- Files: GIF, JPG, PNG, TXT, Maximum:11000 KB, Thumbnails: 400x400 pixels
- Currently 3438 unique user posts. View catalogue
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]
Posting mode: Reply[ Reply ]
Expand all images.
|>>|| No. 411294
Why haven't we got a thread on this yet? It's going to prove a turning point in Britsh history.
|>>|| No. 411296
Brief moment of /boo/: The fairly safe Tory seat of Kensington just fell to Labour on a majority of 20. Many of the residents will likely be rehoused outside the borough.
|>>|| No. 411300
The outcome of the enquiry could lead to a huge culture-shift in the areas of building regulation and in the spending of public money on private contractors.
The potential upheaval of building regulations is particularly relevant now as we are faced with the prospect of the great repeal bill (writing EU regulations into UK law).
|>>|| No. 411301
The death toll will increase a lot, the local council and some posho property tycoons will come under the microscope. Evil slag Theresa will be pushed out by the fall out.
|>>|| No. 411302
The enquiry will find the management organisation (a non profit) was negligent and that'll be the end of it.
|>>|| No. 411303
Holy shit sandwich, Lilly Allen says there could be as many 150 dead! What the fuck?!
Also she's look pretty fit with that haircut, like a regular Jack Monroe.
|>>|| No. 411304
Yeah if you look at the layout of a residential floor like the show on the BBC site I think you are not far off if I'm doing my maths right
We got our 9/11
|>>|| No. 411307
It's never the fault of a single individual or organisation.
I guarantee that the judge will present a whole catalogue of unrelated failures, which all playing a small incremental part in leading to this tragedy.
It could involve everything from the underlying regulations, to the tendering process for the refurbishment, the role of the council, the role of building inspectors, the role of insurers, the role of the Eastern European labourer doing the work and the English supervisors who knocked off early down to the pub, the role of the architects, the role manufacturers of the cladding etc.
|>>|| No. 411308
I think you're taking the piss, but aren't fridges the number one "thing that actually does just catch on fire and explode" in most people's houses?
|>>|| No. 411309
Also for the sake of anyone who hasn't been following the story:
The original cause of the fire is a fairly trivial matter in this case. Fires happen every day up and down the country. The most important issue here is why the fire so rapidly spread to the entire building, it was meant to have been designed so that any fire will remain contained to a single flat for at least an hour with the door closed, and even with a door open the fire shouldn't be able to spread quickly up the stairwell.
Most of the attention is currently pointing towards the refurbishment of the building several years ago.
|>>|| No. 411310
No, lad. You're thinking of chip pans, candles left on, cigarettes on settees and tumble dryers made by Whirlpool.
|>>|| No. 411311
The fire brigade gave up around half a dozen floors shy of the top, and given the advice to STAY INDOORS and eyewitness accounts of the state of the building, it's safe to say that anyone beyond that is probably dead. 17 confirmed so far but I don't think they've even tried to examine the parts they missed yet. There are probably five or six flats on each floor, so assume around 15-20 living in each, so triple digits is a definite possibility.
|>>|| No. 411312
Of course, and they're all the constituent parts to a pretty mean bomb, right?
It doesn't even seem to have been "refurbished", just given a lick of paint. And then clad in fucking jet fuel or some shit.
|>>|| No. 411315
>It doesn't even seem to have been "refurbished", just given a lick of paint. And then clad in fucking jet fuel or some shit.
It was fairly extensive. Some parts were remodelled entirely, I think to the extent of knocking down and rebuilding walls. New ventilation and utilities were also installed, all of which probably involved drilling holes through walls and ceilings which should have been fire and smoke-proofed afterwards.
Wandering slightly away from the topic, there's a nice group of materials called intumescents. These are materials which when exposed to fire, puff up to many times their original volume, which tightly fills and insulates any gaps. In a properly fire-proofed building you'll find intumescent seals absolutely everywhere, such as around doors, in letterboxes, and where water pipes pass through walls.
They look a bit like those crappy indoor fireworks everyone loves.
I expect that one of the findings of the inquiry will be that the architect specified the correct materials, but then either a bean-counter at the contractors changed the plans to save money, or they ran out on site and sent someone down to screwfix with a company credit card.
>>411307 ugh, sorry for all the typos in that post.
|>>|| No. 411318
I hope you improve your miserable world view and regret all that you did wrong prior to then.
|>>|| No. 411322
>These are materials which when exposed to fire, puff up to many times their original volume, which tightly fills and insulates any gaps.
That's fucking cool. Like some sort of auto-sealant for spaceships against the vacuum except actually useful on a large scale.
|>>|| No. 411331
A turning point in high-rise design, perhaps. But all this other noise is just a hangover from the election.
|>>|| No. 411332
Reports that the cladding was banned in America and Germany. And that the actual fire-retardant versions were only 2 quid more each.
|>>|| No. 411333
I think we'll see violent protests this weekend, London especially was reaching boiling point before the election and now the added fallout of this, and the poor handling of it by the government so far, perceived to be downplaying the number of dead etc... is just increasing tensions further.
|>>|| No. 411334
A repeat of the 2011 riots are a real possibility at this stage. The grief is starting to turn into anger, particularly in the Black British community. A lot of Londoners have felt for some time that there is a war against the poor. Housing has been the key issue and this could be a crystallising moment. The election campaign has switched on a lot of young people to the possibility of change. All sorts of conspiracy theories have been rattling about, but the clearest sentiment is this:
If the investigation shows that the cladding had a major role in the fire, I really wouldn't be surprised if it all kicked off.
|>>|| No. 411339
Regards of if they do I imagine the Facebook fake news rumour mill will just make up shit to say that they did. I can picture the bad 'another angry voice' jpg now and Johnathan Pie yelling how this is all because of our corrupt western non-russian satilite government.
|>>|| No. 411340
You do realise Jonathan Pie is a fictional character and is intended to be satirical, right?
|>>|| No. 411341
The ones used suited our regulations for fire safety. It's those regs that seem to be at fault.
|>>|| No. 411342
> It's going to prove a turning point in Britsh history.
I'm really not sure why or how it would be.
|>>|| No. 411343
Teresa May's popularity has collapsed since the election, with a commensurate increase in the popularity of Jeremy Corbyn. A lot of moderate, reasonable people are rejecting the Tory argument that austerity is a necessary part of responsible government. There's a huge groundswell of frustration in London about the substandard quality and high cost of housing - a frustration that extends from the very poorest to the professional classes.
The Grenfell fire is a grotesque, totemic example of everything Corbyn argues is wrong with Britain. An indifferent and cost-cutting management agency botched the refurbishment of Grenfell Tower. Fire protection systems and basic maintenance were ignored, while cladding was added to make the building less of an eyesore for wealthy residents in the surrounding area. That cladding is strongly suspected of causing the fire to spread so quickly. To save a mere £5000, the building was clad in flammable rather than flame-retardant panels. The concerns of the residents about fire safety were not only ignored but actively suppressed - the council threatened Grenfell Action Group with a libel lawsuit.
There's a real possibility that the Grenfell fire could catalyse a sea change in political attitudes. I've been talking to a lot of people who have gone from resignation to anger over the last few days. They have seen these horrific events and said to themselves "enough is enough". They see Theresa May as anything but strong and stable - daft militant wog attacks, a pointless election, a hung parliament with no coalition, huge uncertainty over Brexit and now a horrific disaster.
