London Fire -2

I don't think they will ever have a final total or a full list of names. It may just be impossible to identify some of the people who died.

I think the building should be demolished and a memorial garden made there with the names of those who perished and perhaps another memorial to those unknown who may have died whom we will never know. It should be respected as a last resting place in accordance with the different religions of the residents.

I do believe it should be dealt with rather like a plane crash were they find out enough to ensure all other planes are safe and then move on to the whys, etc.
That is exactly what needs to be done - the priority is to make sure they know exactly what happened and put things right across the country to ensure it does not happen again.

Whilst nothing on this scale has happened before, other fires have and nothing was done - this time things do have to change - and quickly.

The chain of command does need to be investigated but that will take longer.

speye.wordpress.com/2017/07/04/the-grenfell-inquiry-liar-theresa-may/

What I find truly dreadful about what is happening is that people traumatised by the loss of their homes and possessions, the deaths of friends and relatives, some with families still being treated in hospital have to fight for the sort of inquiry they want. Someone should be listening to them and moving heaven and earth to provide them with the reassurance they want. Instead as usual the establishment closes ranks.

I think Jeremy Corbyn suggested just what GGM2 said about there being 2 parts to the enquiry

Jeremy Corbyn - Two part enquiry

He called for a two-part inquiry, with the first part looking at the specific issues around Grenfell and reporting back quickly, and the second part looking at the national issues.

That said, his open letter to Theresa May on 16th June asked for consultation on the terms of reference for the enquiry and clearly that request fell on deaf ears.

Should victims be consulted on a judge? Choose the remit of an enquiry?

It been found to be a logical way so I'm not surprised WKf.

Annie
Let's save squillions of £s and have Kangaroo courts and string up the guilty

By the way, that was tongue in cheek.

I struggle with how much influence victims/survivors can have in public enquiries. I'm fence sitting and use the word 'struggle' genuinely.
The main argument against the Judge seems to be based on himbeing Establishment and here having been a successful appeal against a Housing decision he made. Most of our Judges are Establishment, white (upper) middle class, males. They went to private schools and then to Oxbridge or similar red brick universities.
Most Judges will have been successfully appealed. That's one of the positives in our Judicial system. I only know this Judge was successfully appealed after supporting the rehousing of someone away from support networks. I'm pleased the appeal succeeded because that is happening far too often, with former residents of London being rehoused in less expensive areas.
The dispersal system for asylum seekers means they're moved or of areas where there are large numbers of similar families to 'spread the need'. This has meant for example, African Christian families being isolated in towns with large white, or Pakistani Muslim populations. It's isolating and cruel . I wish more would appeal this kind of thing.
But - I remain uncertain about the best, least potentially confrontational way of selecting Judges for public enquiries. The enquiry into organised abuse no longer has a Judge leading it. Some survivors and many lawyers are unhappy about that, difficult isn't it

Annie my understanding of the request for consultation in JC's letter to TM was for him (or the Labour Party) to be included in the consultation about the terms of reference. I didn't read it as referring to the victims or tenants.

The request from the woman speaking for Justice 4 Grenfell seems pretty reasonable to me
Sue replied: "We're not in the position of selecting one individual, what we had hoped, or assumed, would have happened would be that there would be a list of maybe three or four put forward with their credentials, some of their background, and that there would be a consultation over a choice of one of those suitably qualified."
So giving people some sort of input and choice. It might also be someone with some knowledge of buildings/fires/social housing rather than a judge whose main area of knowledge is commercial law. Justice must be seen to be done.

I understand exactly what you are saying Iam. I do not believe that what he looks like or what strata of society he comes from should matter any more than what the survivors look like or what part of society they come from.

To ensure justice we need to work within the law. This judge was thought to be unsuitable because of judgements he made. The system we have is not based on sympathy but justice. There was an ability to appeal and the team working for Ms Nzolameso won that appeal. This is how our justice system works. It is not the place for social issues to be fought. They must be fought and law must be challenged and changed where necessary but this enquiry is not the place and I cannot see how attacking this man personally helps.

I am afraid I saw it another sign of Theresa May's lack of strength and also of understanding that she let the historic child abuse enquiry get into the mess it did. I do not believe these enquiries are the place for the victims/survivors to set the remit; they are the place for them to find the truths and where the outcomes may set the framework for the politicians to fight for change.

Wilma,i was not referring to Corbyns letter, just thought we could discuss this calmly and so asked a reasonable question , well reasonable in my opinion. Judges are part of what choose to call the establishment, there will not be a black/Asian female judge who lives/lived in a tower block, even if there were she could be biased in favour of or against the victims. This decision has to be taken without emotion surely ?

Annie it's a perfectly reasonable question, I was just clarifying my post.

I still think the real issue is the setting of the terms of reference and it sounds as though there has been some movement on that this evening.

Questions from Mombiot

We don't allow defendants in court cases to select the charges on which they will be tried.

So why should the government set the terms of a public inquiry into its own failings?

We don't allow criminal suspects to vet the trial judge.

Why should the government approve the inquiry's chair?

Perhaps this is part of the reason that the survivors find trust difficult?

So the government are to be charged with offences? I missed that on the news.

I am curious about these 'volenteers' who keep giving interviews, who are they? Where are they from? Do they not have employment? Do they work for a charity?

annie Is your post directed at me or just a general remark?

Just sharing thoughts Whitewave, with anyone who chooses to read my post

Since when did volunteers become a dirty word inasmuch as it has to be written as 'volunteers' - implying what?

That's OK then as I wasn't sure what to say.

They have no no name Anya, do I thank you for pointing out my misuse of ' '

What I can't understand annie is the context of your remark? Only something must have prompted your remark about volunteers.