Grenfell Tower - Public Enquiry & Panorama

Kennedy, that was a conspiracy. Right to the top.

 

Yes, that was a no brainer.

 

I don't know who removed them - they were up for a couple of weeks after the tragedy, then one day when trying to access them, each account had the dreaded "This video is no longer available because the YouTube account associated with this video has been terminated".

I interpreted that as suspicious, being as the people in these videos were very convincing and were effectively telling a different version of events to what was being reported - hence being silenced by their removal.

Of course - an alternative is they were faking it, and were either deleted by YouTube at the request of some kind of official dept. from the UK for spreading false information, or the "fakers" themselves removed them before they got into trouble.

For me - their removal remains suspicious; but it's clear that most on here don't share that belief so I don't want to derail the thread by going back and forth with everybody on the issue.

I do wish that I'd downloaded the vids at the time, though.

 

I'm not a conspiracy theorist either. But why should supposedly bona-fide videos involving bona-fide members of the public be 'removed' by anybody?

 

Presumably this is where the 42 in one room thing comes from.

https://metro.co.uk/2017/06/20/gren...-42-bodies-in-one-room-during-search-6720776/

I guess the spooks who removed all traces of the video from Youtube don't read the Metro.

 

I think YouTube are pretty quick to remove anything these days if they feel it has infringed their terms and conditions. So a complaint from an official source from over here would be reason enough to remove them - or of course, if it was the work of pranksters/crisis actors, then they can terminate their own YouTube accounts and it would show the same message.

Good find. Although they're a bit more "gangsta" than the ones I originally viewed.

Maybe it was a Chinese whisper that escalated amongst the crowd; maybe it was the shocking truth that's been kept from any official media outlet? But I'll leave it at that now, being as the main issue is that a hell of a lot of people did die as a result of what appears to have been cost-cutting and ignored warnings.

At the very least, it's proof that I wasn't just making stuff up!

 

There are at least 4 videos on YT of the 42 bodies in one room claim..

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=42+bodies+one+room

 

I've been listening to the daily BBC podcasts of the enquiry. The first week was given over to family testimonies and tributes, which were heartbreaking. In particular Sakineh Afrasiabi's daughter was very moving. Sakineh was 65 and disabled and partially sighted. She walked with one of those tri-frame things. She'd originally come from Iran and her daughter described how proud she was when she got her British nationality. Her mum even had a commemorative plate with the queen's face on it on her front room wall and always said "Elizabeth is my queen now!". Migrants don't fit the stereotypes that racists like to portray.

The council agreed in 2003 that because of her disabilities she shouldn't be housed above the fourth floor. They put her on the 18th floor anyway. As her daughter said, she had enough trouble getting to and from her flat at the best of times - she stood no chance in a fire. No chance at all. Those people who housed her on the 18th floor - blood on their hands.

An interesting name also came up early in the first submissions. Mrs Margaret Hilda Thatcher. Previously the local fire inspector was a council employee and entirely independent. Thatcher, as was her wont, privatised it and from then on the fire inspectors came from private companies who competed with each other.

The obvious logical consequences followed. Those fire inspectors who were finickity and insisted regulations were strictly adhered to didn't get much work. On the contrary, those fire instructors who were lax and waved through more or less anything were very popular and got loads of work. Maggie Thatcher - blood on her hands.

Finally, a statement from Imran Khan QC who is acting on behalf of the bereaved.

"We invite you to state that, having now heard directly from the bereaved, as you did in the last two weeks, and having read the material disclosed to the inquiry as we have, particularly the witness statements of the core participants, we invite you to recommend a change to the terms of reference along these lines: "To examine whether race, religion or social class played any part in the events surrounding the fire at Grenfell Tower on 14 June 2017 [...] it would be unconscionable not to do so. Because, chair, there is grave foreboding amongst our clients that the race, religion or social class of the residents may have determined their destiny."