Stagnant wages, rising costs and a barebones public sector might have been a price worth paying for stability, but now we don't even have stability. They're struggling to pay the bills and they can't get a doctor's appointment. They're worried about being murdered in the street or being incinerated in their beds. They don't see the government doing a damned thing to fix it. They're ready to take a gamble on a different way of doing things, because they don't see how things could get much worse.
|>>|| No. 411345
Is this song in poor taste right now?
My coworker thought so when he witnessed me listening to it on my computer this morning.
|>>|| No. 411350
Typical behaviour of the riff-raff. The government promises to cover all their living/legal expenses and society steps up offering all the tins of soup they can eat but despite this they still demand more special treatment.
I hope the police gave them a good shooing.
|>>|| No. 411351
We've given them everything except the one thing that would make them happy.
|>>|| No. 411353
I was just listening to a random playlist, so no, I wasn't consciously trying to mock the victims of the fire.
I am deeply shocked by the events myself. My ex had a half brother whose dad had died in a fire. But I think it's annoying when all of a sudden a song is thought to be in poor taste by some people just because something tragic has happened which by sheer coincidence certain lyrics can be misconstrued as making light of. This song is almost 30 years old and deals with the plights of native Australians, for fucks sake.
|>>|| No. 411356
A lynchmob isn't going to bring anyone back from the dead either, but that seems to be the way things are heading.
|>>|| No. 411357
Eh. There are times when a proper revolt is necessary. You sound like southern whites who used to scream at the blacks for their protests.
|>>|| No. 411361
I wonder if this had happened pre-election if tin-foilers would be proclaiming this a Labour party false flag, like they did with the terror attacks to the Conservatives.
|>>|| No. 411363
That was privately rented. Most of the flats were council-owned and rented out at well below market rates. Grenfell Tower was in one of the poorest 10% of boroughs in the country. The vast majority of the residents in Grenfell were ordinary working people who were struggling to get by.
They've got the logistics in place to have thousands of placards made at short notice. Most people wouldn't know where to start. It's a bit opportunistic by the SWP, but no other bugger is going to do it.
No, but it might shock central government and the GLA into actually doing something about a very long-standing issue. The vast majority of Londoners are angry and frustrated about the housing situation. There are a thousands of people living in blocks just like Grenfell, from council tenants on the minimum wage to professionals who paid £250,000 for a one-bed flat. They all went to bed last night wondering if they're living in a deathtrap.
Grenfell residents had been complaining for years about the lack of fire safety in their building. Their concerns were systematically ignored by the local authority, the government and the media. The anger we're seeing isn't going to subside until real action is taken to prevent another tragedy.
|>>|| No. 411364
>No, but it might shock central government and the GLA into actually doing something about a very long-standing issue.
I don't think this will point towards the housing issues in any constructive way, it will just simply lead to knee jerk increased regulation over fire safety to please the mob, regardless of the relivance, as almost certainly the Tower wasn't up to code through no fault of the regulations themselves but as a result of negligence.
|>>|| No. 411365
You do realise he is paid for by putin right. He isn't supposed to be satirical to be made fun of more satirical like private eye is.
|>>|| No. 411366
Mate, they might be brown, but they are still poor like us. No need to be a racist, comrade.
|>>|| No. 411368
>it will just simply lead to knee jerk increased regulation over fire safety to please the mob
Yeah, I mean what kind of idiot even wants their home to be safe in the event of a fire next door?
|>>|| No. 411369
>The anger we're seeing isn't going to subside until real action is taken to prevent another tragedy.
The same anger that happened after the Lakanal fire in 2009?
|>>|| No. 411370
Summary & Exclusions:
- No DSS / Housing Benefit Applicants
- No Students
- No Pets, sorry
- No Smokers
- Not Suitable for Families / Children
- Bills not included
- No Parking Available
- No Garden Access
Why no students? Are they too loud or what?
|>>|| No. 411372
The wheels of justice already exist, and I expect there to be corporate manslaughter trials. You sound like one of those tumblirites who doesn't seem to understand there are already laws against rape, rapists simply ignore them, and we can magicaly make rape not exist by making more absurdly knee jerk laws.
|>>|| No. 411377
Have you ever rented before? Most places I've seen advertised exclude students. Combination of factors - students are poorer, are less likely to stay in the same place long-term and are more likely to trash the place.
|>>|| No. 411378
Kek, brits. In vastly superior germany styrofoam cladding is completely illegal to fit on the facades of houses taller than 22m (the height of the ladders on the firetrucks).
Why is the rest of the world so shit?
|>>|| No. 411380
Not sure about the rest of the world but in the UK it's all this cunt's fault. Fuck Thatcher, she was my childhood bogeyman but she was childsplay compaired to this fucking incubus. When this cunt finally dies a painful death, impaled upon the battlements of pomposity of his own personal pseudo-religious alamo I will gloriously belt one out right over a photo from the Times of his grieving wife and kids. What a cunt.
|>>|| No. 411382
When you rub it, it makes me go mental like scratching a blackboard does to people. My teeth hurt and I just feel like either fucking off or attacking the source of the sound. Since muder is illegal, I just fuck off mostly.
|>>|| No. 411386
Was The Sun considered right wing when New Labour were in power? I can't actually remember.
|>>|| No. 411387
To a substantial extent, yes. They backed Blair, but it was wholly opportunistic by both sides. Blair actively courted the Murdoch press in the run-up to the 1997 election, as part of his bid for dominance over the middle ground. On his part, Murdoch saw a pro-privatisation, pro-markets leader who was likely to win a landslide. The traditional left were lukewarm at best about Blair; the likes of Benn and Foot saw him as a Tory wrecker from the start.
Murdoch has always been more concerned with having influence over the government than with supporting any particular party. During the Blair years, the Tories were almost irrelevant as a political force.
At the Leveson inquiry, Alistair Campbell vigorously denied that there was any explicit deal between Murdoch and Blair, so there was almost certainly an explicit deal between Murdoch and Blair.
|>>|| No. 411388
>You sound like southern whites who used to scream at the blacks for their protests.
Now you listen here young sowsnek, I will not tolerate such besmirching of the Cornish community as part of your anti-Darkie Day agenda. We are a strong community that will not be broken by fake history! .o/
You see this is why Corbyn rubs me in such a wrong way. Of course the public would support requisitioning if there was an overriding need but this is not one of those situations and he is pouring fuel on the fire to even suggest it. Given the public ignorance I would even suggest that our allegedly moral superhero is cynically exploiting the public mood.
This country has a intricate system of nets to catch people in housing need that works 365 days a year, not just when the papers are talking about it. His talk is either a frankly teen-lad attempt to egg people on to breaking into peoples property or an attempt to normalise requisitioning which is very much an emergency power for wartime. Neither option is particularly clever given it could spark riots or worse still form part of his manifesto.
|>>|| No. 411389
Is this a distortion by the Daily Mail? I've read the quote and it looks to me like they are reporting exactly what was said just for the audience affected rather than the one he is trying to please.
What am I missing here? Is it just that it is critical of his position, that doesn't make sense.
|>>|| No. 411390
Yes we need homes but in this case the idea is to not displace them from the area where they live while a permanent solution is found.
|>>|| No. 411391
Theresa May is doing it to herself, lad. She is the one who can no longer mask her incompetence as political leader of the UK. And once protest has reached a critical mass, these right wing rags would be dumb not to jump on the bandwagon. They are deeply opportunist themselves, meaning they will not gang up in such a way on somebody who is well liked and respected.
