RugbyRebels

kk67 wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: And for the tossers who are trying to exploit it for political gain to wind their necks in.

Some people disagree. This is Jonathon Freedland.

" You can ignore those who say it’s wrong, or too soon, to politicise Grenfell Tower. That’s always the refrain of those who understand that a raw moment such as this brings great clarity, suddenly exposing in vivid colour a reality that, for many, may have been abstract. Such people want the moment to pass, for the national gaze to move on, so that they can return to business as usual. Which is why now is exactly the time to talk about what this blaze has illuminated."

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... inequality

Because there is no difference between people highlighting failings (such as they are understood at the moment) and those seeking to assign blame for political ends. Absolutely the same thing.

Sandydragon wrote:

kk67 wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: And for the tossers who are trying to exploit it for political gain to wind their necks in.

Some people disagree. This is Jonathon Freedland.

" You can ignore those who say it’s wrong, or too soon, to politicise Grenfell Tower. That’s always the refrain of those who understand that a raw moment such as this brings great clarity, suddenly exposing in vivid colour a reality that, for many, may have been abstract. Such people want the moment to pass, for the national gaze to move on, so that they can return to business as usual. Which is why now is exactly the time to talk about what this blaze has illuminated."

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... inequality

Because there is no difference between people highlighting failings (such as they are understood at the moment) and those seeking to assign blame for political ends. Absolutely the same thing.

One follows from the other, no?

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

kk67 wrote:
Some people disagree. This is Jonathon Freedland.

" You can ignore those who say it’s wrong, or too soon, to politicise Grenfell Tower. That’s always the refrain of those who understand that a raw moment such as this brings great clarity, suddenly exposing in vivid colour a reality that, for many, may have been abstract. Such people want the moment to pass, for the national gaze to move on, so that they can return to business as usual. Which is why now is exactly the time to talk about what this blaze has illuminated."

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... inequality

Because there is no difference between people highlighting failings (such as they are understood at the moment) and those seeking to assign blame for political ends. Absolutely the same thing.

One follows from the other, no?

Once one has all the facts to hand then yes, it can. My issue is with those who want to use this event for political advantage, before all the facts are known and whilst conveniently ignoring others.

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
Because there is no difference between people highlighting failings (such as they are understood at the moment) and those seeking to assign blame for political ends. Absolutely the same thing.

One follows from the other, no?

Once one has all the facts to hand then yes, it can. My issue is with those who want to use this event for political advantage, before all the facts are known and whilst conveniently ignoring others.

Well I think we have sufficient facts to see already where fault lies. Sure it's not 100%, but it's enough to express discontent while the emotion is raw. If we wait for all the facts, I think we'll be waiting a long time.

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
One follows from the other, no?

Once one has all the facts to hand then yes, it can. My issue is with those who want to use this event for political advantage, before all the facts are known and whilst conveniently ignoring others.

Well I think we have sufficient facts to see already where fault lies. Sure it's not 100%, but it's enough to express discontent while the emotion is raw. If we wait for all the facts, I think we'll be waiting a long time.

Yeah, let's get the pitchforks out and get some of the guilty swinging from lampposts. No need to wait for "due process" we know who the guilty are.

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
Because there is no difference between people highlighting failings (such as they are understood at the moment) and those seeking to assign blame for political ends. Absolutely the same thing.

One follows from the other, no?

Once one has all the facts to hand then yes, it can. My issue is with those who want to use this event for political advantage, before all the facts are known and whilst conveniently ignoring others.

Like Katie Hopkins, Littlejohn, Piers Moron the Murdoch press..?. Their daily bile isn't exactly helping to calm things down.

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
One follows from the other, no?

Once one has all the facts to hand then yes, it can. My issue is with those who want to use this event for political advantage, before all the facts are known and whilst conveniently ignoring others.

Well I think we have sufficient facts to see already where fault lies. Sure it's not 100%, but it's enough to express discontent while the emotion is raw. If we wait for all the facts, I think we'll be waiting a long time.

"We know enough! Let's get them!" Cool your jets, turbo.

Stones of granite wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
Once one has all the facts to hand then yes, it can. My issue is with those who want to use this event for political advantage, before all the facts are known and whilst conveniently ignoring others.

Well I think we have sufficient facts to see already where fault lies. Sure it's not 100%, but it's enough to express discontent while the emotion is raw. If we wait for all the facts, I think we'll be waiting a long time.

Yeah, let's get the pitchforks out and get some of the guilty swinging from lampposts. No need to wait for "due process" we know who the guilty are.

