Grenfell Tower London Fire ... a conspiracy in the making?

a reply to: paraphi
Are you stupid? Whos going to actually work in London if normal people are priced out? The social cleansing forces people to give up their jobs and move to cities in the North where they are then part of the unemployment numbers. Which leads to a greater disparity in between the north and south. If they refuse to give up jobs and families to move, they are classed as making themselves kntentinally homeless.

a reply to: InceyWincey

Saying that is like saying that the cladding was put on deliberately and was made to go on fire, by the murderous satanic rulers of this world....... how do you know it wasn't?

things i have heard about it!

the cladding was put on a year before..
no other similar buildings had it...
the first spokesman for the company that installed it was named "Goldman"
prior warning signs in the lifts said, in the event of a fire stay "in" your apartment...

and you say tragic accident right away...... who do you work for!!

originally posted by: VigiliaProcuratio
If a Defence Advisory has indeed been issued, which would not surprise me in the slightest, then I can tell you for why with near-certainty...

There's no D-notice in place, never has been, never will be. D-notices cover MOD things like secret bases, nuclear installations, disaster and emergency evacuation points etc.. and is a 100% voluntary notice a newspaper or journalist can openly ignore without any repurcussions.

There are no laws or powers in the UK that can prevent the media from reporting what they want about this tragedy (aside from a super-injunction, which hasn't been sought and would have only been available on Friday evening when the junior lawyers work).

a reply to: Davg80
Quite a few similar buildings have it, they will all now need to be looked at. The cladding was also on buildings in other countries that burned. The fire department stick by the advice that it is safer to stay in your flat. In most circumstances this is correct advice.

a reply to: WilsonWilson

but not if the fire is burning the outside of the building filling it up with smoke, one guy said he was aware that they were told to stay n the flat, but he knew if he did he would have died.... others took the advice of the warnings and werent as lucky...
so they knew the building wasn't safe, it has happened before.... and they were instructed to stay in the building...

You say a few buildings have it, could you provide a source please, i do actually want to know that source, because news reports at the time it happened showed you the surrounding buildings and they said they had none, the could show you what the cladding looked like from pics of the building before it went of fire.... not from other buildings in the area.

i watched it from early in the morning, and Piers Morgan was all over it, there was no other cladding for them to show us from any other buildings or they would have shown it and said, this is the cladding that "the survivors" are blaming for the fire...

Wilsonwilson,,,, how would you feel about a bloody revolution, that slaughtered the 1% (hypothetically of course)

originally posted by: WilsonWilson
Are you stupid? Whos going to actually work in London if normal people are priced out?

Nope. Not stupid. It's basic economics. I would give a lesson, but cannot be arsed.

If people want to live in London then they need to find a way to afford it. If they cannot afford to live in London, then they should live elsewhere.

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: WilsonWilson
Are you stupid? Whos going to actually work in London if normal people are priced out?

Nope. Not stupid. It's basic economics. I would give a lesson, but cannot be arsed.

If people want to live in London then they need to find a way to afford it. If they cannot afford to live in London, then they should live elsewhere.

What utter eliest BS

So only the rich should life in London???

What about the guy digging up the roads for your car, the kid cooking you food, the dad who cleans the streets or the young single mother nursing you when you are sick.

The rich need the poor a hell of a lot more than the poor need the wealthy.

Have some respect for those less well of than you and remember they crap, bleed and love just the same as you

These people have as much right as anyone else to live were they want. It's sickening that people are living in these high rise death trap slums in 2017. We have the 5th largest economy in the world, there is no excuse that our hardworking people live like this when we are refurbishing Westminster and Buckingham palace while spending millions in over seas aid and billions on nukes

a reply to: [post=22365258]Davg80[/post
There are 11 other highrise blocks which have been coveted in the same cladding by this one business. I'll try and find a link.

a reply to: paraphi
Well it may might ok if the rich actually lived there, but lots of buildings stand empty owner by foreign businesses for investment purposes.

Seems to be a LOT more but not sure about the metro as a source.metro.co.uk...

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin
Commute.
I live in an expensive part of England. Why should my taxes subsidise cheap housing for minimum wage workers or unemployed people? Live somewhere you can afford and catch a bus to work.
I've paid taxes for 30+ years but no chance I'd ever get a council house if I lost my home because I don't fall into any of the 'vulnerable' groups. Move here from say Romania as a single parent with a couple of kids and bingo, cheap subsidised home funded by my taxes.
Pop a kid out aged 18, get a cheap subsidised home, while secretly still living with the father of your child and claiming as a single parent. The system is a shambles and encourages the 'entitlement' mentality.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
So only the rich should life in London???

