London Fire -2

I have commented several times on the OP, and have been extremely critical of the K&C Councillors. I didn't initiate the class-related comments, but I reserve the right to object to them when they add nothing to the discussion.

He did Devon, he just didn't happen to concur with some of the posts on the thread. His views are as salient and interesting as any others thus far.

grumpa couldn't you stick to the topic of the post?

'Sarcastic comments' v. intellectual arrogance. I'll go with the sarcasm, provided it's directed at the intellectually arrogant, and not at the white working class.

When the Hillsborough tragedy occurred, there was an attempt to portray the victims as pickpockets, drunks and generally anti-social beings who were at least partially to blame for what befell them.

Some of the people who perished in the fire, and possibly others who did not, were/are illegal immigrants. But, as someone else said, all these mutterings detract from the real scandal of what happened in that high rise. What I think is really distasteful is the linking of people's possible illegal status to the subject of terrorism.

I wonder what the discussion would be if people bothered to depersonalise it?

So much virtue signalling

You do realise that accusing others of virtue signalling is a form of virtue signalling as you are busy telling us that you are too virtuous to contemplate doing it. Silly term

Thu 06-Jul-17 13:09:17

I agree with your first paragraph AB but not the second. All those with entrenched views are shouting - about people who died or nearly died.

Thank you, GG. How very different their attitude is from the open-mindedness and receptiveness to other ideas of the left-wing middle class.

I am actually finding all the entrenched views on here pretty boring these days but there area few on who think and attempt to increase their knowledge.

Does this include people who make sarcastic comments in order to point score? Probably not grumppa.

It's saying everyone is free to voice their opinions within the rules trish

It isn't a question of criticism - (or at least I should say that 'I' am not criticising anyone, I can't speak for anyone else) It doesn't make a happorth of difference to those who are dead, or whose loved ones are dead, whether they are here legally or illegally. Fire safety is for all residents and their visitors.

But it does make a great deal of difference to those trying to ascertain who died, who lived, who escaped (perhaps injured) but is not accounted for, when they don't know who was there and who wasn't.

Does saying I'm wrong make them right Annie I didn't say any posts were wrong just the focus of the discussion. If what concerns some people is the status of some of the dead then that's fine. Personally I think it's unimportant and not worth discussing, but carry on I'm sure discussing if dead families were illegal is perfectly acceptable to some.

You msy consider some posts to be all wrong trish , doesn't make them so

Why should it matter? I'm sorry I still don't understand WHY. They are victims of the fire, they were in a block which was unsafe and which was built by the British on British soil and administered by a British council. Even if every single occupant had been an illegal it would still be a disgrace. As it is asking the survivors their status, asking if they knew anyone who was illegal asking any of these questions is something for the distant future. And yes I am sure everyone cares, just some of us feel the focus of this discussion is all wrong and it should be the councillors, the contractors and the government who should be being the target of any questions and criticism, not the survivors and the dead.

Think it's fair to say the latter Elegran. But their seems to be a fair contingent on here who are convinced that they, and only they, are demonstrating the correct response. So much virtue signalling.

That is odd, everyone else seems to think that Smileless meant that dead illegal immigrants should have contacted the Home Office to tell them that they were dead and that ones who had survived should have contacted the Home Office to say so.

Did anyone else take what I took out of it - that some people might or might not have applied to the Home Office BEFORE THE FIRE to register their presence? Or was everyone too busy finding instant fault with Smileless ?

Illegal immigrants perhaps, what about those who were sub letting or so it has been said, have they come forward and said we survived but were not sleeping there? It cannot be sorted in three weeks, there will be questions which cannot be answered.

The far left do not have the monopoly on caring, they just shout the loudest so others will know how caring they are . No one knows which posters have shed tears, who prey for the victims and to accuse others of not caring is a case of empty vessels making the most noise - in my opinion

Succinctly put *grumpa*. You've nailed it.

"I was merely pointing out that this view of the world in general and immigrants in particular was one that was largely held by the group that could be generally described as right-wing working-class.

My feeling is that there is little point in challenging this view within this group as they are not open to hearing anything other than their own arguments."

Thank you, GG. How very different their attitude is from the open-mindedness and receptiveness to other ideas of the left-wing middle class.

Good to see class warfare is alive and well on Gransnet.

Yes, I take your point GG. Sadly there are groups as well as individuals who "are not open to hearing anything other than their own arguments". I do think though it would be a pity if en trenched views were never challenged. The view point may not alter but at the very least it could provide food for thought.

Yes I agree trisher, the "permutations are endless" and one of those permutations is the possibility of illegal immigrants, so no, I don't agree that "the illegal question is a red herring".

Now you are bringing terrorism into it-more red herrings. There may have been guests over night-not necessarily illegals. Perhaps people without relatives in this country who are legal but chose to stay the night. The permutations are endless and as I said the illegal question is a red herring.

I didn't say they had to agree with my opinion Smileless.

I was merely pointing out that this view of the world in general and immigrants in particular was one that was largely held by the group that could be generally described as right-wing working-class.

My feeling is that there is little point in challenging this view within this group as they are not open to hearing anything other than their own arguments.

Doesn't mean they are wrong either GG. People have opinions, you may not agree with them but that doesn't mean they are wrong and you are right because they're not the same as yours.

By the way, I'm not a pensioner.

Previous post should have said "you don't know me".

When have I ever made excuses for doing nothing about the Grenfel tenants dj? My point which you seem to be deliberately finding difficult to understand is that IF a terrorist attack were to be carried out by an illegal immigrant there'd be an outcry regarding border control and state security.

You either agree that all immigrants seeking to stay here follow the necessary procedures or you don't. I don't have an issue with people being here legally but I do have an issue with those here illegally which has absolutely nothing to do with the sorrow and compassion I have for all of the Grenfell victims.

I agree with Petra and Smileless

I can point you to a small forum of pensioners where 99% would agree with Petra and Smileless. They are following the right-wing working-class thinking they always do.

That doesn't mean they are right.