London Fire -2

And I've still not heard who durham does think would be acceptable. Only who will not. But you've raised a very salient point Anniebach . To raise ethnicity, gender or colour as a reason to reject any judge as being acceptable is indeed sexist and racist and is to be deplored.

anniebach you have said what others may be thinking.

“He is a black working class man who I suspect has never, ever visited a mansion and certainly hasn’t slept a night in one therefore he is not suitable to do the job

would be classed as a racist remark if said by a white, middle class MP.

Now - whether or not he is the right person for the job because he may have shown lack of judgement in another case is another matter altogether.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobbie_Cheema-Grubb

She seems to fit Annie's criteria.

All I said was that it ought not to be someone who seems to be a clone of all those who have resigned from the council because of their lack of probity in this situation.

It's a shame Dianne Abbott hasn't 'taken silk'. She would have been perfect.
She's the right colour, can grasp information quickly and would be totally impartial.

I don't understand.

There was a cross-section of society, many of whom lost their lives in that tragedy. Some were white, some black, some from the Middle East, some Eastern European, Asian etc.

Does it matter as long as the judge does his job properly?

I think that it is important that whoever carries out the job, he/she should have the trust and confidence of the victims.

In my view they have suffered enough, and at the very least they should have the confidence that the judgement is fair and correct.

The residents were informed that they would be consulted on the scope of the enquiry. They haven't been.

'As for the public inquiry into the fire, it is clear that the retired judge appointed to head proceedings, Sir Martin Moore-Bick, has already stumbled badly by telling residents on day one that he might only offer them a “limited” investigation.

The inquiry exists not only to examine the cause and prevent future disasters but to restore public confidence. That means survivors and residents must be consulted on its scope – not presented with a fait accompli.

It is doubtful that Sir Martin can recover credibility among those whose views will matter most.'

From an editorial in the i.

Cheema-Grubb does look as though she would be a good choice, according to her wiki page. But she seems to specialise in serious criminal trials doesn't she; so would she have the experience to deal with an investigation such as this? And she's vociferous in her demands that gender and ethniticy should play no part in the judicial system and so may baulk at the thought that she was being recruited because she happens to be an Asian woman.

I doubt whether anybody would tell her that, unless they wanted her to turn it down.

I thought she would be good because of this report.

"Raising the Bar: The Handling of Vulnerable Witnesses, Victims and Defendants in Court".
There will definitely need to be some of that.

whitewave Sun 02-Jul-17 20:46:44
Yes, absolutely, that is the least that they deserve

All this talk of the unsuitability of the judge is going to make them anxious and apprehensive. I am sure he is aware of their concerns and the gravity of what he is undertaking.

But he has already told them that he is not going to be able to do what they want him to do!
Is that not important, or is it only the judge that matters?

Twoi years ago an enquiry was set up by May into deaths in police custody. It should have reported last summer. The report has still not been published.

What faith can they have in May?

By the way, David Lammy said it was a shame a woman OR ethnic minority judge could not be found.

So if a black/Asian family have their car driven off the road by a white female the family should be consulted as to what colour/sex they want the judge to be?

Lammy is doing much damage to the victims, and the enquiry, could it be a deliberate act?

No he isn't, Annie. You're just going to silly extremes again.

As I see it, the judge has warned that the terms of the enquiry he has been asked to undertake mean that he may be unable to answer all the questions to which answers may be sought by those affected by the fire.

It seems eminently sensible to me that he should make this clear at the outset, rather than allow unrealistic hopes to be built up of what his enquiry will achieve. Complaints about the scope of the enquiry should be made to the government, not to him.

But I'm a white middle class male, so I must be racist, sexist, classist, towerblockist, and anything else that springs to mind; the one thing I and my ilk cannot be is a rational human being.

Heigh-ho, I'll get over it.

I am posting my opinion on Lammy ,

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mx4IBBUIjog

Lammy's interview by Sophie Ridge.

Grumppa, the residents/survivors were told they would be asked about the scope of the enquiry they wanted. Then a judge was appointed who told them what he was going to do.
Does that seem fair?

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jul/02/i-stood-there-i-felt-helpless-relatives-recall-grenfell-tower-as-they-lay-loved-ones-to-rest

80% Muslim, it is thought.

I'm really surprised durham that you, who is normally so conscientiously insistent that everything must be even handed and transparent, is already questioning the validity, appropriateness and ability of a judge simply because of his gender and colour. He has been honest, right from the start, as to what he thinks he can and cannot deliver. He has made no false promises. But to seek to reject him for nothing other than his gender and colour is something that you would not tolerate if this was a black woman who was being rejected on the same grounds.

He was appointed to do what the Government set out the terms of the enquiry to be. If it's not what the residents/survivors wanted, that's not his fault. He was just being realistic. In other words, don't shoot the messenger.

I am not doing that. I am telling you what David Lammy thinks.

Grumppa, why did the government say the residents would be consulted about the terms of the enquiry, then impose those terms?
Why is that acceptable?

“Before the inquiry starts Sir Martin will consult all those with an interest, including survivors and victims’ families, about the terms of reference. Following that consultation he will make a recommendation to me,” she said.

“I will return to parliament with the final terms of reference once this process has taken place. Then the inquiry will begin its work. "

Theresa May said that. Has it happened?

Has the enquiry even begun properly yet?

t.co/4m01TtNbEu

Shelter, to write to your MP and support the Grenfell survivors to stay in Kensington and Chelsea.
I have just been reading about a woman who knows very little English whose daughter is in hospital having been shown a flat in another area of blocks outside Kensington. She refused to look at it or anywhere until her daughter is well enough to look with her.

The retired judge, Sir Martin Moore-Bick, specialised in commercial law (in particular, shipping). Whether that is more appropriate than a judge who had formerly specialised in other areas of law, such as health and safety, building and construction, etc. I really don't know.

He acknowledged that the scope of the inquiry was very narrow and, as such, was unlikely to seem adequate for those whose lives have been turned upside down by the fire. I think many of the people affected by this tragedy have confirmed that that is indeed how they feel, and many other people feel similarly.

I'm not sure it's correct to say that he is not the right person for the inquiry because he made a controversial judgment in the Westminster case. It is, I think, a judge's job to interpret the law as it applies to a variety of situations. Such interpretations can differ from judge to judge; that is why there is a system of appeal. I'm not sure it would be possible to find a judge who had always arrived at judgments that everybody agreed with and which were never overturned by a higher Court.

However, I think it is the case that one of the primary principles in law is that justice be seen to be done. Some people will think it is perfectly acceptable for this man to be appointed but it appears that many of the victims of this fire feel differently. On top of the unease felt about the previous Westminster judgment (whether that unease is justified or not), they see a white man from a privileged background - perhaps similar in many ways to the senior council officers who, it appears, ignored concerns about safety in the tower block - being appointed to head this inquiry.

I don't know what the answer is because I don't know if there are other more suitable candidates for the task. But if the victims of this fire don't have confidence in this man and have suspicions about his neutrality, then I can't see how the inquiry can be considered to have legitimacy.

Also, if this inquiry is only to look at the immediate causes of the fire rather than the sequence of events that led up to it - and who authorised certain decisions re internal and external building issues - then is it just down to the police to investigate these issues? Presumably, they would need a considerable number of experts to assist them. Maybe I haven't followed this all properly, but has May made a statement as to exactly how the many other wider issues (whether building regs are adequate, etc.) are to be investigated?