People like Margaret Thatcher, for example, may have been vastly unpopular with many people as well, but the difference is that Thatcher had staying power. And she was just politically smarter than May. Thatcher wouldn't have gambled her career on a needless election which would then have blown up in her face. Her publicity stunts were more along the lines of invading a tiny archipelago in the southern hemisphere against an underequipped Argentinian army.
Theresa May is a political also-ran who in a fluke suddenly found herself in the office of Prime Minister. And who is now painfully realising that the gloves are off by default in a position like that. And she isn't cut out for the kind of backlash that a Prime Minister sometimes has to deal with.
|>>|| No. 411392
>What am I missing here? Is it just that it is critical of his position, that doesn't make sense.
Consider that this comes from a place calling itself 'Evolve Politics'. It's not meant to hold under any scrutiny but cause knee-jerk idiots to hit share on their social media.
|>>|| No. 411393
But I don't even understand why someones knee would jerk at that. What is it that they think is propaganda here?
|>>|| No. 411394
>Yes we need homes but in this case the idea is to not displace them from the area where they live while a permanent solution is found.
In the unlikely scenario where they need to live locally but no suitable accommodation can be found then it will show in the compo. Again though I find it hard to believe that those in need won't be able to find accommodation or why they are so special that requisitioning okay now.
|>>|| No. 411397
There is a certain breed of person who will lament the foreign aid budget on the grounds money should be spent sorting out poor people back here in the UK, who in light of this tragedy accuse everybody else of Marxism or whatever for wanting to help the poor here.
|>>|| No. 411398
>Theresa May is doing it to herself, lad. She is the one who can no longer mask her incompetence as political leader of the UK.
I don't really disagree. She managed to maintain the appearance of presidentiality of a while, but the veneer of competence started to wear thin in the last few weeks of the election campaign. I think it's becoming clear to the right that she isn't right for the job and she needs replacing pronto, before a bungled Brexit tears apart the Tory party.
May was never particularly popular, but she was seen as a safe pair of hands; her only real redeeming feature has completely disintegrated, and with it her electoral prospects.
Many of the residents of Grenfell Tower were being "encouraged" to move out of London before the disaster. There is a justifiable level of mistrust over the intentions of the local authority and central government. If the displaced people end up scattered to the four winds, the government will be providing ammunition for the conspiracy theorists. I don't support requisitioning, but I think it would be reasonable to apply a punitive level of tax on vacant properties to fund social housing.
|>>|| No. 411399
>But I don't even understand why someones knee would jerk at that. What is it that they think is propaganda here?
There is, then, much to be hopeful about. And among a vocal minority of online celebrants, post-election joy has been accompanied by entirely understandable triumphalism. Haters, doubters and sceptics have been rounded on. Journalists with any history of disbelief or hostility should apparently resign or be sacked. Labour MPs who once wanted Corbyn to quit should be reciting the socialist equivalent of Hail Marys, and burying any hopes of a return to the shadow cabinet. Those who fixated on Labour’s recent losses in local elections or the Copeland byelection are retrospectively deemed guilty of abject pessimism.
Of course, there are media people and politicians whose view of Corbyn and his supporters was hostile and mocking from the start. If they are now switching on their phone to find daily explosions of ridicule and bile, I am sure they can take it: this is the sport they chose. What’s much more questionable is the way the same vengeful attitude is extended to anyone who ever portrayed the last two years of Labour politics in terms of doubt, concern and malaise, and who are being similarly instructed to say sorry for their alleged heresy or be escorted from the building.
Corbynites have been emboldened by the manner in which they lost the general election and now feel vindicated. They're now in overdrive.
|>>|| No. 411400
>I think it would be reasonable to apply a punitive level of tax on vacant properties to fund social housing.
Even the Economist has been advocating for years a vacant plot tax, it is completely non-controversial and beside the point.
|>>|| No. 411401
They tore down my mum's council estate and wanted to send her off to Preston because "there weren't any housing" in the borough she lived in for nearly 50 years. Local councils, and the government for that matter, hate their poorer residents.
|>>|| No. 411402
The Momentumistas have started to recede into the background as Corbyn gains mainstream support. They're angry and vocal, especially on the internet, but they aren't all that relevant. Corbyn realised a bit too late that he needed to listen to his spin doctors and work on his image. He has distanced himself from McDonnell and sent Abbott off on "sick leave". He's in the process of reconciling with the New Labour backbenchers and putting together a decent shadow cabinet.
There has been a genuine transformation of the Labour party in the last few weeks. Corbyn has abandoned the mindset of being a radical voice in opposition and is now sincerely working towards being in government. Compare his recent interviews with those from a few months ago and you'll see that there has been a huge shift in tone and presentation. Success in the polls might have fired up the radical left, but it's also what will allow the Labour party to marginalise them.
|>>|| No. 411403
>Corbyn has abandoned the mindset of being a radical voice in opposition and is now sincerely working towards being in government.
He never wanted to do this, it's complete make believe.
|>>|| No. 411404
Meanwhile, the former Mayor conducts an in-depth probing. This very matter being the premise of his career, we are sure to expect pozitive outcomes. For now he takes the back, but we expect him to see to any means and ends in time.
|>>|| No. 411405
The LSE did a study that dispelled the idea that there are swathes of vacant rich houses.
|>>|| No. 411408
.. yeah, some statistical-deviation single digit amount of empty properties. Just the number picking to be expected from a City Boy bootcamp. Pick any wealthy borough at random lad, and Notting Hill in particular, have a long, aimless walk. I did yesterday. Even worse in Highgate, really obvious in the West of Zone 2. Plenty of villas boarded up for 'refurbishment' that grows over by now.
Empty high streets and the bare minimum of hi-vis chaps to deter my nightly drawing sessions. Paranoid, angry toffs behind V&A that moan for private police. Oil money developments past Greenwich and on the wrong river side never even had the wrapping removed. None of the Banlieues there even ask for a Heimlich maneuver, since zero infrastructure or transport exists, and there is shitty industry just outside. Nothing but a set-up to launder cash.
You know what else the LSE said? The people who buy these properties are from bronze-tier Asian countries, and have the same trouble as our first time buyers. WORKING CLASS MILLIONAIRES. Thus we can now disregard any of the biweekly stories about shell company set-ups for Slavcrooks and third sons of oil princes, holiday mansions, party villas.
It is of course also in that survey, on no unclear terms, that nothing is easier than to fake occupancy. As a Russian, this is a going thing - if you're the type that can live with being on camera, getting kicked out on a whim, and being responsible for more garish, breaky things than you could afford in your life.
TL/DR: study claims its premises were what the owners told them.
|>>|| No. 411410
I fucking knew not to trust some rich boy institution.
