Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

Nice ..

Had to do a double take on that one EL, not quite what it at first look appears.


The private flats in the block start at £1.5m, however the apartments that will rehouse the families are part of the 120 affordable homes being built alongside them.

I thought it looked a bit let's say generous , as i'd guess that some have been moved away to other areas outside London , which suggests they are on benefits . They have received £200'000 each apparently how that affects them i don't know .

you're right .... that little "correction" was slipped in part of the way through the article
nevertheless, it's a decent move in the right direction, though scant consolation for those who lost all their possessions and of course for those who lost relatives and friends

Have duly edited my post above.

I also originally misread the source article, which I don't think was as comprehensive as it is now.

I'm very glad the 'Day of Rage' thingy fizzled out to 'near negligible'.

Only about 200 people took part, far fewer than the number who signed up online.

yes, theis is a dreadful tragedy and my heart is heavy for those who lost their lives and those who have suffered and will continue to suffer the psychological trauma in the aftermath of this disaster.

However now is the time to be practical. The level of help given to the survivors must be assessed on a blame basis. If there is a fault on the block owners then they should be liable to replace the housing lost at today's value and not some inflated sympathy based figure.

Of course, if these flats were individually owned then they should have been insured, if not sorry folks then that's tough.

I say that as some years ago a lovely old couple's house burned down they were not insured after the fist few weeks of hospitalisation they were literally discharged on the streets.

Of course, this liability mess will take quite some time to sort out as people duck and dive their responsibilities BUT THIS DOES NOT GIVE THE VICTIMS ANY RIGHT TO ANY SPECIAL CARE AND ATTENTION OVER WHAT IS NORMALLY GIVEN.

Don't wish to be hard but I used to work in senior management with an insurance company claims department and I kinda know the score on these things.

Of course, they, the survivors, have the right to be put back to where they were before the disaster but with no embelishement...that is the golden rule of the insurance world

David10brook
Understand where you're coming from but now put yourself in the position of the Government. They have a major PR disaster due to the way they handled it initially.

What would you be saying? I would say sort it I don't care how much it costs sort it.
After all the tax payer will pick up the bill whatever it is. I need to survive as a politician right now.

I don't agree , this is not a normal tragedy and after what they have been though do you expect them to go back to another Tower block. They are some of the poorest in London , I doubt if they had much to insure.

You sound like a bit of a jobsworth , rules are rules you should have read the small print.

Martini

Apart from that, you don't treat people like that, after going though the horror of watching and hearing your love one's burning and suffocating to death .

hi, Guys honestly no offence intended I am just being a realist here.

Collective deaths are never pleasant things to deal with.

However, a tragedy is a tragedy. To me after being in the insurance industry for far too long and seeing how for example the insurance companies, especially mine as I have on the job expereince, treat car accident victims who through no proven fault of their own get hammered when it comes to the right level of compensation as insurance companies pull all the stunts they can, including abuses of one's human rights to avoid justly paying up.

All I am saying here is this is not issue for any government to pull points off by throwing everything they can at the victims just because it's in the public eye.

David10brook

No offence taken on my part I was just being a realist like you and saying what I would do if I was in government. It might not be right but survival makes one do the wrong things

Where ARE the insurance companies?

Surely the building must have been covered for accidental risks? I have to carry public liability insurance for millions, surely the building is no different.


And where are the landlords/ head lease holders/managing agents and they're public liability insurance?

Not to mention the suppliers and installers of the cladding, where are they're insurers?

Lets not mention the borough council and it's approval/supervision of works?


The lawyers have yet to arrive in a serious way, but no doubt they are coming.

I suspect like many that there's an awful lot of manoeuvring going on behind the scenes, I look forward to hearing the "truth" in the course of time.

In the meantime an inquest should be open as a matter of urgency, that's the very least that should happen in respect of the people who have suffered beyond what's decent.

the lawyer for the families is the chap who represented those from the hillsborough tragedy
he's be one tough and clever cookie

however, i think the official enquiry has to be conducted first before even the inquest(s) let alone any court action

Strawberries and Whipped Cream, anyone?

Yes? Well, go careful with the cream!

One of these pressuried whipped cream dispensers blew apart, hit the user so very hard in the chest, that it gave her a heart attack and killed her:



Previously, someone else had suffered a similar 'blow-up'. Back in 2013, a similar incident fractured six of the user's ribs and the also gave her a broken sternum.

Here we come, some are going to be busy ............

England has 600 buildings with similar cladding to London blaze tower - PM May's spokeswoman - Thu, 22nd Jun 2017 11:5

LONDON, June 22 (Reuters) - An estimated 600 buildings in England have cladding similar to that used at the Grenfell Tower block where a devastating blaze killed at least 79 people, a spokeswoman for Prime Minister Theresa May said on Thursday.

"The estimate provided to us by councils is that there are approximately 600 high rise buildings with similar cladding," the spokeswoman said.

"We are obviously in touch with all the local authorities to encourage them to urgently send us the samples and then we will carry out the checks that we need," she said.

She added that cladding on three buildings has so far tested positive as combustible. The estimate does not include buildings in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

It looks like up to 60% of Grenfell tower was being illegally sub let. Not sure how that affects rehousing

looks like we will have to turn Buckingham palace in to flats ,that may help

So Kensington Council lets a flat out to a 'checked out tenant', obviously via 'an agent'.

But the agent doesn't ever inspect the flat to ascertain the tenant is performing the tenanting obligations properly. But the Kensington Council's agent keeps drawing his charges and commission.

Tenant decides he can make ££ 'a few quid' sub-letting. Why? Well, for one reason, because the agent never does any checks on the property.

Indeed, there are so few 'legitimate tenants', that any Notices from the Landlord (KC) hardly ever get responded to. Perhaps KC know about this expected poor response and so can get away with things quite easily ('things' being their proper responsibilities for maintenance and management). All the Agent ever does is the odd inspection and the odd showing round for a new prospective 'legitimate KC' tenant as and when a flat becomes vacant. Tons of aspects of the whole scenario are a sham!

There is such a shortage of accommodation in London, nailing a sub-tenancy is a pretty good way of getting yourself a flat. particularly so, if you are a bit of a potentially 'dodgy' tenant. 'Dodgy' meaning whatever you want it to mean. ie. illegal immigrant, criminal record (which would certainlyy mean bad references), poor credit record, unemployed, single parent, on benefits, drug addict, 5 kids, etc, etc..

And so it goes on. I feel a bit patronising really, saying all this shit. Indeed, need I go on?