Mogg

The attacks on Anniebach by some posters are because of her political beliefs - to which she is entitled as much as anyone surely? I'm sure she has thought long and hard about this and not without some angst in making a decision.

Why is considered by so many on the threads to be acceptable to criticise some politicians (as on this thread Rees-Mogg) and not other politicians, mainly those on the left especially Corbyn? Is he above criticism?

Surely, in the interests of fairness all or none should be up for criticism?

Grandad threatening to report people (not just one poster) to outside bodies for something they have posted on Gransnet sounds quite OTT - surely it is up to GNHQ to decide if a post is appropriate or libellous?

Your posts are informative, posters can read them or not as they wish, likewise if you don't like certain other posts or posters why not ignore them?
Surely we're entitled to post what we like within guidelines?

X post M0nica

The last thing I would do is to stay in a burning building, especially one which had multiple floors. That IS common sense in my opinion.

On another point- the cladding on the tower block met EU standards to meet their climate change agenda- you know that organisation most of you claim to love-as British builders cannot chose what materials they deem fit to use while we are still members.

grandad43 so not true, I have the whole thread , I have just copied and pasted your post which I followed with my question .

The cladding did not in fact meet EU standards. It was originally classed as B which there is some discussion about. Some claiming A was the required standard for buildings over 18 meters. It was subsequently re-graded and was therefore totally unsuitable
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43558186
Usually leavers rubbish!

MOnica I am truly sorry, I was not going to respond again
but I had to defend myself against that allegation . I have done so and that’s it.

My apologies to all .

quizqueen Quote [ On another point- the cladding on the tower block met EU standards to meet their climate change agenda- you know that organisation most of you claim to love-as British builders cannot chose what materials they deem fit to use while we are still members.] End Quote.

Quizqeen, can you please post a link in regards to your above statement that the composite panels fitted to Grenfell Tower met EU standards for such a requirement. Also, can you expand on your statement or post a link in regard to British builders being unable to choose what materials they use while the United Kindom remains a member of the European Union?

There is also the point that should any person or organisation have deemed that the cladding chosen for installation on Grenfell Tower was combustible and therefore not fit for purpose, then the answer should have been to not install that product. Indeed, under The Health & Safety at Work legislation, it is demanded that such risk assessment and action is carried out.

As Jeremy Corbyn stated in his comments in regard to the Jacob Reece Mogg interview comments yesterday, that the way to avoid allegations of crass behaviour for Reece Mogg is to ensure that highly inflammable cladding cannot be installed on the outside of people's homes.

And never have more true words been said.

Mogg uses an anti-Semitic trope when criticising two Jewish members of Parliament.

ucl-brexit.blog/2019/09/05/jacob-rees-moogs-alarming-cry-of-illuminati/

If you look at his voting record in the Commons it says a lot about the man. Any measure that would improve the lives of poorer people he votes against it. QAny measure giving more to the rich he is for it. I think that sums him up. I can't see from his record any articles in respect to Health and Safety ; I suspect based on his record that he would not want greater involvement by H&S in matters to do with houses etc. I suspect he would want to 'cut red tape'. Goodness only knows where we would be then.

Grenfell Cladding
I have no idea how the EU approval affected Grenfell, the cladding was only approved for use in low rise buildings and would never have been allowed in new build high rise. Because it was refurbishment the building regulations were different, the risk was known but someone somewhere decided that fire spreading round the outside of the building was not likely. When fire escaped from the original flat (UPVC windows ?) the cladding melted and burnt, spread and entered other flats.
Any fire close to that cladding would have had the same effect

My question is why did building regulations allow that cladding to be used in a refurbishment when the risk was known.

Whitewavemark2 that remark is shocking. The questions that arise such as why didn't any Jewish MPs object and why wasn't it picked up by the mainstream media are so many. It points to a significant rise of right wing idealism which is really scary.

trisher I’m unclear whether people understood its significance tbh.

But be sure that Mogg did. Otherwise why use it?

I found the last paragraph of that article interesting in that he mentions in passing the only recent high profile 'Illuminati' based controversy, using the word'supposedly'. Jewish historian casting doubts on the validity of that particular controversy?

Also amazed that the MSM didn't pick up on Mogg, being as they are so very sensitive to any hint of anti-Semitism...

There is no other, anodyne usage of this term in current political discourse. That is why, in March 2018, Jeremy Corbyn had been excoriated—by those within and outside of the party–for not objecting to a mural that supposedly employed “Illuminati” imagery. With his nod to “Illuminati” – pointed at Letwin and Bercow – Rees-Mogg is knowingly trafficking in the portrayal of Jews as underhanded and sinister. As Heilbrunn wrote of Pat Robertson, it can be said of Rees-Mogg, in 2019, that while studiously avoiding the word “Jew”, he has exhumed, embellished, and rebroadcast one of the most poisonous antisemitic canards in all of history.

MaizieD I think the reason "supposedly" is used there is because the artist consistently asserted that he regarded the image as masonic. They are very similar.

WWM2 thank you for the link to Berkowitz. I had no idea about the term until now, and I'm sure many others are unfamiliar with it.

I think Berkowitz is correct in saying that Rees-Mogg was fully aware of the implications of his use of the word when referring to Letwin and Bercow as 'illuminati' in his derogatory and anti-Semitic trope.

Not a good ambassador for his professed faith.