In any case, you can't just go around and take properties by force. That will undo our society, but it would be great to tax the living shite out of them. I would tax them so badly that it would become attractive for them to pay people to live in their empty properties. I would go as far as to tax the shite out of people buying a second home too (something like 33%).
|>>|| No. 411411
It used to be that you didn't pay council tax on properties that were left empty, but now councils have discretion on what discount to allow if any at all. Unsurprisingly, most councils have opted to charge full rate, not so much as a matter of public policy but rather because it makes them more money.
|>>|| No. 411418
He's talking nonsense. As everyone knows, Diane's position is a tax on empty policemen, planned to raise the higher of £100 trillion or half a Freddo.
|>>|| No. 411420
MES supports Corbyn, funny enough. I somewhat agree, he is a politician who does what he says on the box and isn't afraid to be bold, even if he has the name Jeremy and has a fucking beard. A lass I know was at that demo, she is an extremely uptight middle class lady.
|>>|| No. 411422
It looks to be midday in that picture but I see people marching with jumpers, hoodies and pullovers. Fucking lizardmen everywhere.
|>>|| No. 411462
>Jeremy Corbyn has reiterated his suggestion that people left homeless by the Grenfell Tower fire could be housed in empty homes, saying the government has the means to seize property.
>"Occupy it, compulsory purchase it, requisition it," the Labour leader told ITV's Peston on Sunday.
Emboldened Trots, exploiting a tragedy for their own political agenda, that's all we need.
|>>|| No. 411463
All those empty homes seem very very wrong to me and increasingly do to ordinary people. It is borne from compassion and kindness, not any kind of hatred of the rich and Corbyn has just had the balls to say what a lot of people are thinking. Things are changing quickly in this country and unfortunately it took a tragedy for this to happen.
|>>|| No. 411464
Given that their political agenda is 'Help the people affected by this tragedy' I think that's more than acceptable. As opposed to the Tories totally un-political, non-exploiting of the recent daft militant wog attacks by using them as leverage to crack down on privacy because that's definitely, absolutely related and going to help, just ask the experts.
|>>|| No. 411465
As mentioned upthread, this isn't some fringe agenda - it's a popular policy.
|>>|| No. 411467
I think it's the zealousness with which he's rushed into that solution which has offered me. He hasn't seemed this eager to make a quick decision since the EU Referendum and wanting Article 50 triggered straight away.
It's a knee-jerk reaction. Wait until all other options have been exhausted first before demanding that vacant properties are requisitioned without the consent of the owner. Landlords have willingly come forward to offer their properties to the residents.
|>>|| No. 411468
You know what would be a better solution? build homes at a rate that the price doesn't go up and actually goes down. So houses aren't 10 times what they were in 1990 in real terms. Instead of having a sneer at the people who can afford them. If you remove the mechanism for something to be an investment tool it won't be.
|>>|| No. 411469
Hang on what does this long-term housebuilding programme have to do with the immediate need to rehome people whose flats are now cinder?
You just referenced the real-terms value of houses 30 years ago. Grenfell burnt last week.
|>>|| No. 411471
>You know what would be a better solution? build homes at a rate that the price doesn't go up and actually goes down.
I'm sure that'll come as some comfort for the 500 or so people that were made homeless overnight last week. I'm sure they can wait out a few years in a shelter or sofa surfing until the new homes they can afford to replace the ones they lost through no fault of their own have been built.
|>>|| No. 411472
>Wait until all other options have been exhausted first before demanding that vacant properties are requisitioned without the consent of the owner.
You keep talking like this is some kind of long-term issue. Most councils get a handful or two of new applications for social housing in a week. RBKC just had literally hundreds of people made homeless in one night. There's literally no harm in using a property that's empty and has little prospect of being filled for a couple of months until they get sorted out properly. The one thing we don't want to do is take these people, many of whom are native to the area, and
socially cleanse relocate them halfway across the country.
|>>|| No. 411479
>The Grenfell fire is a grotesque, totemic example of everything Corbyn argues is wrong with Britain.
Actually this is a point that fascinates me a little bit: Is Corbyn rising in the polls because people are slowly realizing this and the event crystallises it, or are we viewing the event through the lens of Corbyn rising in the polls and thus seeing the economic and social forces behind the event as a result?
It seems almost a meaningless question but I have to wonder, for example, what if the building had burned down in the same circumstances a few years ago?
|>>|| No. 411482
>There's literally no harm in using a property that's empty and has little prospect of being filled for a couple of months until they get sorted out properly.
It isn't something you should clamour for immediately. If you are going down this route then there's no harm in asking the owners in the first instance.
If his immediate thoughts are state requisitions then that's worrying.
|>>|| No. 411483
>It isn't something you should clamour for immediately.
On the contrary, when you have more households made homeless in one go than they normally have to deal with in a month on top of their usual flow of applicants, time is a luxury you don't have. These people need to be rehomed as a matter of urgency. Unlike a substantial chunk of prospective social tenants, the folk in this case are not in any way, shape or form the architects of their own misery. They suffered an unfortunate accident, possibly at the negligence of the very authority that put them there.
|>>|| No. 411484
Lad. It's 400 people, many of whom can be rehomed in the same residence, in London. London.
Let's not pretend this is a State of Emergency crisis.
|>>|| No. 411485
Fuck off Chavez, the tragedy of a few hundred people living in temporary accommodation is nothing compared to setting a precedent allowing the state to requisition property for any little populist reason. This power is reserved for events of existential importance because you are undoing the foundations of our liberal society, something that I imagine dear leader is licking his lips over.
|>>|| No. 411488
Local councils actually have a surplus of housing stock for when there is problems with properties or when they need to rehouse people during refurbishment. There are enough homes to pragmatically house those people in the surrounding councils, without turning into a mad Trotskyite for cheep political point scoring.
|>>|| No. 411490
>many of whom can be rehomed in the same residence
Really? I mean, sure, the ventilation has improved a bit but ... really?
Realistically, the tower is going to have to go. The top half is pretty much beyond repair, and it's quite difficult to demolish only some floors in a high-rise. I know the area is rather deprived, but I'd be surprised if the replacement was a high-rise affordable/social development.
|>>|| No. 411493
I probably didn't word it well. I meant, it's 400 people but many of those will be families so only 100 or so residences are actually needed.
|>>|| No. 411494
>Far more people unemployed than there are job vacancies, with no accounting for geographic location or any other confounding factors.
>But there's plenty of opportunity, no excuses!!!
Posting my favourite poster again. (Unemployment now stands around 1.5 million.)
|>>|| No. 411496
In the year 2017 in Britain there is really no excuse for being poor, apart from the minority who have suffered genuine hardship.
There may not be the social mobility to be the Chief Executive of a FTSE 100 firm, but there's more than enough educational and vocational opportunities to improve your lot if you want to. If you're poor you're almost certainly stupid and anti-intellectual or you're simply idle and lack any drive whatsoever.
|>>|| No. 411498
If you knew there weren't enough jobs for everyone and those at the bottom would end up on the scrap heap then, if you had half a brain, you'd do everything in your power to ensure that didn't happen to you. There are no excuses.
|>>|| No. 411499
Statistically, someone is always going to end up on the scrapheap. The "ideal" situation in this scenario is just everyone climbing over themselves to desperately lick shit off the shoes of the well off.
Ah yes, you've got a university degree, you've done unpaid work experience, you've taught yourself cantonese... but we've found someone better. You lazy little fucking shit. Try harder.
|>>|| No. 411501
>Statistically, someone is always going to end up on the scrapheap.
Exactly. If you knew that if you didn't try hard at school or put the effort in in some other way or you'd end up on the scrap heap then you'd have to be DOUBLE STUPID.
