Rehousing issue for Grenfell Towers survivors

"Commenting on Moore-Bick’s opening statement, the experienced inquiry solicitor Louise Christian said:

Bereaved families don’t need to hear all about the font size of legal submissions and how many days in advance skeleton arguments need to be submitted.

This appeared to be a hearing for the sake of a hearing. He should have addressed himself to the families’ concerns.

Moore-Bick spent a portion of his opening statement setting out the details of how submissions should be made – including the size of the font and other minutiae."

He didn't even talk to the survivors solicitors.

Some were renting from the council? So some flats were not social housing?

I don't think it's quite as simple as skin colour is it? The phrase 'person of colour' is shorthand for so much more. I'm not actually saying that I think the judge is wrong - as long as evidence is given by all the relevant parties and the residents are properly and ably supported by appropriate lawyers ( as the Council, the TMO and all the other relevant parties will be). I don't think the comment about renting from landlords of the same colour is very kind, appropriate or relevant in the circumstances.

I don't know that the survivors of Grenfell are far left. How do you know that, Annie?
They are the ones who are complaining about not being represented on the panel.
You really are nit-picking there.
Some were renting from the council. How many black councillors in Kensington and Chelsea?

How do you know those renting privately were not renting from the same colour?

Don't you think that it would be better if the people who survived Grenfell felt themselves to be properly represented?
There are lots of BAME lawyers and surveyors, architects and engineers. I am sure a few could be found if the will was there. I know some who were even born in England and Scotland.

What has skin colour to do with it ?

I find this complaint pathetic , a political far left excuse to nit pick.

if skin colour is so important to the residents of the tower why not only rent from a landlord of the same skin colour?

They must know who is on it, as they know it's not ethnically diverse.

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/sep/12/grenfell-tower-fire-lawyers-seek-judicial-review-theresa-may-inquiry-panel

Just been said that there will not be a single person of colour on the panel.

It has not been decided yet who will sit on the enquiry panel, I am sure the judge will not select anyone involved in the fire

Oh, okay.
Question time on now. I can argue with the television, particularly David Gauke.

There is a difference in the emotions of a person why may be partly responsible and a person who escaped from the fire, are bereaved and have lost all their possessions

durhamjen I was referring to anniebach's remark that the survivors couldn't be objective.

This isn't fair.

"The chief executive of the organisation that managed Grenfell Tower is reportedly still being paid his full six figure salary, despite resigning from the role after the disaster.

Robert Black has stayed on the books of Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation (KCTMO) holding a full-time role assisting multiple inquiries into the causes and aftermath of the fire – and is said by the organisation as being “paid as before”.

Black’s precise salary is not public, but the latest accounts filed by KCTMO with Companies House show ‘key’ management personnel – led by Black – shared £760,000 in salaries."

www.24housing.co.uk/news/grenfell-no-survivors-to-sit-on-public-inquiry-panel/

I was being sarcastic when I said objective. Thought you would have realised.

Did you see what Osborne said about it; he didn't want the Standard to make too much of it, or it might look as if it was a problem of austerity.

According to news reports, Grenfell survivors will have a say at the inquiry.

I think it would be asking rather a lot for people who have had this terrible experience, and who have possibly lost family and friends, to be wholly "objective" in the sense of being able to distance themselves from their emotions. They are bound to be emotional and, at times, distressed or angry.

I don't suppose people who have been sexually abused are able to be "objective" either but when there have been inquiries their testimonies have been a crucial part of the proceedings, and that's as it should be. Those who have suffered should be able to recount what happened to them and how it has affected their lives.

No doubt there will be other people who will be called who could also be claimed to not be wholly "objective" because they may be partly responsible for the tragedy. So it works both ways.

They will give evidence at the enquiry , are they capable of being objective ? I don't think so

Because they couldn't be objective enough!
Now you know why they wanted a different judge.

shocking the survivors wont get a say at the inquiry,no doubt then it wll be a total whitewash

politicalscrapbook.net/2017/09/osborne-ordered-standard-staff-not-to-go-ott-on-grenfell-over-fears-his-cuts-would-be-blamed/

Don't know what to say about this.

I seem to remember that Margaret Thatcher prevented councils building social housing using the receipts of council house sales back in the 1980s. I never understood the reason for this.
It seems to be to be logical (although I'm sure there are reasons why it would not be possible) for councils to buy up these sites from the developers who are just sitting on the land, and actually build social housing directly.
At least the houses would get built. The whole system needs a major rethink.

www.24housing.co.uk/news/taxpayers-cover-1bn-planning-costs/

That's another thing, mostly harmless; the council cannot recoup the full cost of the appeals, so we are the ones who pay for the developers to challenge the councils.
That doesn't seem fair to me.

What I noticed is that the developers say they will give the council various forms of planning gain, etc., for a reduction in the number of social housing units.
But they will not need the type of building they say they will give them if they do not have the social housing.
It's just a big con - as is Tesco pretending they are house builders.

The planning system is not fit for purpose any more. Developers buy up the sites, clear them, then sit on them for years while they wrangle with the local council about what they are allowed to build.
Once they receive planning permission they go back to the council to renegotiate so that they can reduce the social housing and affordable housing elements claiming that it's not financially viable. This might go on for ten years or even more. Meanwhile they have created an eyesore and have caused planning blight in the vicinity leading to run-down adjacent area, as nobody knows what is going to happen.
It costs the council hundreds of thousands in expensive planning appeals. In the end the council gives in. Or is forced to give in. This happens all the time round here (Gloucestershire) and everywhere else I guess.
Crazy system.
Surely there must be a better way of providing housing.

durhamjen
Yes, it was on channel 4 news last week.