London Fire and Aftermath RIP

steddyeddy

It seems the residents from the luxury apartments that will house the fire survivors are a bit upset at the less fortunate in life moving in with them. Is there anything more ugly than discrimination?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/21/rehousing-of-grenfell-tower-families-in-luxury-block-meets-mixed-response

Stheno

steddyeddy wrote: »

It seems the residents luxury apartments that will house the fire survivors are a bit upset at the less fortunate in life moving in with them. Is there anything more ugly than discrimination?

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/21/rehousing-of-grenfell-tower-families-in-luxury-block-meets-mixed-response

Apparently fifty odd of the apartments were earmarked for social housing regardless

steddyeddy

Stheno wrote: »

Apparently fifty odd of the apartments were earmarked for social housing regardless

That's the thing! The original plans stated a percentage was destined for social housing. People who bought flats are worried the new residents might affect prices. A bit reminiscent of people's fears that people of colour might lower the price of a neighbourhood in the 70s.

arayess

steddyeddy wrote: »

It seems the residents luxury apartments that will house the fire survivors are a bit upset at the less fortunate in life moving in with them. Is there anything more ugly than discrimination?

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/21/rehousing-of-grenfell-tower-families-in-luxury-block-meets-mixed-response

in general terms..
if you've paid a ton for your dwelling and others rock up to the neighborhood and get similar for free or knock down price.

nothing wrong with that..

steddyeddy

arayess wrote: »

in general terms..
if you've paid a ton for your dwelling and other rock up to the neighborhood and get similar for free or knock down price.

nothing wrong with that..

Well I'm sure those residents were beneficiaries of other unfair advantages that allowed them to buy those apartments. Background, privilige and inherited wealth.

These people suffered hugely, in part because of some money saving scheme. One survivor on Channel 4 News lamented "are we worth less because we have less money". Some might consider this unfair, but I suspect a lot of those are those who were born relatively well off. They usually are.

Stheno

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well I'm sure those residents were beneficiaries of other unfair advantages that allowed them to buy those apartments. Background, privilige and inherited wealth.

These people suffered hugely, in part because of some money saving scheme. One survivor on Channel 4 News lamented "are we worth less because we have less money". Some might consider this unfair, but I suspect a lot of those are those who were born relatively well off. They usually are.

I'd wonder if the owners complaining about this checked the planning conditions tbh

steddyeddy

Stheno wrote: »

I'd wonder if the owners complaining about this checked the planning conditions tbh

I think they probrably assumed the worst (people like these moving in) would never happen.

Stheno

steddyeddy wrote: »

I think they probrably assumed the worst (people like these moving in) would never happen.

More money than sense? Or an engrained sense of entitlement?

jackofalltrades

steddyeddy wrote: »

It seems the residents luxury apartments that will house the fire survivors are a bit upset at the less fortunate in life moving in with them. Is there anything more ugly than discrimination?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/21/rehousing-of-grenfell-tower-families-in-luxury-block-meets-mixed-response

I don't really want to get into a discussion about social housing policy, but I think this guy has a fair point here.

Nick, who pays 2,500 a month rent for a one-bedroom flat in the complex, also expressed doubts about the plan. "Who are the real tenants of Grenfell Tower?" he asked.
"It seems as though a lot of flats there were sublet. Now the people whose names are on the tenancies will get rehoused here, and then they'll rent the flats out on the private market.
And the people who were actually living unofficially in the tower at the time of the fire won't get rehoused."

I think there's a whole other debate on who should be given a new house and who shouldn't.

orangerhyme

jackofalltrades wrote: »

I don't really want to get into a discussion about social housing policy, but I think this guy has a fair point here.

I think there's a whole other debate on who should be given a new house and who shouldn't.

Some of Grenfell residents owned their flats, others were renting off private landlords, lots were social housing too.
It's complicated to ascertain who deserves/entitled to what.

A Dub in Glasgo

Presumably Nick who pays £2.5k per month for his one bedroom flat knew that some of the building was earmarked for social housing? What does it matter to him if it is a 'deserving' social tenant as long as they are a responsbile social tenant?

Ronaldinho

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well I'm sure those residents were beneficiaries of other unfair advantages that allowed them to buy those apartments. Background, privilige and inherited wealth.

That's an awfully cynical view you have. You speak as if everyone that has some wealth behind them has something to be ashamed of.

steddyeddy

Ronaldinho wrote: »

That's an awfully cynical view you have. You speak as if everyone that has some wealth behind them has something to be ashamed of.

Telling the way you ignored the bit where people are looking down on those without wealth behind them. Wealth isn't a bad thing. Assuming it denotes self worth or lack of, is a bad thing. That's what has led to this tragedy and its aftermath.

steddyeddy

Ronaldinho wrote: »

That's an awfully cynical view you have. You speak as if everyone that has some wealth behind them has something to be ashamed of.