He's absolutely right of course. Who could question that if the dead had been white and rich, they wouldn't have died.

I don't suppose for one moment they'll allow any discussion of that fact though.

 

The Fire Brigade Incident Commander, Michael Dowden, who took initial charge at Grenfell is giving evidence to the enquiry today.

In summary, he didn't have a clue what he was doing thanks to the ever-brilliant privatisation!

Q: “Did you ever receive any training in how to re-evaluate advice offered during fire survival calls throughout the incident?”
A: “Not that I can recall, no.”

Q: Have you been trained in how to inform control to change the advice?
A: “Not any training, I can’t recall that I received any training as to how that was done.”

Q: “Were you trained in what were exceptional circumstances?”
A: "No"

Q: "Were you trained in how to follow an evacuation plan"
A: “Not that I can recall, no”.

And so on and so on. No training. Didn't know what to do or how or when to do it.

Dowden said repeatedly he had not received training in this and other matters such as identifying fire spread through a building’s facade. He also admitted he could not recall the last training he had had in fighting high-rise fires.

He also said training had been increasingly delivered through computer-based simulation since officer training and firefighter training had been outsourced to the private company Babcock.

And there, in that last sentence, in a nutshell, you have one of the prime reasons for the brigade leadership's inadequate response to the fire. It was because their training is now those stupid "multiple guess" online clicky things which nobody pays any attention to apart from hoping to get sufficient marks to satisfy its computerised whims and fancies.

The person or people who privatised the firefighters training have blood on their hands and are culpable of corporate manslaughter. Similarly the executive board of Babcocks, who have plainly failed to do a critical safety job properly, are guilty.

The whole pinstriped lot of them need to be sentenced to around 10 years each in adjoining cells.

 

Hindsight is 20-20, but they wouldn't and couldn't have run simulations on fire running up cladding, as they would have been unaware that any building was adding highly flammable cladding to their exteriors.

The Fire dept's policy - and a very sensible one too - is that people should stay in their homes, as the fire should be contained in the flat or origin. As of course we know, it wasn't. Probably due to corporate manslaughter.

Nobody is saying that the firemen who tackled the fire that evening weren't anything but heroic. I'm sure the decision makers must have been stressed beyond belief. I'm sure hundreds of things were happening simultaneously.

However, a call needed to come in far, far earlier to evacuate. The fire had spread within minutes beyond the flat or origin. At that moment, everyone needed to get out as soon as possible.

As we know the call never came and the fire service decision makers will have to take ownership of that fact. It was a failure of leadership.

 

Agreed Mike - there were certainly errors and mistakes on the part of the fire service's leadership, but it would be an absolute travesty if the establishment tries to palm all the blame for the fire onto the firemen. And if the training has been shown up to be deficient and it's a privatised outsourcer in charge of that training, then they must surely be held responsible.

I'm continuing to listen to every one of the daily BBC podcasts and there was something recently which I thought very well illustrated the bravery of the fire fighters.

They're supposed to leave a smoke filled room when the pressure on their breathing equipment goes below 85 bar.

When it gets below 75 bar, an alarm starts sounding inside the suit warning them to get out immediately.

The lowest pressure found on the suits returned after Grenfell?

2.7 bar. That's some bravery.

 

Blimey that's only about 20% over the pressure in a car tyre.

Respect.

 

How do you train firefighters for a situation that cannot happen? Even in the videos showing fire crews driving to the tower you can clearly hear some of them asking "how is that possible"? It's really easy sitting at home a year after the event now we know exactly what happened, but on that night they were faced with something extraordinary and unlike anything they're trained for. I've watched and read loads about Grenfel and I know that the decision to evacuate would have meant hundreds of people on the tiny staircase as the firefighters were attempting to get inside with hoses to tackle the blaze and would definitely have led to casualties and stopped the fire being fought as effectively. You evacuate and risk lives or you stick to the training and evaluate on the fly. Completely impossible decisions to make in a nightmare situation.

