What negligence? What physical confirmed investigated proof and evidence do you have that this was down to negligence? Or have you been listening to the endless barrage of blame from the media?
We dont know how hard these people have worked , in fact many of those empty properties are owned by foreign speculators. What matters is that these is a sense of great need here which should supersede any notions of individual entitlement .Labour are indeed making capital of this tragedy because a) the flats were not being properly managed and b) there is a dearth of properties in London due to those speculators as well as decent social housing
Socialism is what a lot pf people believe in or should I say social democracy
Corbyn is a communist and he's turning the Labour Party into one too.
That's why I said that there is SOME truth...
It wasn't an angry mob, just a group of traumatised people looking for answers. Older people appear to have kept things from boiling over.
The Socialist Workers Party were once again attempting to co-opt a protest for their own ends. They were told to do one Joseph on Twitter
Corbyn and others are most likely talking about the properties that have been bought by overseas investors that are either left empty or left to rot i.e. the land value being worth more than a building. Government and Local Government do have the legal power to seize such properties Powers to bring empty houses into use 'ignored'
Most people who own properties and have worked hard for it, don't leave properties empty (unless there are unforeseen circumstances). They will either live in the property or rent it out. Also you have to keep in mind the nature of the housing market in Kensington and Chelsea, one of the most expensive if not the most expensive parts of the country.
Labour haven't really had to do anything, May's response has been lacklustre to say the least. Any competent Prime Minister would have taken control of the disaster by visiting and talking to the people directly effected by it (political optics matter in these events to put it bluntly) and also sending in outside help to the local council to organise the response (it seems the council has no emergency planning in place for a disaster of this nature and it's been left to volunteers to sort out). May could have defused a lot of the anger if she'd braved the members of the public who've seen things most of us dare not imagine, after she'd meet with the emergency services. The people in the local area will know who are missing and you can then probably understand why they are so angry for in terms of it appearing as though the death toll is being carefully managed to control public anger.
As a dyed in the wool conservative, this was in Milton Friedman terms a 'Market Failure', of course there'll be an inquiry and people, companies, entities, whatever will have to be held to account..
Wrong, unfortunately: the product has been passed for this use (and is on dozens if not hundreds of hi-rise buildings all over the world). Just because it's banned in Germany and the USA doesn't mean it's been banned in the UK and Australia (for example) which is inexcusable.
I think it's become clear it shouldn't have been passed as suitable for purpose and is now being described as the new asbestos problem.
We live in a blame culture and people are very quick to point the finger, even to the extent of blaming those who had no dealings with the tragedy or any ties with the construction of the building or renovation.
IG is quite right in saying it is too early to politicise this tragedy and the posts in this thread have underlined that considerably.
IMO consideration should be given to closing this thread temporarily until more is known about the cause, the anger and frustration moderates, and the government gets a handle on how to proceed with rehousing the survivors, what to do with the gutted building and possibly drafting new health and safety guidelines.
Okay, so if it is valid for use then no one is culpable, just a tragic accident.
Cheers,
Nigel