It's not as if the bar is set unattainably high.
|>>|| No. 411502
Ah, yes. The local council estate scallies couldn't find a single job doing basic administrative work because of the nationwide old boys network for public school poshos making everything everywhere a closed shop. Come off it, lad.
|>>|| No. 411505
Exactly. Which is why repeated studies have found that things such as stack ranking in the workplace doesn't work, because it doesn't actually reward hard work.
The people who end up at the bottom aren't there for lack of effort. A good many of them are there because the system has actively cheated them out of advancement. Saying people who end up at the bottom should have worked harder is like saying Whitney Houston shouldn't have taken cocaine in the first place.
|>>|| No. 411508
Lad, trying hard to get ahead isn't about how much effort you put into your job. If you're working hard and being overlooked then anyone with half a brain would look to apply for more senior jobs elsewhere. If you want to stay at the same company then you need to put some of that effort into making the right impression with the right people.
You can mope about the system being stacked against you or you can try to do the best you can with the hand you're dealt. Honestly, there is no excuse for being a pauper.
|>>|| No. 411509
I think you're interpreting the term meritocracy a bit too narrowly.
You seem to have an idea that if 1 million people are unemployed, they have all put in less work than every single person who doesn't find themselves in that situation. If some economic shock causes a recession and unemployment increases by 500,000, the people who lose their jobs and are unable to find other work were the 500,000 people who were putting in the least effort. This is a self-evidently absurd proposition.
|>>|| No. 411510
>If you're working hard and being overlooked then anyone with half a brain would look to apply for more senior jobs elsewhere
Then we return to the same problem: there are only so many more senior jobs.
|>>|| No. 411511
>which state requisition would be.
No it wouldn't. Legal experts have come out over the past few days to very bluntly state that Corbyn's knee-jerk reaction would be completely illegal and there is not a damn sight of that changing anytime soon.
If however you and your sticky-fingered pals push through legislation it would almost certainly be gummed up by Protocol 1 Art.1 of the ECHR and the side of the legal profession that doesn't have shit for brains.
Why can't you both be wrong?
The question of deserving and undeserving poor has been rumbling since 1351 and is much more complicated than "just try harder lol" -as particularly the New Poor Law demonstrates. At the same time the opposite extreme pretends that free will doesn't exist and goes down that old route you see in criminal law where a murderer blames his background when 99% of people with the same upbringing are reasonably law abiding people.
|>>|| No. 411513
When you take a position such as this, it's very tempting to say the only mistake the underclass in this country has made is not going all 1917.
And naturally when our benevolent vanguard party jail you for being a counterrevolutionary kulak, you'll have nobody but yourself to blame for arousing suspicions.
|>>|| No. 411514
I'm just saying they're a bit thick, that's all.
The system may not be fair but poor people are, on average, more likely to be stupid than the rest of the population at large. The two premises are not mutually exclusive.
Then perhaps a change of career is needed. Either way, if you've progressed to the point that the number of senior roles is limited and a rarity then it's safe to say you're unlikely to be one of the paupers we're talking about.
|>>|| No. 411515
>If you're working hard and being overlooked then anyone with half a brain would look to apply for more senior jobs elsewhere
>Then perhaps a change of career is needed.
If you're posting dreck like this then you clearly aren't capable of higher reasoning, which means you are stupid and should have tried harder at school.
|>>|| No. 411517
That's like saying that murder can't happen because it's illegal. Murder and possession of a firearm are both crimes, but that's not going to stop someone who's stood over you pointing a gun at your head.
Plus all that ECHR stuff doesn't matter anyway, because we're leaving the EU and repealing the Human Rights Act and all the other evil checks and balances that Brussels and Strasbourg have imposed on us, innit.
|>>|| No. 411519
No, you're saying there's "no excuse" for being poor. Personally, I don't think anyone should live in poverty, even if they happen to have been born with a lower than average IQ or denied a decent education.
|>>|| No. 411522
Oh, I'm not saying people deserve to be poor. That'd be wrong. I'm simply pointing out they're thick for not taking advantage of the myriad of opportunities to climb out of poverty. They shouldn't be painted as wretched unfortunates absolved of all personal responsibility. "They can't help being poor, it's not their fault."
No, lad. I didn't say trying hard at school is the only way to get ahead. One of the most successful people I know isn't overly bright but he's a sparkie and very good at it too.
Also, if I'm not overly bright and not poor then that shows how low the bar is set and how thick those at the bottom really must be.
|>>|| No. 411523
I appreciate it is hot but I have no idea what you're trying to get at here. Requisitioning property is something that has principally happened during the World Wars with statutory backing and even then was a legal clusterfuck to say to least.
Er no we tend to have the rule of law in this country. Although Parliamentary Sovereignty comes into it the government would have no luck trying to do things without appropriate legislation as has been discovered many times.
>Plus all that ECHR stuff doesn't matter anyway, because we're leaving the EU and repealing the Human Rights Act and all the other evil checks and balances that Brussels and Strasbourg have imposed on us, innit.
Even if we strike out the HRA we'd still be liable under our commitment to the ECHR but it would just take longer and be more costly for everyone. The current Tory plans to leave the ECHR (which will be done after the next election at the earliest according to even Mother Theresa) also call for it to be done so after a new 'Bill of Rights' is drafted that I don't see waiving the right to property.
The right to life also has derogations but that doesn't mean the government can just start killing people willy-nilly. What you would need to prove is that the public interest is sufficient to overrule a fundamental freedom which I don't see happening given even Pye v UK on adverse possession turned on negligence regarding limitation periods.
|>>|| No. 411525
>Oh, I'm not saying people deserve to be poor.
No, lad. You can say that they're poor and it's their fault but that doesn't mean they deserve it, in the same way you can say you smoked weed but didn't inhale.
>Also, if I'm not overly bright and not poor then that shows how low the bar is set
No, it doesn't, but that you wrote that sentence unironically does show that you are indeed "not overly bright".
|>>|| No. 411526
>"They can't help being poor, it's not their fault."
If they're thick, they probably can't help that either. IQ has a significant genetic component.
90% of the time people try to play up personal responsibility, it's to downplay societal responsibility. You're personally responsible for refusing a job in a labour shortage situation, you're not personally responsible for not being fucking superman when there's a huge labour surplus.
|>>|| No. 411528
>Er no we tend to have the rule of law in this country.
No, we really don't. Any legislation that Parliament sees fit to pass authorising requisitioning can come into force immediately and could be enforced immediately, regardless of whether it conflicts with ECHR, as the passage of DRIPA and IPA will demonstrate. In the case of DRIPA, there was an explicit court judgment that the things it was trying to do were incompatible with ECHR.
>What you would need to prove is that the public interest is sufficient to overrule a fundamental freedom
The public interest is what the government of the day says it is.
|>>|| No. 411529
>Protocol 1 Art.1 of the ECHR
Well we won't be bullied by these fake courts after Theresa gives them the boot anyway.
|>>|| No. 411530
>I appreciate it is hot but I have no idea what you're trying to get at here.
"If there was any real risk of the government being penalized for taking people's houses, they wouldn't do it."
Mostly just a smart-arse comment. (In hindsight I realize it can also be read as "They're already doing it!")
|>>|| No. 411532
The distinction on prisoner voting rights is that Strasbourg rightly refuses to enforce anything beyond saying a blanket ban is a breach. Added to this consultations remain ongoing on how to resolve the stalemate even as the government has now traditionally put out contradictory positions.