 

The same subject keeps coming up again and again at the Grenfell enquiry. Yesterday in the evidence of fire officer Daniel Brown, who was one of the first two fire fighters on the scene and who, with his mate, tried to put out the fire in Flat 16, only for it to leap out of the window and up the sides of the building.

Here he's talking about when the Fire Service used to go and carry out fire safety visits to such sites.

FO Brown - "It was a fire safety enforcement visit, to ensure that the building was meeting its fire regulations and to make sure that the fire systems in place are there, and not just making sure they're there, but we'd test them, we'd look at them, we'd physically -- we would test everything. We'd go up to the top -- first of all, you'd arrive, you'd look for the hydrant, you'd make sure that the access -- if there was a fire gate, you'd make sure that that was clear, you'd make sure if there's yellow lines which is a keep clear, you'd make sure that no one parked on there and if there was, you'd go to the concierge and say, "Sort that out, do not let people park there". Then you'd go to the fire lifts, you'd make sure they had the fire lifts in place. You'd make sure it works. You didn't just look at it and say, "There's a fire lift"; you'd then check this fire lift. It's part of the fire safety enforcement. You'd actually physically put the key in and operate the fire lift and that that would work. You'd then go up to the top floor, you'd look at emergency lighting, you'd look at fire doors, you'd make sure the self-closures were there. And not only would you make sure the self-closures were there, you'd test the self-closures worked.

Q. It sounds as if, from that answer, this is something you would do in the distant past but didn't do anymore?


FO Brown - We don't do it anymore because it's all been taken away, it's all been privatised. It's no longer our responsibility to make sure that these fire enforcements and fire certificates and fire safety things in place -- it's not our business anymore, apparently; it's all been privatised.

 

There is doubtless blame to be apportioned, but anyone seeking to point the finger at the firefighters is a prat of the first order.

They put their lives on the line in a terrifying situation and did everything they could to save lives put in danger by the incompetence of others.

 

Wasn’t it heartwarming and adorable to see that the Royal Duchess has launched a celebrity cookbook, with profits going to Grenfell’s victims?

Of course there was a luxury celebrity launch party at the palace, with Vogue running an extensive report on the décor and attendees outfits. Apparently the menus for the slap up feed were “decorated with kaleidoscopic shapes and tied with a golden tassel on top.” You wouldn’t want anything less than gold for your menu tassels would you? Not at the palace darling! It’d be disrespectful to the burnt and asbestos-poisoned victims.

According to the extensive and fawning reports, the Duchess’s princely husband was his usual cheeky self. What a lad! Tucking into the luxury amuse-bouche finger food the servants had prepared before he was supposed to. So, so cheeky! Apparently he had a cheeky grin for the cameras when he was caught out. How loveable and adorable!

And as for the Duchess herself, I think Mr Philip Schofield and Ms Holly Willougby spoke for the entire nation on This Morning television. Every single one of us. “She’s cooking in a white shirt! How royal is that?” Schofield said “I know, she’s brave, isn’t she?” Willoughby replied. So brave. So, so brave.


Gord bless ‘em from me and the missus and the nippers. It’s almost worth having your high-rise home wrapped in flammable plastic and then seeing your friends and neighbours suffocated by toxic smoke or leaping to their deaths from windows when you can enjoy such adorable cheekiness and lion-hearted braveness from our wonderful, wonderful royal family.

 

Outing on social media, public shame and sacking to follow for these nationalist heroes you’d have to hope.

 

Reassuring to know that at a time when they are so understaffed, the Police still have sufficient manpower to round up and charge a group of morons for setting fire to a cardboard box in their garden

 

I read that they walked into a Police station in South London to hand themselves in.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46106224

 

More deliberate w*nkery from Lloyd. Quelle surprise.

 

How long before they are on the Good Morning Britain sofa telling us how they aren’t racists and can everyone now please stop the hate?