I knew about the original Enlightenment illuminati because Goethe was attracted to them. There were numerous secretive groups like them in 18th century Europe because people weren't allowed to be honest and open about their political views. The original illuminati were liberal, educated and generally against the ruling aristocracy.

Nazi sympathisers in the early twentieth century accused them of undermining the state, although there is no evidence of that. They were the target of conspiracy theorists in the same way that George Soros, the Bilderberg Group, the New World Order and NLP practitioners, etc are today. The Nazis claimed that groups of illuminati still existed and that they were associated with Jews. They smeared them in the same way that the "elite" are smeared today and claimed there was some kind of global conspiracy.

I learnt about them during my degree. Rees-Mogg is supposed to be clever and educated, so it's almost certain he knew of their significance.

Quizqueen As I understand there are no EU regulations on flammability On page 11 of this thread I quoted (secondhand) from the fire regulations section of the Building regs and these say that there is no EU standard for the flammability and because of that the building regs contain no requirements on that subject. It does beg the question of why the UK didn't formulate its own, which it is free to do.

The causes of the Grenfell fire lie completely in the UK and have nothing to do with the EU. The problem lies in building regulations that are both too detailed and not detailed enough in their provisions and the fact that in this country the construction industry has always been notorious for its cavalier attitude to quality and rules, whether safety of their staff or the quality of their work.

Look at the problems Persimmon, the UK's biggest and most profitable house builder has had with the quality of the homes it has built in the last 4 or 5 years. Look at their recent decision to sell properties on leases, with penal ground rent clauses, that they can then sell on to companies who specialise in buying and applying the full conditions. The Leasehold system has worked well in this country for hundreds of years - until some venal 21 century construction company got into the act.

The causes for the Grenfell disaster lie with the building regulations and the venal construction companies who will take any opportunity to ignore rules, take risks with materials and cut corners on building methods to scrape a few more pound sto pay to their owners,especially their boards of directors.

So M0nica, all those engaged in the Grenfell tragedy inquiry can now stand down seeing that you have provided all the answers that huge team are inquiring into.

Thousands of documents and evidence yet to be placed before the open stages of the inquiry can now be shredded saving the nation great expense.

Your above post will also, without doubt, bring total closure to the relatives of all the victims and all others caught up in the disaster.

Many thanks

I don't think that's what MOnica is claiming at all. However, she's right that the EU has very little to do with it. It is totally wrong to blame the EU for anything with regards to Grenfell.

MOnica is in no way prejudging the enquiry into Grenfell. She's simply stating what those working in the industry know. That must include you Grandad. No need to introduce yet another nasty feel to this.

This should be a salutary warning to all of us, too, that we could have potentially lethal white goods in our own homes.
No-one on here mentioned the refrigerator as being the source of the fire, although we all know that it spread so disastrously because of the cladding.

But we can’t do anything about a potentially lethal white good can we? As long as we’ve bought it from a reputable source and it’s properly installed and we’ve followed up on any safety warning. There’s no suggestion at all that there were any of these issues in this case. I don’t run my washing machine or dishwasher when I’m out but obviously my fridge and freezer stay on. So this case isn’t a warning about white goods at all - it’s probably going to turn out to be a warning about cladding.

Apparently the poor man has suffered dreadful abuse and threats

In regard to pre-judging the outcome of the second stage of the Grenfell Tower inquiry, then it has already been confirmed by that body that it was the cladding on the outside of the tower that became the prime cause of the loss of life in the tragedy due to its combustibility.

However, what that inquiry has now adjudicate on is I feel:-

Did the specification certification for the materials used in the refurbishment accurately evaluate the combustibility of the products.

Did those engaged in the specification and installation of the products used in the refurbishment consider the effects of combining several products on installation would have on the overall combustibility of the fixtures on the tower?

Were adequate and sufficient risk assessments carried out on the above, and if so were the persons who carried out those assessments properly qualified to engage in such work.

Along with many other factors, In the above, there are any number of scenarios that will eventually lead the inquiry, hopefully" to the main root cause of the tragedy and ultimately those responsible.

In my experience inquiries such as Grenfell always turn up the unexpected from the initial thinking on causes immediately following any incident. Many forum members may well remember a Roller Coaster accident in the North Midlands several years ago and in which our company were involved in the investigation.

Several young persons incurred life-changing injuries in the accident and it was widely reported in the media in the immediate aftermath of the incident that the mainly young persons engaged to operate the ride were guilty of gross negligence.

However, through the investigation, it emerged that the safe operating procedures for the ride prescribed in the risk assessments could not be carried out due to the numbers of people the staff were expected to put through the ride by the owners of the Theme Park in peak periods.

Therefore, it emerged by way of the investigation that the root cause of the accident was the working pressure placed on the staff by management and in no way was any negligence of the staff judged as being responsible.

The company responsible were fined a record amount by courts and the most senior executive officer in the company made a public apology prior to then resigning.

That is why I feel that no one at this point in the Grenfell Tower investigation should in any way attempt to prejudge what will be its outcome and final conclusions.

Thank you Iam64.

Granddad43 Your response to my last post worries me. In 4 paragraphs I covered quickly and without any detail a broad background on contributory causes to the Grenfell diaster. Yet you think that I could be passing this off as a solution to the whole disaster. Really, that is rather disingenuous, since nothing I said has not been published in the media time and time again since the tragedy.

You need to read more widely.