El Cid   214 #529 Posted June 24, 2017  And why should they be prepared to move out of the area when there is available housing in their area?  I live in a average area, I could get a bigger house where house values are lower; isnt that how it works, people live in the area they can afford. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
I1L2T3 Â Â 10 #530 Posted June 24, 2017 Because, there is insufficient low rent housing in that area. I never said they were not hard working, but said for many years hard working London people have had to move outside of London, because they could no longer afford to live there. As you brought the subject up, then it will be interesting to learn how many former residents of Grenfell towers were receiving housing benefit and other benefits. Â The people in the tower weren't London people? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Yorkshire 53 Â Â 10 #531 Posted June 24, 2017 Well, one thing's for sure, a precedent has been set for all future catastrophes ( of any sort ) where those affected will rightfully expect the same level of rapid financial etc. support as this incident has received. Although, thankfully, there were no deaths with the bad floods a few years ago, was the support adequate in that instance when many insurance companies weren't paying out ? Â ( Get ready, "Are you saying the Grenfell Towers incident doesn't deserve the help ?" No, I'm not. ) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Guest sibon   #532 Posted June 24, 2017 (edited) Well, one thing's for sure, a precedent has been set for all future catastrophes ( of any sort ) where those affected will rightfully expect the same level of rapid financial etc. support as this incident has received. Although, thankfully, there were no deaths with the bad floods a few years ago, was the support adequate in that instance when many insurance companies weren't paying out ? ( Get ready, "Are you saying the Grenfell Towers incident doesn't deserve the help ?" No, I'm not. )  The significant difference is that flooding is generally caused by heavy rain. The Grenfell Tower disaster was caused by incompetence and negligence, probably criminal. Edited June 24, 2017 by sibon Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Yorkshire 53 Â Â 10 #533 Posted June 24, 2017 So, there was no 'incompetence and negligence' with the inadequate flood precautions ? Those floods weren't a one off, they repeated regularly with no effective action from the government, just patching here and there to save costs. Â Grenfell Towers is not "probably criminal", it is definitely criminal on the part of the council and the cladding company. Names and photographs should be shown of those responsible, especially in the council as they could have refused to pass the materials if the necessary tests had been carried out as they once would have been when councils had specialist people who have been replaced with unqualified staff. Â Even so, the council has the responsibility to check the recommendations of the out-sourced 'experts' they now use, so someone or some department in the council is culpable. No doubt they'll be meeting to try and come up with excuses, but I'd be moving house if I was one of them. ( There's a thing, publish their salaries and expenses along with their addresses and see if they open the door to reporters and protesters.) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Fudbeer   12 #534 Posted June 24, 2017 They could have won by checking what their contractors were up to when they were wrapping tower blocks in cheap plastic cladding. That was the time to win.  I'd be moaning if I got kicked out of my home because someone had renovated it on the cheap to make a few extra quid.  Absolutely,when previous concerns were raised they were happy to ignore them or let them drag on for years now the political spotlight is on them action is taken within hours.Both times its the residents that suffer, Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
hobinfoot   25 #535 Posted June 24, 2017 They could have won by checking what their contractors were up to when they were wrapping tower blocks in cheap plastic cladding. That was the time to win.  I'd be moaning if I got kicked out of my home because someone had renovated it on the cheap to make a few extra quid. I wouldn't be happy either. But this man said why should he move for up to 4 weeks after the fireservice had warned the residents to do so. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Yorkshire 53 Â Â 10 #536 Posted June 24, 2017 What about all their furniture etc.? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Mister M Â Â 1,609 #537 Posted June 24, 2017 Because, there is insufficient low rent housing in that area. I never said they were not hard working, but said for many years hard working London people have had to move outside of London, because they could no longer afford to live there. As you brought the subject up, then it will be interesting to learn how many former residents of Grenfell towers were receiving housing benefit and other benefits. Â What would that prove? Many people in low paid jobs, are entitled to housing benefits and other benefits because their wages are pitifully low. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
samssong   10 #538 Posted June 24, 2017 They could have won by checking what their contractors were up to when they were wrapping tower blocks in cheap plastic cladding. That was the time to win.  I'd be moaning if I got kicked out of my home because someone had renovated it on the cheap to make a few extra quid. The contractors will have used what the architects, planners, and council has specified. All this work will have been inspected by surveyors and building inspectors .one would hope so that is. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Guest makapaka   #539 Posted June 24, 2017 The contractors will have used what the architects, planners, and council has specified. All this work will have been inspected by surveyors and building inspectors .one would hope so that is.  Dependent on the procurement route contractors can have design responsibility.  I don't know the details so I'm not saying this is the case in this instance - but it's incorrect to assume a contractor is always dictated to in terms of specifying products etc. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
samssong   10 #540 Posted June 24, 2017 (edited) Dependent on the procurement route contractors can have design responsibility. I don't know the details so I'm not saying this is the case in this instance - but it's incorrect to assume a contractor is always dictated to in terms of specifying products etc. So a builder can design and construct such an important project without inspection times must have changed. Edited June 24, 2017 by samssong Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...