World's largest shroud covers Britain's shame

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

you got sympathy for the bereaved have you yeah right pretty much sums u up , crocodile tears is it ?? like u actually give a wat sit , apart from it can be used in your political ball cocks agenda.

JD sympathy for the bereaved give me a break

Effing 'eck!
**** end has been (for probably years) feigning concern for female interests in his covert Islamophobia. Now he has the nerve to accuse someone else of pretend concern in their political pursuits.
You could not make it up!

 

[transam]

me and Gassbani or should I say Gasbanni and I have you on ignore way har bee

I blame the foreigners u know

 

[^woody^]

The initial report is out. More shame.

320 families are in hotels.

Residents were "hesitating to accept rehousing offers" because they did not want to lose benefits. Wtf?

 

[JohnD]

Can you give us your source for that opinion?

Moore-Bick’s public inquiry into the disaster has not started taking evidence yet, so I don't know what report you are thinking of.

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...renfell_Recovery_Taskforce_initial_report.pdf

With 320 households in hotel accommodation,

page 8, para 22

For a range of reasons, it is evident that residents are hesitating to accept rehousing offers to optimise the benefits to be secured.

Page 8 , para 23

It does not say what woody portrays. But then he is trying to excuse his complete lack of shame.

 

[Judy in the sky]

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...renfell_Recovery_Taskforce_initial_report.pdf
page 8, para 22
Page 8 , para 23

It does not say what woody portrays.

It actually says exactly what woody was portraying.
Woody said "320 families are in hotels." The report states "With 320 households in hotel accommodation"

Woody says "Residents were "hesitating to accept rehousing offers" because they did not want to lose benefits." The report states "For a range of reasons, it is evident that residents are hesitating to accept rehousing offers to optimise the benefits to be secured."
Hmmmmm yet you see fit to say it's not what woody was portraying?? Which part of the report are you struggling with? Or is it your lack of good English language skills? Or was it lost in translation?

 

[JohnD]

if your roots are in Kensington, is it a benefit to live in Kensington? If you are offered a flat in Dursely, does that have the same benefits?

Is it beneficial to live near a Tube station if you have irregular work as a carer for retired plumbers?

If you work in a hospital, is it a benefit to live near a hospital?

If you have an artificial leg, is it a benefit to move to a fifth-story flat with no lift?

Or perhaps you are obsessed with monetary issues, like Judy, or, like Judy, have only a rudimentary understanding of the English language.

 

[^woody^]

if your roots are in Kensington, is it a benefit to live in Kensington? If you are offered a flat in Dursely, does that have the same benefits?

Is it beneficial to live near a Tube station if you have irregular work as a carer for retired plumbers?

If you work in a hospital, is it a benefit to live near a hospital?

If you have an artificial leg, is it a benefit to move to a fifth-story flat with no lift?

Or perhaps you are obsessed with monetary issues, like Judy, or, like Judy, have only a rudimentary understanding of the English language.

LOL. I think it refers to £ benefits not the benefit of being able to walk to the local Spar shop for some fags and booze, or having a near-by Donimo's so the pizza is nice and hot.

Do keep up.

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

Hmmmmm yet you see fit to say it's not what woody was portraying??

I think it refers to £ benefits

benefit noun (ADVANTAGE)
[ C or U ] a helpful or good effect,
[ C, usually plural ] an advantage such as medical insurance, life insurance, and sick pay, that employees receive from their employer in addition to money
[ C or U ] uk us usually benefits the money given by the government to people who need financial help, for example because they cannot find a job
[ C ] something such as a pension or health insurance that an employee receives in addition to their salary (= money)

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/benefit

Woody clearly said "lose their benefits". That, by any stretch of the imagination, means that they already have that benefit.
Whereas the report equally clearly stated "benefits yet to be secured". That, by any stretch of the imagination, means that they have not or are not yet enjoying those benefits.
I trust that you have benefited from my simple explanation.

 

[JohnD]

I think

'hmmmmm.

Inferring again.

 

[Judy in the sky]

"Optimise their benefits " sounds more like rich landowners, circumventing tax laws, than council flat tenants.

 

[^woody^]

"Optimise their benefits " sounds more like rich landowners, circumventing tax laws, than council flat tenants.

*illegal subletting tenants

 

[JohnD]

something else for transam to laugh at

 

[JohnD]

"Barwell told the Commons in October 2016 that part B of the building regulations, which cover fire safety, would be reviewed as part of a process following a 2009 fire at a tower block.

The blaze at Lakanal House in Camberwell, south-east London, killed six people, with an inquest finding it spread because botched renovations compromised fire stopping between the flats.

“We have not set out any formal plans to review the building regulations as a whole, but we have publicly committed ourselves to reviewing part B following the Lakanal House fire,” Barwell said. However, since then his department has not published any review. "

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...ged-by-minister-last-year-yet-to-be-published

Dr Jim Glocking, technical director of the Fire Protection Association (FPA), an industry body, said his organisation had been pushing for a review of fire-related building regulations for some time.

“While we have lobbied long and hard to changes to building regulations, the groups responsible have remained resolutely intransigent to opening up a review,” he said.

"“Various ministers have said over the years that there will be an imminent review, but it keeps being put on hold, in spite of organisations like ourselves campaigning very hard.”

Among the areas the FPA wanted reviewed, Glocking said, was a lack of compulsion for external insulation underneath cladding on tower blocks to be fire resistant, and tighter regulations over timber-framed buildings, now the most common method for social housing.

Ronnie King, formerly the chief fire officer and now honorary secretary of the all-party parliamentary group on fire safety and rescue, said the regulations “badly need updating” and “three successive ministers have not done it”. "

 

[JohnD]

"Reports into a previous fire at Lakanal House in Camberwell, south London in 2009, in which six people died, and a subsequent coroner’s report led to urgent calls from the fire sector for action. But seven years later those calls had still not been acted on and a long-awaited review of building and safety regulations had not even begun. In October last year Barwell answered a parliamentary question from the Labour MP Steven McCabe about the review timetable.

Barwell replied saying: “We have not set out any formal plans to review the building regulations as a whole, but we have publicly committed ourselves to reviewing part B [the regulations governing fire safety] following the Lakanal House fire.”"

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/17/tower-block-fire-warnings-grenfell-victims