I don’t know, perhaps you could tell us? I certainly hope it’s nothing where debating a point would be necessary, because you haven’t a clue in that regard.
On the contrary, my friend, on the contrary.
Your sum contributions to this debate have been to moan about a homeless protest I supported and something about pitch invasions.
You’ve tried to obfuscate furiously on behalf of your beloved Tories without once being able to make any sort of substantial point in their defence.
I’ve been the one making the actual substantive points here while you, for the 14,474th time on the forum, try to derail the debate with your pathetic excuses and obfuscations about how people shouldn’t “politicise” a highly political issue - the most political real life news event of this year or any year in the UK.
There are a lot of things you can’t understand, Dimmy.
Basic things like human empathy, having an inquisitive mind and the concept that people might be interested in things other than those which directly affect them immediately spring to mind.
Although, come to think of it, I can’t really understand why somebody would be so obsessed with having desperate , long drawn out debates about television ratings for their favourite sport in numerous failed attempts to try and prove it’s more popular than other, more popular sports.
Lolz, your “substantive” points are lifting stuff from Twitter attacks on one political party. Let’s wait until the actual report comes out. The questions being asked are;
what materials were used?
were they regulation?
were there fire stops up the side of the building?
was the interior of the buildings fire escapes up to standard?
if there were deficiencies in the above, who is responsible? Is it the residents control committee who ran the building? Is it contractors? Is it politicians?
You coming in here and C&P some gotya tweet about some politicans sitting on a report is just partisan BS. If and when the experts look at this and if they find politicians did wrong, I’ll criticise anyone responsible.
You claiming that you;
…this is hilarious. You don’t you have a team and want to ram partisan stuff down everyones throats.
The point about bringing up Apollo House and your attitudes to pitch invasion Health and Safety rules, is that while you continue to spam this thread with stuff attacking the Mail/David Cameron/Express/anyone right wing who ever a regulation, is that you do it as well, and are a hypocrite.
What a load of bollox going on
Reality check here. It doesn’t / didn’t matter a fuck who was/is in government. It doesn’t matter a fuck that whichever council/borough was/is labour/conservative orientated. The outcome would have been the exact same.
Your bullshit points are based on obsessive dogma.
We already know more than enough facts to make a substantive judgement on the culture of neglect and no regUlation that is responsible.
You take the typical Tory way out. Everybody should shut up and stay quiet until the results of the inquiry, which are, presumably, many months or even years away. The survivors should shut up, local people should shut up, anybody who thinks what happened is a fucking scandal on a monstrous scale, should shut up.
Demonise any protestors, while you’re at it.
And you tell us the Tory narrative should be the one that is listened to.
No thanks, mate. That’s exactly what happened after Hillsborough when Tory lies and smears attempted to assassinate the character of the dead, those present, and a whole city, and attempted to pervert the course of justice. They very nearly succeeded. That’s exactly what you want to happen again.
Philip Hammond this morning said that “sprinkler systems may not be the best way of protecting a building against fire.”
It is frankly flabbergasting that a government minister needs “technical experts” to tell him that water protects against fire.
The Fire Brigades Union could have told him right there and right then - Andrew Marr did - the number of people that have died as a result of fires in buildings with sprinkler systems in the UK is…0. Zero.
Hammond then lied about how he voted on the 2016 amendment Labour tabled about making rented accommodation fit for human habitation. He claimed he didn’t vote. Marr was able to tell him right there and then that he did and he voted against it.
Blatant lying by Hammond.
Hammond also suggested that the cladding was illegal. That’s not what has been reported.
But even if that were so, there are two possibilities here. i) Illegal cladding was used and caught fire or ii) Legal cladding was used and caught fire.
Either possibility is utterly damning for the “regulations” and the culture of no regulation. Either the regulations were entirely inadequate, or the regulations are so poorly enforced as to mean absolutely nothing.
You then proceed to engage once again in victim blaming. You know full well that the residents of the tower had kicked up stink over the dangers.
You know full well that Tory ministers sat on coroner’s recommendations that they’ve had for four years and did the square root of fuck all about them. And they stonewalled fire safety chiefs who wanted to meet them.
You’ve clearly been listening to Nick Paget-Brown, the Tory leader of Kensington Council, far too much. The “people like you factor”, no doubt.
You’d do well to actually read up on news reports before commenting.
You’d also do well to listen to the stories of some of the people on the ground who are actually affected rather staying in your safe little cocoon of officially approved Tory thought.
In a new development, it’s been reported that the cladding manufacturer does not recommend the product that was used on buildings over a few floors. Whether he can be believed or not, the Chancellor claims using the material in the UK on high rise buildings is banned (not sure he can be believed).
If that’s the case, whoever made the decision to use the material and whoever approved it needs to be charged with manslaughter.