Yes cos "express discontent" totally equals "let's get the pitchforks out and get some of the guilty swinging from lamposts"....

Zhivago wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
Well I think we have sufficient facts to see already where fault lies. Sure it's not 100%, but it's enough to express discontent while the emotion is raw. If we wait for all the facts, I think we'll be waiting a long time.

Yeah, let's get the pitchforks out and get some of the guilty swinging from lampposts. No need to wait for "due process" we know who the guilty are.

Yes cos "express discontent" totally equals "let's get the pitchforks out and get some of the guilty swinging from lamposts"....

Yeah...and it's not like the right wing jump to conclusions and aggravate a situation with cheap opinion. Dear old Katie Hopkins is the absolute soul of discretion.

kk67 wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Stones of granite wrote: Yeah, let's get the pitchforks out and get some of the guilty swinging from lampposts. No need to wait for "due process" we know who the guilty are.

Yes cos "express discontent" totally equals "let's get the pitchforks out and get some of the guilty swinging from lamposts"....

Yeah...and it's not like the right wing jump to conclusions and aggravate a situation with cheap opinion. Dear old Katie Hopkins is the absolute soul of discretion.

Good call. Katie Hopkins is exactly who Zhivago reminds me of right now.

fuck off. She's decent.

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
One follows from the other, no?

Once one has all the facts to hand then yes, it can. My issue is with those who want to use this event for political advantage, before all the facts are known and whilst conveniently ignoring others.

Well I think we have sufficient facts to see already where fault lies. Sure it's not 100%, but it's enough to express discontent while the emotion is raw. If we wait for all the facts, I think we'll be waiting a long time.

Really. We know the decision process that the council and management company went through do we? We have all of the advice given to them by every expert during that process at our finger tips to establish whether they are negligent or whether there has been a procedural problem. We fully understand whether the fault lies with the implementation or the policy?

For someone who supposedly demands the rule of law, you seem quite willing to condemn without due process.

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
Once one has all the facts to hand then yes, it can. My issue is with those who want to use this event for political advantage, before all the facts are known and whilst conveniently ignoring others.

Well I think we have sufficient facts to see already where fault lies. Sure it's not 100%, but it's enough to express discontent while the emotion is raw. If we wait for all the facts, I think we'll be waiting a long time.

Really. We know the decision process that the council and management company went through do we? We have all of the advice given to them by every expert during that process at our finger tips to establish whether they are negligent or whether there has been a procedural problem. We fully understand whether the fault lies with the implementation or the policy?

For someone who supposedly demands the rule of law, you seem quite willing to condemn without due process.

Is it against the law to express discontent?

Can't help wondering if trying to stifle criticism by accusing people of seeking to gain political advantage is in itself a political argument.

canta_brian wrote:Can't help wondering if trying to stifle criticism by accusing people of seeking to gain political advantage is in itself a political argument.

Frankly Im more concerned that innocent people are getting their heads kicked in because people are looking for someone to blame. There are investigative processes in place, let them do their job.

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
Well I think we have sufficient facts to see already where fault lies. Sure it's not 100%, but it's enough to express discontent while the emotion is raw. If we wait for all the facts, I think we'll be waiting a long time.

Really. We know the decision process that the council and management company went through do we? We have all of the advice given to them by every expert during that process at our finger tips to establish whether they are negligent or whether there has been a procedural problem. We fully understand whether the fault lies with the implementation or the policy?

For someone who supposedly demands the rule of law, you seem quite willing to condemn without due process.

Is it against the law to express discontent?

Don't be so bloody stupid. The point made was that we don't know where the fault lies yet. That is why there is an investigation. We can assume, but that's insufficient.

People are angry, accusing people without all the facts is dangerous and likely to lead to more incidents of vigilante style injustice. None of this will bring dead people back, better to let the investigations run their course and for the actual people at fault to be exposed.

Blaming people without proof, which results in their assault or forced sacking, in kangaroo justice at best and Im surprised that someone who allegedly supports the law would be so keen to support that. Essentially, someone could be charged with manslaughter and face considerable jail time; far better that any eventual criminal trial can proceed fairly rather than give someone a loophole to exploit or wrongly judge an innocent party.

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: Really. We know the decision process that the council and management company went through do we? We have all of the advice given to them by every expert during that process at our finger tips to establish whether they are negligent or whether there has been a procedural problem. We fully understand whether the fault lies with the implementation or the policy?

For someone who supposedly demands the rule of law, you seem quite willing to condemn without due process.

Is it against the law to express discontent?

Don't be so bloody stupid. The point made was that we don't know where the fault lies yet. That is why there is an investigation. We can assume, but that's insufficient.

