Rehousing issue for Grenfell Towers survivors

It shocks me that anyone would be prepared to use racist language and make racist comments and not apologise or at least show some qualms about the language they have used. Especially someone who has so vocally condemned others for being anti-semitic. Is racism then more acceptable than anti-semitism?

I think that if a "class card" had been played those of us who don't understand how race/ethnicity comes into it, might not have been puzzled. One can think of other avoidable disasters where the elite, in whatever form (in this case, it would seem, the council) have acted without due regard for the welfare of poorer workers. The comparable disaster I'm thinking of is Aberfan.

I think it's worth pointing out that "playing the x card" is a useful figure of speech. I presume it's not deemed offensive of me to use it in relation to social class? If it is, well, too bad, I guess.

baggs

(Cont'd) I dislike the phrase 'playing the card' as it's not neutral - it's use is negative I feel and implies that x is being brought into the discussion/argument illegitimately when it might be absolutely legitimate to argue that x is a relevant factor

This is Collins definition

if someone plays the race card they bring up the issue of race in a discussion, perhaps for sympathy or to seek popularity by appealing to racist sentiment

How could the "class" card be played Baggs? There were people in Grenfell from all sorts of backgrounds from asylum seekers, teaching assistants, retired lecturers and even 2 architects. What class are these people?

The class that is housed in council property.

How could the "class" card be played Baggs? There were people in Grenfell from all sorts of backgrounds from asylum seekers, teaching assistants, retired lecturers and even 2 architects

Isn't this what I've been trying to stress rather than race/ethnicity? The Grenfell population is/was diverse in all sorts of ways. Why has race/ethnicity been focussed on by anybody out of all the possibles?

So are the definitions
1) Upper class
2) Middle class
3) Working class
4) people that live in council properties

Sorry baggs I misunderstood what you meant

Diversity of race or ethnicity is, in my view, simply not important with regard to the Grenfell enquiry. Perhaps something will come out to show why people ever thought it was.

Representation and good communication is due to the surviving Grenfell tenants. Their race and ethnicity is irrelevant.

How to answer a question pose a ridiculous idea and when it is shown to be such change the subject.!
The people of Grenfell have a right to ask for the sort of inquiry panel they want and they have asked for it not to be all white. It seems that some people are only happy if they can dictate the terms of things. It isn't the race or ethnicity that matters but the wishes of the residents and their relatives and they want an ethnically diverse panel. Still why should they get what they want? People on GN know better and don't approve!

But it's like another poster said about justice being seen to be done.
If the people that lived there would like more input, then they should have it.

I agree with you trisher The wishes of the residents and their families should be respected.

I agree that justice should be seen to be done. People can disagree on what counts as that and no doubt will. All good.

I'll agree about wishes being worthy of respect when I see them to be respectable.

All I am seeing here from a few are PC comments tossed down from high horses.
Multi racial panels can't be dragged in off the streets.Demands from the residents ( presumably not the white British ones) can only be met if the people concerned are part and parcel of the inquiry.
Baggs I bow to your utter patience in your replies.

They don't have to be dragged in off the streets, as you so pleasantly put it.
Justice4Grenfell have given a list of 45 BME people who are just as qualified as those white ones who have been chosen.

What is the problem with choosing some from that list?

pc comments tossed down from high horses what a thoroughly objectionable comment - what are you sitting on at the moment lemon? I think there's an important issue that is worth discussing- did you have to be so dismissive?

New poster/banner campaign:
"Grenfellers United!"

Toodle-pip, chucks

"Then there's the Grenfell inquiry itself. Concerns have been raised by local campaign groups that the inquiry will not be looking at social housing policy or the broader social issues that led to the fire. And just this week, lawyers filed an urgent application for a judicial review over what they say is a lack of diversity on the inquiry panel. In a statement BMELawyers4Grenfell said:

"Despite numerous and repeated concerns from the survivors and families of the deceased for an expansion of the inquiry's terms of reference and the diversification of its inquiry team...Theresa May has failed, so far, to address their concerns, acknowledge correspondence, or maintain the promise of proper public consultation on the inquiry's parameters."

Hardly sounds like a government that's listening, does it? As David Neita from BMElawyers4Grenfell, said on Sky News this morning:

"Here's the message it sends to the community: 'You warned us...we ignored you, we told you to shut up. Now you still have concerns and you are saying to us to look at the broader issues but we're still telling you to shut up'."

It's important that the specific causes of the Grenfell fire are understood and that anybody responsible for not ensuring the safety of the residents is brought to justice. But without acknowledging the role that attitudes towards social housing tenants played in this tragedy, little will change. It shouldn't be too much to ask for local people to be housed in their own community in safe and secure accommodation. And it shouldn't be too much to ask for people to start caring that they're not."

May said they would be listened to. They are not.
Some people making comments on here should be ashamed of themselves.
Grenfell survivors deserve better.

Pleasant as usual, Baggs.

lemongrove So now you suggest that those who have a different view from you, Baggs, et al, are merely being supercilious in following a supposed PC agenda and are not genuine in trying to express the point of view of the Grenfell residents. Added to that, anyone non-white who is concerned about the make up of the panel is said to be "playing the race card".

You say:

"The inquiry is not a debate of some kind where you can include all races, class, etc. The people concerned with heading the inquiry are chosen either for their skill, experience or relevance to the inquiry".

Do you really feel that there are no non-white people in this country who have the necessary knowledge and expertise to sit on an inquiry panel of this nature. And are you seriously suggesting that the people who have experienced this terrible tragedy have no relevance to the inquiry?

I don't think anybody has suggested that all races, classes and other groups should be represented. Some of us feel that the people from Grenfell have had their lives changed for ever by this fire. Their warnings were ignored before the fire and the authorities performed very poorly immediately after the fire. It is hardly surprising that the residents find it difficult to have faith in local or national government and more effort should have been made to address their concerns.

I find your remark to Baggs (that she is being extremely patient) patronising - and not strictly accurate. Perhaps you hadn't noticed her comment "Racism has fuck all to do with the Grenfell fire". This is quite an aggressive way of giving her opinion. Others should also be able to express their opinion without the implication being made by you that they are rather stupid and tiresome.

Incidentally, concern about the make up of the panel was expressed by several people, as an article in the Guardian set out in August:

"The Rev Graham Tomlin’s remarks echoed the voice of local campaign groups such as Justice4Grenfell, which said local people “must be placed at the heart of this inquiry” and argued that the former judge’s advisory panel was “unrepresentative and non-diverse”.

The Rev Graham Tomlin said ‘Local people must be placed at the heart of this inquiry’

"Tomlin suggested that a panel reflecting the diversity of the community could “ represent both the local community and win their confidence, and … can bring the perspectives of a wider range of our society, socially and ethnically, to the important issues the inquiry will examine”.

Anniebach You say "some have complained there is no one of colour on the panel, why ? they live in England, they choose to live in England, the majority of English are not of colour .." I think that remark speaks volumes.

www.independent.co.uk/voices/grenfell-tower-inquiry-residents-judge-martin-moore-bick-a7947061.html

Haha! Some of you lot are funny. Since the words pleasant (meaning unpleasant), patience (interpreted as patronising, not by me as I know that poster is straightforward), and aggressive have been associated with my recent posts, I reckon I must be getting it about right.

Why the focus on the poster? Oh yes.... because that's what you do when you can't actually answer an argument with proper debate.

Chuckle McChuckle. Thanks for the morning amusement.

I've said my bit which you are entirely free to disagree with, as usual. No skin off my nose. Now it's up to Time.