 

As unpleasant and tasteless as this group's bonfire night party was are they not free to be as unpleasant and tasteless as they like in their own home? Is their 'crime' not what they have done but broadcasting it via social media? Genuine questions

 

My personal opinion is that once this is out in the public domain it's a hate crime. Why video it then put it out there if you're not intending to cause maximum pain to people?
I knew nobody from Grenfel but the video disturbed me, I can only imagine the grief it caused the relatives.

 

But there's no generic category of hate crime in English law. It has to be hatred on the grounds of some characteristic such as race. As GOBE pointed out on the "Politically Correct" thread, where this is also being discussed, they would have committed a crime if they had shouted out racist slogans while burning the model, but it seems they did not.

 

I suspect this bunch fall in to the category of people that like to record every moment of their lives and share it with others via social media. It was probably meant to 'entertain' rather than cause pain. I hope I don't appear to be defending them but I just feel the blanket media coverage the incident has received is more worrying and depressing than the action of the group.

 

You may well be right. They're obviously not the brightest of humans.

 

I was initially thinking that it committed offences because it was reported there were racist comments made on it. But I'm not sure there was.

But I felt like you, I found it disturbing, and it actually made me feel physically nauseous.

 

They apparently referred to one burning figure as a ‘ninja’, maybe meaning a woman in a burka. It’s clearly a video published to offend, but yes, being offensive in general doesn’t necessarily break the law.

Twitter has lots of ‘what if ‘they’ burn a poppy or a flag’ type comments. Divisive, it’s clear to all what it means. This is why the publishing of it makes all the difference. It becomes inciteful.

You can only hope the five of them learn something. First names revealed are a father and son. Well done Dad, how to upset a lot people and ruin your son’s life or fail to stop him ruining it himself.

 

Meanwhile, nearly a year and a half after the event more than 150 families await rehousing, many still in hotels, the cost of which has hit £30m.

Got to hand it to the private sector, always provides.

 

As disgusting and obnoxious as I found watching it, I'm kind of with Lloyd that (to my mind) it's also uncomfortable that it's considered a crime. The human rights act was supposed to provide for freedom of expression and I don't see this crosses one of the restrictions defined in the act.

That said if someone was to give one of these tw@ts a pasting I'd turn a blind eye.

 

...or perhaps burnt their house down....

 

That's a strange reading of the Convention. I'd say it fell foul of several of the restrictions:

Article 10 – Freedom of expression

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers (I fail to see what ideas or information are being imparted here anyway, but regardless). This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

 

Right, but the second paragraph is balanced against the first. Does the "expression", however odious, present a risk to public safety to justify restricting it - not sure it does (the main risk to safety seems to be to that of the perpetrators). Should it be restricted in the interests of preventing disorder or crime: well, maybe - but it would have been more obvious that that was the case if they were inciting racial or religious hatred: and that doesn't seem clear-cut from what I have heard. So it may boil down to the question of whether it is justifiable to prevent/punish the expression on the grounds of protecting "public morality". Certainly there is an argument to that effect, but it does also raise the question of whether people have a right not to be shocked, offended, disgusted etc. Which is controversial, I think.

The HRA doesn't come into play unless and until any action is taken against them, anyway.

 

I agree, the HRA has got nothing to do with it, which is why I put up the response I did.

All I can say is, I wonder how many of the people who are suggesting that this is nasty, but not criminal behaviour, would feel the same if the people in the video had filmed themselves burning poppies and posted it on social media?

People have been prosecuted regularly for stuff they put on forums, Facebook, Twitter and so on. That cat has long been let out of the bag. Now, if enough people say they're offended, that'll be good enough.

Just as an addendum, for a number of reasons, I found the video massively hurtful and offensive on a personal level, as well as a simple humanitarian one. However, I have never been of the opinion that offending me should be against the law. But as I said, too many people have already been prosecuted for saying or doing things deemed offensive online, so I can see no possibility that the same won't happen here. I'm still not all that comfortable about it though.