No, that's not what I said. What I said is that if you cannot afford to live in London then you should not. There are plenty of places in London that are affordable, but complaining that you cannot afford to rent/buy in one of the most expensive parts of the city is a bit silly.

Try not to over-do the incredulity. I say so with respect, mind.

a reply to: [post=22365390]InceyWincey[/post
Jesus Christ peddling these myths again. Wouldn't want those paupers who clean their toilets living too close would, best to move them our and force them to pay what little wages they do get on expensive public transport. But the fact is people are being moved 100s of miles away from their families support systems and jobs.

a reply to: WilsonWilson

cheers..... i would like to say it is better to blame them first then investigate the shhh it out them and if it turns out they weren't liable in any way then they are good to go.... but no stone should be left unturned in the search for truth, then the public will be happy....... but for me someone or people are to blame for this, i watched it, and that stuff went up like paper and and the building burned for days....

a reply to: WilsonWilson
What myths? Single parents are top of the list for council housing and many pop a kid out solely as a career choice to get a council flat. You must not know any 'poor' people if you don't believe that. I know loads, and I resent my taxes funding their lifestyle choices to get a cheap roof over their head. I despise corporate tax evasion equally before you whine about that, but I also despise paying taxes for sluts who pop a kid out solely to get a council home. I know many.
But pretend that doesn't happen if you like, nothing to see here, move along lol.

originally posted by: InceyWincey
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin
Commute.
I live in an expensive part of England. Why should my taxes subsidise cheap housing for minimum wage workers or unemployed people? Live somewhere you can afford and catch a bus to work.
I've paid taxes for 30+ years but no chance I'd ever get a council house if I lost my home because I don't fall into any of the 'vulnerable' groups. Move here from say Romania as a single parent with a couple of kids and bingo, cheap subsidised home funded by my taxes.
Pop a kid out aged 18, get a cheap subsidised home, while secretly still living with the father of your child and claiming as a single parent. The system is a shambles and encourages the 'entitlement' mentality.

OK I'll bite .

System is shambles and the " entitlement mentality " is prevalent ; I'll give you that .

And I'll go on to explain why you need to pay for the poor as best as I can .

You are on a Merchant Trading vessel called Ship Britannia and currently , as always , ship is sailing in the waters of Commerce.

Those whom we call " poor " are the ones that live at the bottom of Ship Britannia and those we call " rich " live at the top .

If you don't pay them to unclogg the ship's bowels and make the ship fit to sail , well than ship slows down and/or comes to a halt.

There are the pirates of international commerce in the form of " funds " that would start to circle a ship once a ship falters .

Following the Brexit the Ship Britannia needs all hands aboard ; once the the ship is sailing full steam ahead than you can co back to paying less .

We are all on the same Ship.

a reply to: InceyWincey

Single parents are top of the list for council housing and many pop a kid out solely as a career choice to get a council flat.

The first assertion absolutely isn't true, and the second doesn't appear to have any statistical support. I'm sure it does happen, but if you think that young women deliberately set out to get pregnant so they can move house, you've been reading too many right-wing newspapers. It's up there with 'took acid, thought he could fly' as a credible claim: Yes, it has undoubtedly happened a few times, but only the gullible would believe it is a commonplace occurrence or anything like one.

I find it remarkable that (in this myth) young women are savvy enough to hatch a plan for nabbing council accommodation, but not savvy enough to foresee that they have just condemned themselves to 16 years of hard struggle bringing up a kid single-handed. It requires them to be simultaneously clever and stupid, which is a crazy idea.

a reply to: 23432
I agree with what you posted in the main.
I do not agree that my taxes should fund subsidised homes for minimum wage workers and the unemployed to live in expensive areas. Especially when all an 18 year old girl needs to do is get knocked up to get the cheap home while claiming as a single parent and living with the father on the sly.
Yes we are all on the same ship, but tough # if you can't afford a cabin in the nicer parts, get educated, earn more, stop being a leech and expecting everyone else to pay for the home you can't afford.

a reply to: audubon
I know loads of girls who have done just that. Anecdotal of course, but carry on with your denial if you like.
And yes, housing is allocated on 'vulnerability' criteria, from disabled to single parents etc, I worked in a housing dept at my council for some years, ask anyone in any housing dept and they'll tell you the same. But stay in denial if it makes you feel better.

a reply to: InceyWincey

What do you understand by the term "council housing", just as a matter of interest?