Let's take a look at what I actually wrote shall we:
>If however you and your sticky-fingered pals push through legislation it would almost certainly be gummed up by Protocol 1 Art.1 of the ECHR and the side of the legal profession that doesn't have shit for brains.
What we would need (as you admit) is a piece of legislation that explicitly lays out a right to requisition someones property in these circumstances at a minimum i.e. the rule of law. We'd spend a few months back and forth with the Lords doing this too and maybe have constitutional questions raised. Then time will be spent with the case running up the national court system (not so immediate after all - even if it is quickly dismissed).
Once that is done and the government starts snatches houses we go up the fast track towards Strasbourg and end up paying out our arses in compensation because property is a quantifiable product. God help us if any of the other EU members states citizens got caught up in this too because then we'd have an already angry ECJ to contend with on top of the madness.
I appreciate we are all eager to have a tedious argument over where the judiciary sits but there is no need for it. Parliamentary Sovereignty is referred to as a legal myth because there is no way it is a reality and Corbyn has so fair failed to outline how he intends to do this with even some words to support squatting. Because he is a populist like that.
>The public interest is what the government of the day says it is.
|>>|| No. 411533
>What we would need (as you admit) is a piece of legislation that explicitly lays out a right to requisition someones property in these circumstances at a minimum
Erm, yes. What was your point again?
>Then time will be spent with the case running up the national court system
What case would that be? Any legislation that gets on the books could be enforced immediately. The courts in this country have no power to suspend legislation, and if they do declare a bit of legislation to be unlawful Parliament can just ignore them (as they did with DRIPA). By the time the courts even agree to hear the case, the property has already been requisitioned and people have been housed in it. To use the original analogy, the gunman has already pulled the trigger and has Crown immunity.
>Once that is done and the government starts snatches houses
No. As pointed out, the government will already have started snatching houses because nobody can stop them from doing so - any legal action after the legislation is passed (and it could surely be pushed through as secondary legislation not requiring a vote) would be after the fact. There is already form for this in s.5 Public Order Act and s.44 militant daft woggery Act, both of which continued to be enforced (in the case of s.44, until its repeal) in ways the courts had repeatedly declared unlawful. Not that this is a problem, because the first required hurdle would be that the owners have been deprived of the enjoyment of their property, and this test fails because any property involved would be unoccupied and therefore not neither being used nor bearing rent.
>we go up the fast track towards Strasbourg
The only "fast track towards Strasbourg" is the one made of concrete and steel. Those cases would have to join the queue of tens and hundreds of thousands of claims at the back like everyone else.
No, lad. Not "evidently" not, no.
|>>|| No. 411534
>come to .gs expecting Grenfell thread full of links to articles, interviews, death estimates etc
>find a cunt-off over legalities in progress
Never change, .gs
|>>|| No. 411535
I'm still fascinated by that resident's blog thing. https://grenfellactiongroup.wordpress.com/2016/11/20/kctmo-playing-with-fire/
Despite it getting a reasonable amount of attention I'm surprised it hasn't been seized on more strongly. Maybe nobody wants to get into a cunt-off over libel law no matter how plausible and damning the claims sound. I mean, you can't just go around comparing local authorities and weird little not-quite-public-not-quite-private things like the KCTMO to the Mafia. That's unambiguous libel. To the mafia.
|>>|| No. 411540
Bear in mind that they've got around 12-16 floors of this to contend with. They've managed to at least get to the top floor, but they haven't done the really thorough part yet.
|>>|| No. 411546
What condition would a lot of the bodies be in at the temperatures the fire would've burnt at? I get the strong impression that a lot of the bodies will have been more or less vaporised and a final death toll would only be an estimate. Given that some of the tenants were immigrants of whatever status, some may have vanished into the ether in other ways.
The tenancy list/housing manifest compared against survivors will probably be the best bet.
|>>|| No. 411548
I'd also bet that a fair few of these properties have been sublet out on the down low.
|>>|| No. 411554
>Given that some of the tenants were immigrants of whatever status, some may have vanished into the ether in other ways.
Maybe some inhabitants took the opportunity to "disappear" following the fire. In a fire like this, some bodies will never be found or identified. So it's an ideal opportunity to go missing if you've got debt or other problems.
I think I read about a few people who did this after the 9/11 attacks. They were supposed to be inside the Twin Towers that day, but by way of sheer luck they weren't, and knowing that many bodies would never be found or identified, they "went missing" and got a new identity or whatever. Some even tried to cash in their life insurance through their spouses who were in on it.
The Presumption of Death only legally applies in the UK after somebody has been unaccounted for for seven years, so that's still quite a long time.
|>>|| No. 411555
>In the year 2017 in Britain there is really no excuse for being poor,
I hear this bullshit trotted out by rich cunts, those who claim they "made something of themselves" all the fucking time.
If these people had one ounce of empathy and had truly made their way "up from the bottom" they wouldn't talk like this as they know that personal circumstances beyond a persons control can often cake a person's life in shit through no fault of their own.
|>>|| No. 411556
When you've finished rehashing this debate do you want to bring up the legalities of the government seizing property again? I'm sure we all want to go over these two topics again.
|>>|| No. 411559
Why don't we just bring back Victorian poorhouses.
Being poor back then was considered a character flaw, and as such, poverty put you on the same level of disregard by the upper classes as criminals or the mentally insane. Because for one reason or another, all of which founded in you as a flawed person, you had failed to make a proper human being out of yourself.
|>>|| No. 411561
Y'know for all I enjoy people finally talking about increasing public spending, I kind of wish more attention was thrown on the KCTMO. I get that general vibe of "weird sort of private organisation operating public services that shouldn't actually exist" from it. Until we abolish that sort of private involvement, I'm sceptical that there will be results to phone home about from increasing investment in public services.
|>>|| No. 411570
Someone in Cardiff appears to have started a tribute fire on some grass. Coverage so far seems to be about six posts on the twitters.
|>>|| No. 411714
Does seem like an over reaction to evacuate all these people late on a Friday evening. Probably less disruptive ways of addressing the issues in the buildings that have bad cladding.
|>>|| No. 411719
Oh look at that, so we don't need stupid cheep point scoring tall poppy syndrome rhetoric about seizing the houses. Turns out temporary housing already exists.
|>>|| No. 411723
>Turns out temporary housing already exists.
Do you have a source for that, or are you just being a cunt?
|>>|| No. 411724
The government have gone into full-on panic mode; the reaction to Grenfell could have easily turned into major unrest. It was a symbol for everything wrong with society, but rather than fixing the underlying issues they're just defusing the potency of the symbol. They're moving the Grenfell residents into a luxury block to mollify them, they're responding in the most zealous way possible to any other dodgy high-rise. They won't do anything about the mold-ridden terraces in Wembley and Bradford, the benefits cap, the huge increase in rough sleeping, the thousands of homeless families stuck in substandard temporary accommodation, but they're papering over the most visible cracks.
|>>|| No. 411726
The febrile atmosphere isn't helping - politicians at all levels now have to be seen to Do Something Now, rather than spending time looking at the underlying root causes and addressing those.
|>>|| No. 411730
That's silly. It just means that civil unrest will follow the next accident, or the one after. They can't just keep taping up this shitty society we have built up.
|>>|| No. 411736
As far as I heard, the "temporary accommodation" is the local leisure centre and some hotel rooms. The otherlad suggested that there was "temporary housing" available for them.
|>>|| No. 411738
There's nothing stopping them from continuing to kick the can down the road. The foundation of society might be rotten to the core, but they don't care as long as it doesn't collapse under their watch. Theresa May is highly unlikely to last beyond the next election and will be lucky to make it that far.
