that any problems with the housing are for the Housing Association to sort out: all responsibility has been transferred. Whether the Housing Association was given the land, paid for it in full or for a nominal sum, whether they now own the title to the land, or own the land as long as they provide social house, or something else, I don't know now. In fact, I have forgotten, but I remember that the goal was to allow the council to get on with what they were elected to do: serve the public, those who they represent, and not a small section of that group.

So, what is the exact status the KCTMO, as that does appear central to many of the statements and questions arising? Is it the same, or is it different? Until we answer that, the 'responsibility trail' cannot start.

In fact, what about all those twelve statements and the others that have been generated from the posts below the article? The answers to many of these fundamentally shape the analysis of the problem, but are themselves very political in nature, if you are micro-triggered by the truth.

Is that why we haven't seen clear analysis in the MSM, with all their highly paid, analytically minded, 'story seeking' journalists? If there are answers, please post them here. What is needed are definitive answers: (definitive - decisively and with authority, that is official, not the 'view of a journalist'!)

Yes, we need to give care to those directly affected, but answering, unambiguously, some of these questions raised would at least dampen down the hysterical responses that we have seen on the TV and so speed the progress towards solutions to the many different issues that have been highlighted.

It still seems too early to be looking at this disaster in the cold light of day, but I have needed to do it because it has been treated in the media very superficially. Anger has been directed at people with no direct responsibility for what has happened and could not have done anything to stop it without evidence and support from the community. Politicians are being sentenced without a trial, without any cross examination, without laying out the facts so they could be verified and understood, and without getting a report from a professionally qualified source. Agenda Warriors have driven the story and everyone else is too frightened to stand up to them. It is a rushed job to hide the truth. (Now read this paragraph again and compare it to Climate Change Science!)

If the KCTMO was emulating a privately owned block of flats, should the assumption be that the public sector, No 10 in fact, should be ready to provide everything when disaster strikes, and submerged in total guilt, of course!

For anyone living in their own (or mortgaged) home, would a devastating house fire mean that the council would provide everything before the day was out? I think not. I would consider being put up for a week in temporary accommodation, not knowing where I would end up eventually, as a success! If my homeless neighbours, from the 'other semi' were in different lodgings, so what! As long as I (and they) were clothed, fed, and had a roof over our heads, some company, and was getting any medical treatment needed, what else could I ask for in the short term, that was sensible?

OK, it's a bigger disaster than a pair of semis, but we do need to work out what should be expected. That void, that lack of constructive goals means dysfunctionality on a grand scale including who is carrying all that risk.

While there have been many volunteer helpers, there have been complaints that there has been little coordination. Shouldn't that be provided by a local council, not No 10 ? I don't know which one it would be, but local councils have local knowledge! Government may provide the extra resources, but I would have expected that to be arranged between the Government and the local council who would know where it should be spent, hopefully!

Do we know whether the building had a valid fire certificate?

If so, was all relevant information presented beforehand?

If so, was the paperwork checked, by looking at the building, the fittings?

Shouldn't it be the building insurance paying out immediate living costs to the survivors, or wasn't there any?

To me, it looks like a can of worms, on steroids.

Did the tower need a fire certificate? Has the law changed? If so, how, when and by whom?

And what about the minutes of the KCTMO and the various the council meetings: they should reveal who was involved and how the decisions were made and what they were. I would have thought that the discussions would have been over a few years at least and have left a paper trail.

If they cannot do that, why take minutes? I would also have thought that there would have been some official building inspection before the building was deemed fit for use, and I would have thought that would be overseen by the public sector, so there should be records somewhere.

Still it's early days, but I cannot see how such basic information can be withheld for weeks or months as the assumptions made by the agitators have swamped out any constructive news coverage.

With the 'mildly important' :) Brexit negotiations starting, the ongoing security activities (along with the mandatory PR) following the recent acts of terrorism and the mentally ill, the discussions to form a majority in Parliament, the attempt by Extreme-Left militants to bring down the Government, the Tory Party is still managing some back stabbing! And then it looks like the Government has the aftermath of the Grenville Tower inferno to sort!

Who said that the Municipal Culture needs to be changed?

These articles only generate more questions like, who the **** are the Grenfell Tower firefighters? Couldn't they order the residents out while the fire was in it infancy? It sounds they hadn't left the building:
Firefighters had put out the initial fridge fire at Grenfell Tower and were leaving the building when the blaze suddenly flared up, it has emerged.

Crews believed they had put out the fire at the London high-rise and were astonished to see flames rising up the side of the building, new reports have claimed.

Shortly after dealing with the fridge fire early last Wednesday, firefighters were telling residents that it was out, BBC Panorama reported.

But, soon after, the 24-storey building was consumed by flames in one of Britain's biggest ever tower block fires that left at least 79 people dead.
Telegraph: Grenfell Tower firefighters put out fridge blaze 'and were just leaving when flats erupted in flames'

Less confusion now, but I don't think the situation was much better before the fire. One resident said, 'I am angry with the council for the situation we were facing', but it looks like the KCTMO should be in the loop somewhere, with a residents list if nothing else, but with checking still going on, there must be incomplete information. Did this information get destroyed in the fire, I wonder:
TheGuardian: Grenfell Tower: 'They are still checking who was there and who survived'

A newsletter handed to tenants and submitted with the planning application stated: "Various cladding options have been shown to residents with the composite cladding system being favoured by the majority."

The document clearly stated the cladding had "fire retardancy".

Two years later, a cheaper scheme was agreed and new proposals were approved by council planners.

Instead of the fire-resistant panels chosen by residents, cheaper plastic-filled cladding was fitted.
Sky: Grenfell Tower residents were promised fire-resistant cladding five years ago

A veteran revolutionary convicted of assaulting the Conservative Party chairman is the force behind a “Day of Rage” protest accused of exploiting the Grenfell Tower catastrophe to overthrow Theresa May.

Extreme-Left militants are calling on demonstrators to “bring down the Government” and “shut down London” in a march on Parliament to coincide with the Queen’s Speech.
Telegraph: Veteran revolutionary with conviction for attacking Tory chairman behind the Grenfell Tower 'day of rage' protest

It would be interesting, especially as Corbyn has mentioned wealth, to know the job description and total remuneration of the council VIPs, and any outside interests: we could include the KCTMO members as well. :)

GuidoFawkes: May: We Failed Grenfell Victims, I'm Sorry
It's the comments that are of more interest.

I noticed that there were some objecting to being moved into high rise apartments. I wonder if that problem will persist?