Rehousing issue for Grenfell Towers survivors

Poverty is relevant. A bad council is relevant. And there will be many more relevant things.

But race and ethnicity (isn't that the same thing?) will not be relevant.

Why their concerns were not listened to has nothing to do with skin colour.

Their concerns about safety had nothing to do with skin colour.

Their inability to get their concerns sorted is likely to b because of poverty. But, once again, not because of skin colour.

Neither can I, maryeliza, but skin colour is irrelevant there too.

But Baggs it's about more than the safety issues - it has to include why their concerns were not listened to and that's where race, ethnicity, poverty can be very relevant.

And I agree about perception mattering as well, about feeling you have been and are listened to. There is absolutely irrefutable evidence that concerns raised by the residents well before the fire were not listened to - I can't blame some of them for being sceptical at least that anything has changed.

I agree with what maryeliza said with regard to being disabled and not represented where it would help. I was making the same point about cyclists' needs on another thread some while ago. Where experience of particular difficulties is relevant, representation on any panel where understanding of the problems faced is required, is a good idea.

The inquiry into what happened at Grenfell Tower is not particular to one group. The safety requirements of a building that is to house a lot of people is the same for all those people. Safety features have to cover all the possibilities of disabled access, for instance, fire safety, and so on. So there is no particular group in this instance. People of all skin colours have the same housing safety needs.

Sometimes, being non-white is what is relevant - not the exact way in which you are non-white, Just as I think being a carer can be what is relevant although the reason why the person you are caring for needs care can be very different.

I have no idea, none of us have Eloethan but I don't see conspiracy theories in everything.We are a white country and the majority are white.
In any case the countries/cultures that the survivors came from are varied, and the inclusion say, of one black lawyer or fireman would not make a scrap of difference.

The panel has not yet been named

So are you saying that there is not one non-white competent person/expert who could be included on the inquiry panel lemongrove?

Are all from the tower who were not born in this country born in the same country?

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

maryeliza and eloehthan have both given very sensible and reasoned posts.

Are you ready to explain the difference between people of colour and colour of skin.

And colour of skin is not a disability

It seems to be assumed that the Grenfell people who are concerned there is no non-white representatives on the inquiry panel are somehow being irrational or, as gillybob claims, racist in making that assumption.

It is perhaps because of their experience of being non-white in a predominantly white society that has caused them to arrive at this conclusion. There has been a great deal of research that supports those feelings, i.e. that if you are non-white there is a reasonable chance that you will be treated less fairly within the education, employment, housing and justice systems.

That does not mean that every white person is racist and likely to consciously discriminate against non-white people, but there is a chance that they may be - and there is a very good chance that white people are unaware of the petty acts of prejudice and stereotyping, which impact upon people's lives in very real ways. They cheerily say that there is no racism these days, when they really are not the people to make such proclamations since they are not the ones experiencing it. Most non-white people can give you examples of racism that have, at best, hurt, embarrassed or offended them or, at worst, meant they have received unequal treatment.

That being the case, and given the woeful response to this tragedy, is it any wonder that many people view the inquiry, and the make up of its panel, with suspicion? Even if they are completely mistaken in their belief that this lack of non-white representation will impact upon the eventual findings, they perceive this to be the case and it seems reasonable to me that some effort should be made to meet their request.

But surely the inquiry is about how the fire started, how it was able to spread so quickly, the advice given to the residents if there was a fire and how the emergency services dealt with it.

I agree maryeliza that "being human does not equate to understanding the lived experiences of people whose lives are lived very differently" but I don't see what that has to do with this inquiry.

It simply isn't true that differences between us are irrelevant. The provision of services for example, for disabled people will be better if the relevant disabled people are involved. I don't have any hearing or visual impairment but people who do should be consulted when services are being designed. I'm white and have only read/ heard about the experience of being black in a white majority society and I'm sure that the two experiences are very different in many ways that need taking into account. Sadly, being human does not equate to understanding the lived experiences of people whose lives are lived very differently.

We are all members of the human race; one's skin colour, ethnicity, religious or political beliefs are irrelevant.

What we should be doing is supporting all of those on the panel who have an enormous and unenviable task ahead of them. If the credibility of the inquiry is being called into question before it gets underway, how on earth can it's findings ever be deemed as satisfactory and fair.

I agree Gilly, but Jen is allowed to say it , no one else is allowed to mention race if they do they will be reported

I can't see anything more racist than implying that there will not be a fair hearing unless there is a certain race or colour of skin sitting on a hearing panel. It's like saying that white skinned people can't possibly understand black or brown skinned people. That the colour of our skin determines how much pain or anguish we might feel.

Yes Jen, I will have to remain silent if ordered by you . , what ever you say Jen . so sorry Jen .

What do you want me to post which will meet with your approval ? Just say and I will follow your orders Jen , if someone reads them to me ☹️

Time you stopped, Annie.
Some of your comments are getting close to racist.

Doesn't make sense, as we know Corbyn said on canera to the victims - I feel your pain. He is white British .

"Lawyers representing victims and survivors of the Grenfell Tower disaster have handed the inquiry team a list of 25 experts from the BME community as potential panel members following concerns over a lack of diversity.

BMELawyers4Grenfell say the Prime Minister has failed to ensure that the panel reflects the diverse community in north Kensington, which was devastated by the fire nearly three months ago.

The legal experts are seeking an urgent review of the lack of diversity on the inquiry panel - just two days before the first hearing is held."

What is wrong with wanting this?

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/grenfell-inquiry-diverse-bmelawyers4grenfell_uk_59b7c593e4b031cc65cc917e