Look at the mess of Brexit. Cameron chucked a referendum into the Tory manifesto to appease Drunken Racists voters. He treated the referendum as a bargaining chip, expecting to 'sacrifice' it in the coalition talks that never happened. For the sake of one election, he put the entire country into jeopardy.
Now May and Davis are making decisions that are clearly about appeasing the tabloids rather than ensuring the long-term success and stability of Britain. She might talk tough at home, but just look at her behaviour during the recent talks in Brussels - she was practically apologetic about the whole thing. There's not an ounce of principle, conviction or public service, just a desperate desire to hold on to power at any cost.
|>>|| No. 411744
>Look at the mess of Brexit. Cameron chucked a referendum into the Tory manifesto to appease Drunken Racists voters. He treated the referendum as a bargaining chip, expecting to 'sacrifice' it in the coalition talks that never happened. For the sake of one election, he put the entire country into jeopardy.
And Theresa May similarly took a gamble with the election because she thought that ideally, it would strengthen her position as a Prime Minister who didn't just come to office as a replacement for Cameron, but had the actual backing of the people, as expressed in new elections.
Both gambled their political careers away, albeit Theresa May not with the immediate consequence of having to step down as Prime Minister. And that just aggravates me. Your job as Prime Minister should be to run the country, not to play tactical games to increase your own power. You would hope that Cameron and May will from now on serve as cautionary tales as to how badly this kind of stuff can blow up in your face. But I have a feeling that they won't be.
|>>|| No. 411745
>But I have a feeling that they won't be.
Oh I don't know - in thirty years time there will be many history books about this period.
|>>|| No. 411746
Around 60 buildings have had their cladding tested for standards compliance. Every single sample so far has failed. Let that sink in.
|>>|| No. 411747
It really doesn't matter. Nothing much will change however many people shout about it.
|>>|| No. 411749
You sure on that? On the BBC last night it said they'd tested 34 but only half of these had failed.
Anyway, what a pair of cunts Corbyn and McDonnell are. Declining invitations to Armed Forces day in order to go poncing off with a load of poshos at Glastonbury, with McDonnell claiming today the victims of Grenfell were murdered.
|>>|| No. 411753
>McDonnell claiming today the victims of Grenfell were murdered.
They weren't? Was it just a series of unfortunate events that happen to usually befall poor people?
|>>|| No. 411754
Was it an arson attack?
Under no circumstances was this murder. McDonnell deliberately uses inflammatory language to try and stir up civil unrest.
|>>|| No. 411755
Considering how angry you are about how the commie McDonnell never gave ARE boys a blowjob, I'm certain this conversation won't reach anywhere. So go back to your DM comments section, lad.
|>>|| No. 411756
If people suspect you're a daft militant wog sympathiser who hates our country, it probably isn't a good idea to snub invitations to Armed Forces day events in order to preach to the choir with a load of poshos at Glastonbury.
Regardless of that, Grenfell was not murder. To call it murder is foolhardy.
|>>|| No. 411758
Why would he go to armed forces day events when everybody knows he's no fan of theirs (and vice versa, if the general threatening a coup against a hypothetical Corbyn premiership is anything to go by)? A photo op with some squaddies isn't going to change anyone's mind.
|>>|| No. 411759
Race has nothing to do with it. It may be corporate manslaughter, that's something for the investigators to decide. What it certainly isn't is murder.
Because sometimes you've got to be the bigger person and offer an olive branch instead of being a cunt.
|>>|| No. 411769
Well, no. You see, a carrot is not something that would be a 747 were it not for a couple of technicalities.
|>>|| No. 411770
If the carrot were made of aluminium, weighed 300 tonnes and had four jet engines, it'd be a 747. It's just a couple of technicalities.
|>>|| No. 411772
Technically, the carrot and the 747 both have the ability, in very different ways, to make you see in the dark.
Yes I know it was just WW2 propaganda, you shuffling quadra-spaz.
|>>|| No. 411773
>If the carrot were made of aluminium, weighed 300 tonnes and had four jet engines, it'd be a 747.
Why would you put jet engines on a carrot?
|>>|| No. 411774
That would be a silly idea, not least because of how jet fuel interacts with steel beams.
|>>|| No. 411775
Murder is that thing that requires intention. (which didn't happen unless you belive Lilly Allen et al's stories about faceless billionares in top hats twirling their mostaches).
A 747 is that thing that follows Bowing's design specifications, which expressly rules out the use of carrots in the fusilage even if you tied 4x Rolls-Royce RB211s to it, it would not be one.
|>>|| No. 411776
I'm going to assume you lads are talking about carrots doing nine eleven because of the heat.
|>>|| No. 411778
There is only one, small, technical difference between a carrot and a 747 and that is that one's a carrot and the other's a 747.
|>>|| No. 411783
>Murder is that thing that requires intention
It requires intent, but not necessarily intent to kill. Someone intentionally downgraded the fireproofing on the cladding for financial reasons, and people died as a direct consequence of that deliberate action. If this were an individual landlord and an individual supplier, they'd both be tried for murder and would likely go to jail for a very long time.
Not that the specific details matter given he's speaking figuratively. It's like when people complain about calling OJ Simpson a murderer. He may have been acquitted on the charge but he very obviously killed his wife. Even the jurors who tried the case now admit this.
|>>|| No. 411786
>It requires intent, but not necessarily intent to kill.
No you stupid cunt:
>For the principal defendant, (see later for Joint Enterprise) the intent for murder is the intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (GBH), nothing less. Foresight is no more than evidence from which the jury may draw the inference of intent, c.f. R v Woollin  1 Cr App R 8 (HOL).
>Not that the specific details matter given he's speaking figuratively.
So back to the other original point of the other lad: John McDonnell was wrong and deliberately trying to stoke up tensions because he's a complete fucking dickhead trying to use the tragedy for his own agenda.
|>>|| No. 411787
Derek Bentley didn't kill anyone. Neither he nor his juvenile accomplice went in intending to kill anyone. Indeed, the shooting happened when his accomplice misunderstood an instruction to hand over the gun. He was nevertheless convicted of murder and hanged for it.
Anyway, since you seem to have difficulty with both the law and figures of speech you'd best get back to work before your bosses at CCHQ find out you've wasted your morning on an obscure imageboard used by three people.
|>>|| No. 411789
>Derek Bentley didn't kill anyone.
Kill =/= Murder but yes he was pardoned. Again refer to CPS guidlines.
|>>|| No. 411792
>Kill =/= Murder
That's not how that works, lad.
>but yes he was pardoned
Yes. Pardoned, not cleared. Pardons are personal and extrajudicial so do not set precedent. Someone in the same position could not point to someone else's pardon in support of their own case.
|>>|| No. 411795
>>Kill =/= Murder
>That's not how that works, lad.
Not them but, That’s exactly how it works. Killing is not always murder, like say when the police kill a group of daft militant wogs running around London Bridge stabbing people, or when a doctor cuts Siamese twins apart because it will save one of their lives but definitely kill the other, or if someone deliberately walks in front of your car, but you don't react quick enough. Killing someone is not always murder. Murder is a subset of killing someone.
|>>|| No. 411796
>Not them but, That’s exactly how it works.