People are angry, accusing people without all the facts is dangerous and likely to lead to more incidents of vigilante style injustice. None of this will bring dead people back, better to let the investigations run their course and for the actual people at fault to be exposed.

Blaming people without proof, which results in their assault or forced sacking, in kangaroo justice at best and Im surprised that someone who allegedly supports the law would be so keen to support that. Essentially, someone could be charged with manslaughter and face considerable jail time; far better that any eventual criminal trial can proceed fairly rather than give someone a loophole to exploit or wrongly judge an innocent party.

I admire your faith in the investigative process.

WILL THE CRUELTY OF THE BASTARD TORIES NEVER END THEY MADE MONEY OUT OF BURNING POOR PEOPLE AND NOW THEY ARE MAKING MORE MONEY OUT OF THEM THE TORY BASTARDS*


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40357280

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

Donny osmond wrote:WILL THE CRUELTY OF THE BASTARD TORIES NEVER END THEY MADE MONEY OUT OF BURNING POOR PEOPLE AND NOW THEY ARE MAKING MORE MONEY OUT OF THEM THE TORY BASTARDS*


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40357280

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

So who were they earmarked for? These flats were always intended as social housing as part of the permissions granted I would assume. Were they intended to be left empty for just this sort of emergency?

canta_brian wrote: I admire your faith in the investigative process.

What's the alternative in the first instance? To latch onto rumour and analysis from people who might rightly be angry but don't have an understanding

canta_brian wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
Is it against the law to express discontent?

Don't be so bloody stupid. The point made was that we don't know where the fault lies yet. That is why there is an investigation. We can assume, but that's insufficient.

People are angry, accusing people without all the facts is dangerous and likely to lead to more incidents of vigilante style injustice. None of this will bring dead people back, better to let the investigations run their course and for the actual people at fault to be exposed.

Blaming people without proof, which results in their assault or forced sacking, in kangaroo justice at best and Im surprised that someone who allegedly supports the law would be so keen to support that. Essentially, someone could be charged with manslaughter and face considerable jail time; far better that any eventual criminal trial can proceed fairly rather than give someone a loophole to exploit or wrongly judge an innocent party.

I admire your faith in the investigative process.

Would you rather we just didn't bother and just issued pitchforks instead?

canta_brian wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:WILL THE CRUELTY OF THE BASTARD TORIES NEVER END THEY MADE MONEY OUT OF BURNING POOR PEOPLE AND NOW THEY ARE MAKING MORE MONEY OUT OF THEM THE TORY BASTARDS*


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40357280

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

So who were they earmarked for? These flats were always intended as social housing as part of the permissions granted I would assume. Were they intended to be left empty for just this sort of emergency?

Some people will never be happy. Did you want the govt to magically acquire some land, design, gain planning consent and then build accommodation within the next month? I think the point is that the govt have come up with a plan and the cash to solve the issue ASAP.

Digby wrote:

canta_brian wrote: I admire your faith in the investigative process.

What's the alternative in the first instance? To latch onto rumour and analysis from people who might rightly be angry but don't have an understanding

You're being unfair. Zhivago has arbitrarily decided that he's gained enough facts from reading the interweb and is ready to pronounce judgement. You can't much more thorough than that.

canta_brian wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:WILL THE CRUELTY OF THE BASTARD TORIES NEVER END THEY MADE MONEY OUT OF BURNING POOR PEOPLE AND NOW THEY ARE MAKING MORE MONEY OUT OF THEM THE TORY BASTARDS*


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40357280

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

So who were they earmarked for? These flats were always intended as social housing as part of the permissions granted I would assume. Were they intended to be left empty for just this sort of emergency?

I would guess that they were earmarked for priority cases on the social housing waiting list.

Stones of granite wrote:

canta_brian wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:WILL THE CRUELTY OF THE BASTARD TORIES NEVER END THEY MADE MONEY OUT OF BURNING POOR PEOPLE AND NOW THEY ARE MAKING MORE MONEY OUT OF THEM THE TORY BASTARDS*


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40357280

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

So who were they earmarked for? These flats were always intended as social housing as part of the permissions granted I would assume. Were they intended to be left empty for just this sort of emergency?

I would guess that they were earmarked for priority cases on the social housing waiting list.

I guess that I am less impressed that social housing has been allocated to people in need of social housing than Donny is.

Is the fact that this particular social housing is part of a nice development really such a big deal that it deserved an entirely capitalised post to highlight it. Seems to me someone is seeking political gain from this decision as much as anything else. Would it have been news worthy had they been moved into a number of less up-market developments?