London Fire -2

Article from the Independent about the flats being offered to the Grenfell Tower victims:

www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/grenfell-tower-kensington-row-government-luxury-flats-survivors-disaster-a7803356.html

It answers a few questions and confirms what some posters have written

Me neither

I was just clarifying.

Jalima I was not trying to place blame - only work out how things had gone so wrong so that you were extremely upset. I am really not interested in continuing.

If we are sleuthing may I remind you that I came in at the very end of a discussion about 'anger' and said:
Sorrow and anger yes, sympathy too, then working towards finding out what went wrong and ensuring it is put right throughout the country is what is required of our MPs and Council leaders nationwide
Until the report is completed demands for answers are futile which they are.
Not the enquiry - the report on the cladding and cladding nationwide.

Not expressing emotion in public is quite different to not having any
To which Gracesgran replied:
You really are trying to have it both ways Jalima and it seems - I may be wrong - purely politically based

I then said It is up to the rest of us, from MPs through to the general public, to keep up the pressure to ensure that the relatives and survivors are cared for and that the possibility of this ever happening again is eradicated. Going through the stage of grief which is depression will not help them.

So why on earth I received such an attack and insidious remarks about my political allegiance (I have none) and my understanding of grief has completely flummoxed me. I was angry (which very rarely happens) but now I am assuming you did get confused Gracesgran.

But there it is and it deviates from the thread and helps no-one.

the angry not angry.

I though that TM accepted that she would be asked the most important of questions frequently - while she gave that answer. She will know that each of those MP is most interested in their own constituency and that this is also the most important question - until it is answered at which point another will take it's place.

It is not uncommon for repeated questions to be asked. It part of the way our democracy shows it is there for the whole country and makes the government very aware of what each area of the county feels is important.

If you watch debates frequently you tend to see this quite often.

Pogs I think 'angry' you and I were discussing in relationship to the MPs started with the comment you made and I replied to "This is not a time for anger but sensible debate and comment" Thu 22-Jun-17 11:47:31. When Jalima joined in discussing the "anger" I assumed, wrongly, she was commenting because she had watched the debate.

That's my last little bit of sleuthing - as far as I am concerned there were misunderstanding and now it had been resolved.

Sorry, missed a bit
....have been in Parliament long enough to know the game...

Well, why didn't she just say that, POGS, instead of waffling on about 'tests' etc.?
Both May and the MPs questioning her on the 'legality' point have been in Parliament to know the game. There will be a underlying motive for repeatedly pressing the point. And, of course, waffling on about 'tests' has nothing to do with the question asked.

48 hours not 24.

The first time the word 'anger' was raised was in a post at 11.05 Thursday.

Until then there had not been any implication any MP was angry during the Grenfell Tower Statement . Somehow the use of the word ' angry ' has selectively morphed into an accusation posters stated MP's were angry. Subsequent posts made a point that anger will not do anything to help the situation in response to the post at 11.05 Thursday.


The point is being repeatedly dismissed by some as to why the repeated questions which were asked of the PM for a comment re the ' legality ' of the use of the cladding was not being answered by the PM. She is waiting for 'factual evidence' which she stated hopefully would be available within the next 24 hours so that any possible Prosecutions/Legal procedures are NOT JEOPARDISED.

I think some people are really muddling up what the public enquiry is for and what we can and should be doing now based on the facts that are now known.
A public enquiry, as we know, could take quite some time to complete and it is right and proper that action needs to be taken urgently.
Analysing the cladding on all tower blocks in the country must be done as speedily as possible, as will checks on fire exits, extinguishers etc. However, many more buildings may have this type of cladding including schools and other public buildings and we don't know how extensive the use of it is on buildings in the private sector too.

Other recommendations such as sprinkler systems could be made as a result of the enquiry or it could be decided to install them before the enquiry is completed.

I read the transcript of TMs statement and the questions that followed. I simply do not recognise much of what has been posted negatively on here about MPs ( and particularly Labour MPs) making political capital out of this. Questions came from both sides of the house. Apart from the cladding, they were not demanding answers now but making many sensible suggestions as to the various issues that need to be addressed by the public enquiry - these suggestions came from all parties. As for the cladding, that is clearly in the here and now and so it is right to ask questions and expect information about the state of play on that - clearly no one is going to wait for a public enquiry on the safety of the cladding - they are taking action now as is right and proper and it is right and proper that MPs hold the Government to account on this ie ask( in this instance) questions of the PM. One of the functions of Parliament in a representative democracy is to hold the government to account. We should expect our MPs, of all parties, to be doing this and today I think they all did it very well. The one sticking point that no MP could get a clear answer on was whether the government would foot the bill for all the costs associated with the checks and removal and replacement of the cladding. There was some understandable irritation with this. I think some people are really muddling up what the public enquiry is for and what we can and should be doing now based on the facts that are now known. FWIW I think there is excellent work going on now, there is proper collection and dissemination of information and even in my small town, our two high rise blocks ( no cladding) have been checked for general fire safety. The good that is already coming from this tragedy is that blocks of flats all over the country are being made safer and hopefully a change in culture about these issues may come about. I think all our MPs did us proud today and people suggesting that politicking was going on are being unreasonable. Even for those who watched the session, I would say reading it in full gives a much better picture of what happened - you also get a lot of comments that don't get picked up on the broadcast.