No, it isn't. Go read the part he quoted again. He's suggesting that murder isn't always killing, which is the reverse of what you just said.
|>>|| No. 411797
This is fascinating stuff. Here are some suggestions for future episodes of Autism Today:
* The Japanese Empire didn't have a penis, therefore Nanking was not raped.
* Jimmy Savile clearly couldn't have groomed the nation because the nation is considerably over 16 years old.
* Richard the Lionheart actually had a human heart like everyone else.
* The band Thompson Twins were not twins. There were three of them and none were called Thompson.
* This board is called "random" but it's clearly not random at all.
|>>|| No. 411799
I'm pitching that to Radio 4. It'd fit in nicely between World at One and the Archers repeat.
|>>|| No. 411808
I would say that the scandal was a hammer blow, but then our autistic torylad would complain because nobody hit them with a hammer and as far as we know MC Hammer never sucked them off.
|>>|| No. 411811
You may be shocked to learn that the Court of Appeal did in fact quash the judgement and pardon him:
I said kill does not equal murder. That is what this '=/=' means.
Are we just going to go round in circles because you can't get it into your head that murder has an intent element? Even after evidence has been posted that explicitly states this fact?
|>>|| No. 411813
>Are we just going to go round in circles because you can't get it into your head that murder has an intent element?
No. We are just going to go round in circles because you can't get it into your head that when someone says "murder" they don't literally mean the offence of murder as defined in the Homicide Act 1957, you mouth-breathing carpet-bagger.
|>>|| No. 411816
Blame it on the rain.
Fun fact: Their producer Frank Farian cheated on Boney M records as well. He sang all the male voices himself. Boney M's "singer" Bobby was just for show. And it's painfully obvious when you watch live performances:
He couldn't sing for toffee. And from the looks of it, he was a shit dancer as well.
|>>|| No. 411817
Anyone else remember the time someone tried that on Eurovision? The rules are strict and insist that all vocal elements are performed live on the main stage, so sometimes people try and hide their backing singers with clever staging or lighting. But then there was this one entry with a solo performer lip-syncing front and centre in the light with the actual singer unlit but still very visible in the corner of the stage.
|>>|| No. 411819
Maybe the lad is on the spectrum and doesn't understand nuances and takes everything literally. Go easy on him.
|>>|| No. 411824
Maybe you want to read the start of this discussion. The otherlads are correct that McDonnell deliberately used inflammatory language and frankly stupid comments like:
>If you say so, fascistlad. Would it be murder of they were white?
Point to someone who either has no fucking idea what murder is or more likely is deliberately misusing the term to suggest that an act of negligence was something more deliberate.
Also the Homicide Act didn't define murder only refined it, there is no statute from Parliament that says murder is a crime it is a common law invention.
|>>|| No. 411825
I'm sure it's a worthwhile discussion, but this debate is making me want to set fire to a tower block full of innocents.
|>>|| No. 411827
That won't be murder though.
>an act of negligence was something more deliberate
Like leaving an IED on the motorway with a randomised timer? Will it ever blow up? If it does and people die, it really isn't murder, right?
I'm sure asbestos is dirt cheap. If I line all poor people's houses with it, is it really murder when they all die of lung complications? Or is this different because the cladding on Grenfell was "legal" and "within regulations"? So all those people died because a bunch of rich cunts in wigs never said that it was illegal to use it?
|>>|| No. 411828
Given that a tower block full of innocents is only a couple of technical details away from being a carrot, it wouldn't be so different from simply making a casserole.
|>>|| No. 411830
That's much further away from murder than >>411825
It's on a spectrum you see. Murder on one side, and Not Murder on the other.
|>>|| No. 411831
>Or is this different because the cladding on Grenfell was "legal" and "within regulations"?
Yes. If the contractors were fully aware that the cladding was a serious fire risk despite being compliant with the regulations, they may have committed manslaughter by gross negligence. If they knew that the cladding wasn't compliant with the regulations but fitted it anyway, they may have committed manslaughter by an unlawful and dangerous act. If they had been led to believe that the cladding was compliant with the applicable regulations and reasonably safe, then they are guilty of neither offence.
>Like leaving an IED on the motorway with a randomised timer?
That's murder, because the act of planting the IED is a deliberate act with the intention of causing harm, that you would reasonably believe could lead to death. There is obvious mens rea. It's not merely negligent, but actively malicious.
Imagine I'm a mechanic who does a really sloppy job of fixing your brakes, which causes you to crash and die. If I should have reasonably known that my poor workmanship might cause your death, I may be guilty of involuntary manslaughter by gross negligence. I didn't take any deliberate action to cause you harm, but I breached a duty of care that led to your death.
If I deliberately cut your brakes and you crash and die, then I may be guilty of murder. I took a deliberate action to cause you harm that could be reasonably expected to lead to your death. That's the key distinction - I deliberately did something with the intention of causing harm, rather than doing something badly or failing to do something that might lead to harm being caused.
If you're still struggling with this, I'll get my crayons out and draw you a diagram.
|>>|| No. 411832
>That's murder, because the act of planting the IED is a deliberate act with the intention of causing harm, that you would reasonably believe could lead to death.
Like putting up cladding that you know can easily catch fire and spread it everywhere?
Fuck off lad.
|>>|| No. 411833
Is it murder if I drop a satellite from space just on your house and you die a horrible death?
There aren't any regulations about dropping satellites, and I thought it would "hit the ocean," rather than your house which is owned by your ugly mum.
|>>|| No. 411836
If you fired the thrusters to aim it at my house, it's murder. If you just let it drop out of orbit with no regard for where it might land, it's manslaughter by gross negligence. If you took every care to aim it at the ocean but it inadvertently crashed through my roof, it's just an accident.
This isn't rocket science.
|>>|| No. 411837
Yeah but how would anyone know? I will try and aim for the ocean, but unbeknownst to anyone I will subconsciously hit your house with it and murder you and your ugly mum. It isn't murder right? Nobody can prove I hated you and your mum.
|>>|| No. 411838
The police would interview you and your henchmen. They would search your volcanic lair for documents and computer data related to the satellite. Forensic experts would examine the smouldering wreckage of your satellite for telemetry data.
At trial, your innocence would be presumed. The jury would need to be convinced beyond reasonable doubt that you either maliciously targeted the satellite at my house (for a charge of murder), or that you allowed the satellite to fall onto my house with flagrant disregard for my life (for a charge of involuntary manslaughter by gross negligence).
In the latter case, a total lack of evidence would strongly imply guilt. Where is the documentation demonstrating your health and safety precautions? What risk assessment did you undertake before performing the manoeuvre? What training did your underlings have in satellite re-entry procedures? What evidence is there that your satellite was well-designed and properly maintained? If you are completely unable to explain why your satellite obliterated my mum's house and why you were unable to prevent it, a jury may well be convinced beyond reasonable doubt that your management of the satellite was grossly negligent.
|>>|| No. 411839
Of course, all of this is moot because before that satellite ever touches down sometime from MI6 will have stormed the lair, engaged the satellite's self-destruct, and pushed otherlad into his tank of laser sharks.
|>>|| No. 411840
We only had a month's training and we're oil miners not astronauts, damn it. What choice did we have?
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]