Anyway you missed my point. These residents state that free housing is unfair for fire survivors. I'm saying that there's plenty in their lives that could be viewed as unfair or unearned.

orangerhyme

Ronaldinho wrote: »

That's an awfully cynical view you have. You speak as if everyone that has some wealth behind them has something to be ashamed of.

I genuinely believe there should be a limit to how much inherited wealth someone is entitled to.
Can you imagine how much capital and land it would free up?
It will never happen and is unenforcable but it makes sense to me.

Nothing wrong with being wealthy per se, its when they think they are better than everyone and more deserved of justice.

Ronaldinho

steddyeddy wrote: »

I'm saying that there's plenty in their lives that could be viewed as unfair or unearned.

Such as?

steddyeddy

orangerhyme wrote: »

I genuinely believe there should be a limit to how much inherited wealth someone is entitled to.
Can you imagine how much capital and land it would free up?
It will never happen and is unenforcable but it makes sense to me.

Nothing wrong with being wealthy per se, its when they think they are better than everyone and more deserved of justice.

Or when they assume that they are in that position because of hard work alone. It lends to the view that poor people are poor simply because of life choices.

steddyeddy

Ronaldinho wrote: »

Such as?

Inherited wealth, private school (also unearned) or any other form of social Darwinism. I spend a lot of time with the Oxford set. Although they're lovely it would be silly to assume they haven't had a priviliged upbringing.

Nothing wrong with that but if one or two of these guys bemoan a fire victim getting rehoused, then a look in the mirror is required.

orangerhyme

steddyeddy wrote: »

Or when they assume that they are in that position because of hard work alone. It lends to the view that poor people are poor simply because of life choices.

Its not even just the money itself thats the advantage but also education, connections, sense of security.

Also unquantifiable things like confidence, esteem, expectations etc...

steddyeddy

orangerhyme wrote: »

Its not even just the money itself thats the advantage but also education, connections, sense of security.

Also unquantifiable things like confidence, esteem, expectations etc...

Bingo. They have a safety net so trying to reach that next rung is easier

mikeybrennan

steddyeddy wrote: »

Bingo. They have a safety net so trying to reach that next rung is easier

I can't take people seriously when they say 'bingo' to make a point

just saying

Ronaldinho

steddyeddy wrote: »

Inherited wealth, private school (also unearned) or any other form of social Darwinism. I spend a lot of time with the Oxford set. Although they're lovely it would be silly to assume they haven't had a priviliged upbringing.

Nothing wrong with that but if one or two of these guys bemoan a fire victim getting rehoused, then a look in the mirror is required.

Correct me if I'm wrong but you don't know the backgrounds of anyone having purchased property in that development.

Ergo you're just making sweeping assumptions and generalisations.

steddyeddy

Ronaldinho wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong but you don't know the backgrounds of anyone having purchased property in that development.

Ergo you're just making sweeping assumptions and generalisations.

Listening to the phone in from one of angry residents will assauge any uncertainties one might have about background.

mikeybrennan

justice secretary saying cladding is illegal now

jackofalltrades

steddyeddy wrote: »

Listening to the phone in from one of angry residents will assauge any uncertainties one might have about background.

Did the caller detail the background of herself and the other people in the Guardian's article?
Because unless she did then you're just making assumptions and generalisations.

Samaris

Ronaldinho wrote: »

That's an awfully cynical view you have. You speak as if everyone that has some wealth behind them has something to be ashamed of.

I suspect only those that - while having wealth behind them and in many cases always having had wealth behind them, denigrate and turn their noses up at sharing an estate with poor people who have recently lost everything - have something to be ashamed of.

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Did the caller detail the background of herself and the other people in the Guardian's article?
Because unless she did then you're just making assumptions and generalisations.

S'true. Very likely that a group of people living in the posh side of Kensington in an estate where the starting price is over a million in the richest borough in the UK are middle of the road or below in terms of financial security.. :P

Making the assumption that they're well-off isn't exactly a huge leap of logic. Making the assumption that yer wan was being a snobby bat doesn't need any confirmation of background, just listening to her comments.

tara73

mikeybrennan wrote: »

justice secretary saying cladding is illegal now

do you have a link to this? thanks

mikeybrennan

the insulation and cladding failed safety tests according to guardian

the insulation was more flammable than the cladding

I believe that's a new development as the insulation which is fixed to the building definitely can't be flammable.

tara73

mikeybrennan wrote: »

the insulation and cladding failed safety tests according to guardian

the insulation was more flammable than the cladding

I believe that's a new development as the insulation which is fixed to the building definitely can't be flammable.

the cladding has an insulation core too. Can't be immediately flammable either and it definetely was.

why do you not posting links? searched for it but wasn't anything there.

mikeybrennan

tara73 wrote: »

do you have a link to this? thanks

he said it on question time