Aren't we straying from the point again?
These threads on the Grenfell Tower fire seem to take on a whole momentum of their own
GNHQ made a very valid point.

I did not form any 'impression' of you Jalima, just of the views you put forward. As you joined in talking about the so called anger of the MP in the HoP I thought you had seen it. I realise now you may not have done but had chosen to comment on comment so to speak.

The five stages of grief can apply to any feeling of loss. Some people even feel it when they retire. It does not have to be what you describe as a personal loss; it is the sense of loss that sets people on that path so I did not agree with your judgement of how others could or should feel.

I also did not agree that people could possibly be "trying to claim the grief for themselves" from relatives because they, themselves were grieving.

None of these disagreements with your point of view made me form an opinion of you although the way you said you were angry did. I had an opinion that you were an angry person at that point. Nothing more, nothing less.

Thanks Wilma

I have tried to be very reasonable and could not understand what I had said to give the impression formed of me.
Never mind, I am not who matters and I do not want another thread to go off track.

Jalima I haven't noticed anything particularly offensive or provoking in your posts and I'm not really sure how you find yourself in this place on the thread.

Questions were asked about care for the firemen and for those in the NHS who looked after and are looking after survivors too. I simply did not see what you saw.
What did I see?

I will give you the benefit of the doubt Gracesgran and assume you are getting muddled again.

Jalima your comments were entirely reasonable and sensible, and the daft notion that anyone (who has not lost somebody dear to them) would go through the five stages of grief for complete strangers, however harrowing the circumstances is simply,as you put it 'a conceit'. Those of us who have lost a dear relative, child, husband, can certainly tell the difference.

I don't think there is any point in us continuing this after your last post Jalima.

I really wasn't accusing you of anything Jalima. What upset you? If that last post was for me I didn't understand it or what it related to otherwise I would have answered.

Looking again at the statement and debate I really didn't see anyone being angry - they were short and to the point because the speaker, as he does so well, was trying to get as many questions in as he could; it is their job to hold the government to account and I saw people doing this thoughtfully and appropriately - on all sides.

I do not understand this idea of owning someone else's grief at all. We all grieve in our own way and have every right to do so. That cannot diminish what the relatives feel. I cannot say I feel as you feel when I don't. These MPs, for many and different reasons will feel as they do too. It is much more important to me that they were asking very reasoned questions relating to their constituents and were putting some pressure on to make sure everything was being done for all those affected, but especially the survivors, to make sure hey are cared for.

Questions were asked about care for the firemen and for those in the NHS who looked after and are looking after survivors too. I simply did not see what you saw.

I have no idea who post Thu 22-Jun-17 20:09:22 is to but I am assuming not to me - some other poor soul bearing the brunt of your anger
Your posts Gracesgran are the only ones which have twisted what I say and made me out to be coldhearted and unfeeling and partisan.

But if that pleases you far be it from me to stop you.

No-one else has made me angry. But the assumptions of me which you have posted seem strange and illogical.

I am not an angry person but I do not like being accused of things I am not.

I cannot 'own' their grief although I feel deeply for them and may have wept for those involved in all the tragic events recently and can assume how anguished they feel and must have felt. But it is not my place to grieve as I am fortunate enough not to have lost anyone in these tragedies.

It would be a tremendous conceit and do all the relatives and friends a disservice to claim that I own their grief and will be going through all the stages of grief too.

It is up to the rest of us, from MPs through to the general public, to keep up the pressure to ensure that the relatives and survivors are cared for and that the possibility of this ever happening again is eradicated. Going through the stage of grief which is depression will not help them.

I have no idea who post Thu 22-Jun-17 20:09:22 is to but I am assuming not to me - some other poor soul bearing the brunt of your anger

But there was no anger Jalima. I was not going to argue with you because I was a little distracted as I have said above but I have watched it again and was most impressed by all sides.

Nevertheless, you are still telling other people how they may feel. I just don't think it is reasonable to do that. Peter Whittle, the Group Leader of UKIP on the London Assembly is on at the moment and sounds close to tears - is that not allowed?

You seem to be extremely angry all round. I have my experience of grief and you put forward your view. All I said was that my experience does not agree (is not the same as) your description. How on earth can that make you angry? Your remark is extremely offensive. Are you really saying I must feel how you tell me to feel?