Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Massive blaze in London, U.K. high-rise


Likely Guy

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Daughter of the Nine Moons said:

I agree, that it is a mistake but still a disgraceful one. One of the very first things the property management team should have done is stopped all rent withdrawals to ensure that people who have just lost everything in this horrific fire have funds available to them.

With social housing, nothing is straight-forward.

Flats are sublet legally and illegally, bought, sold, all sorts of things. It must be a nightmare trying to work out who lives where and is responsible for what. Then the ownership of property lost- another nightmare for insurance assessors- who bought what, who lost what. It is not as simple as a single family home burning down.

It has been suggested some of the flats had up to 40 "guests" staying overnight, who lost their property along with their lives.

It will take to the end of the year for the body count, the insurance claims will take years to settle.

 

 

Edited by eugeneonegin
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It's possible if there was an automatic payment agreement with the tenant's bank, that the rent was just automatically sent to the leaser. That needs to be checked out and the rent taken returned. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, susieice said:

It's possible if there was an automatic payment agreement with the tenant's bank, that the rent was just automatically sent to the leaser. That needs to be checked out and the rent taken returned. 

That's what exactly has been said on the news tonight.

Whatever anyone thinks of the competence of the authorities, they are working flat out to help the affected (and of course minimise criticism to themselves).

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are the saying it is a one off mistake? Truthfully though property management has the ability to turn off pre-authorised payments.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Daughter of the Nine Moons said:

Are the saying it is a one off mistake? Truthfully though property management has the ability to turn off pre-authorised payments.

Susie might be right. Could be that bill pay is set up with her bank and the bank just sends automatic checks though management shouldn't be cashing them if that's the case.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow that's pretty damning. Was $250k his fee or his bribe? I'm predicting suicides and jail time for all those responsible. 

Edited by F3SS
Spelling
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was kind of wondering if this man will be charged also. The condemned and outdated fire extinguishers are really scary, ten years later. He covered up a lot of fatal flaws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Daughter of the Nine Moons said:

Are the saying it is a one off mistake? Truthfully though property management has the ability to turn off pre-authorised payments.

It depends.  In the UK, if you have a "direct debit" then the person you are paying can end it, but if you have it set up as a "standing order", then only you can cancel it.

I pay my (private) rent by standing order.   I have no idea of how it works with regards social housing though.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2017-06-15 at 3:57 AM, Daughter of the Nine Moons said:

How about we have the decency and compassion to leave the victim blaming and conspiracy theories at the door until at the very least the victims are all accounted for and the fire department has issued their report?

Seems I was right. An ex fire fighter paid a quarter million dollars to lie. Gee what a guess. It must be a fluke on my part. 

Oh he was paid in pounds not dollars or greenbacks so that makes the bribe closer to 3 quarter million does it no

Who paid him

Edited by The Silver Thong
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2017-06-15 at 0:19 AM, Camarel said:

Unless you are an expert on fire and have info that the rest of us don't then i think you probably don't know.

I guess my guess was wrong.  Or was it.

http://www.insurancebusinessmag.com/asia/news/breaking-news/revealed-massive-cost-of-london-tower-blaze-71073.aspx

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Essan said:

It depends.  In the UK, if you have a "direct debit" then the person you are paying can end it, but if you have it set up as a "standing order", then only you can cancel it.

Hi Essan, you actually clarified this a bit for me and it is the same in Canada. I assumed the way the article was written that it was direct debit.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Survivors face deportation once the amnesty is over, if they register to ask for help. Personally, I can't see what is wrong with this, why should the UK tolerate illegals?:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/grenfell-tower-deported-immigration-amnesty-survivors-12-months-government-latest-a7825481.html

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, eugeneonegin said:

Survivors face deportation once the amnesty is over, if they register to ask for help. Personally, I can't see what is wrong with this, why should the UK tolerate illegals?:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/grenfell-tower-deported-immigration-amnesty-survivors-12-months-government-latest-a7825481.html

No, they may have seen people burnt to death in front of their very eyes, so send 'em all back to Syria where they came from!! Damn foreigners coming here being burnt to death in our shoddy tower blocks!  

/Blimp 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

No, they may have seen people burnt to death in front of their very eyes, so send 'em all back to Syria where they came from!! Damn foreigners coming here being burnt to death in our shoddy tower blocks!  

/Blimp 

That is an extreme post.

They are not damn foreigners, they are illegal immigrants.

We already have debates about this very issue: if an ISIS recruit comes to the UK, traumatised by seeing helpless prisoners being burnt to death, he should be immune from the law? I say no, the law should apply to all. If the person's traumatic experience somehow contributed to their illegal action, it should be taken into account, but in neither case does this apply.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

No, they may have seen people burnt to death in front of their very eyes, so send 'em all back to Syria where they came from!! Damn foreigners coming here being burnt to death in our shoddy tower blocks!  

/Blimp 

 

1 minute ago, eugeneonegin said:

That is an extreme post.

They are not damn foreigners, they are illegal immigrants.

We already have debates about this very issue: if an ISIS recruit comes to the UK, traumatised by seeing helpless prisoners being burnt to death, he should be immune from the law? I say no, the law should apply to all. If the person's traumatic experience somehow contributed to their illegal action, it should be taken into account, but in neither case does this apply.

First of all I understand both of your points and think that there is merit to both.

I think what we have to distinguish would be war refugees and illegal immigrants. War refugees should, imho, be granted refuge for the duration of the war they are running away from until such a time when peace (or relative peace) returns to their country of citizenship/residence. If they are found to be illegal after that period of warfare has passed, then deportation or other resettlement must be an option.

Personally I find the idea of modern statehood a bit antiquated, but as long as it exists, then the same rules must apply to everyone. 

However people should be granted refuge from war, no ifs, buts and whens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Orphalesion said:

 

First of all I understand both of your points and think that there is merit to both.

I think what we have to distinguish would be war refugees and illegal immigrants. War refugees should, imho, be granted refuge for the duration of the war they are running away from until such a time when peace (or relative peace) returns to their country of citizenship/residence. If they are found to be illegal after that period of warfare has passed, then deportation or other resettlement must be an option.

Personally I find the idea of modern statehood a bit antiquated, but as long as it exists, then the same rules must apply to everyone. 

However people should be granted refuge from war, no ifs, buts and whens.

They are not war refugees. They are illegal immigrants who were involved in a tragic fire.

The fire has not made them legal immigrants. It hasn't changed their status.

The point I am making is their having been involved in a tragedy does not stop them being illegals-( in fact, if they had not come to London illegally, they would have not been in Grenfell Tower in the first place).

If a robber crashes his car fleeing a bank job, do we say "poor man, how tragic, let's say he is innocent"?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

No, they may have seen people burnt to death in front of their very eyes, so send 'em all back to Syria where they came from!! Damn foreigners coming here being burnt to death in our shoddy tower blocks!  

/Blimp 

It is perfectly normal.

Insurance companies always want to check the identities of people they pay compensation to, otherwise they may pay the wrong people (a man has already made a false claim he was a resident).

The problem here is some of the residents are claiming they are being denied compensation because, to release their identities, is to reveal their illegal status. Well, I don't see it as a problem- if they want the compensation, they'll have to step forward, and if that means taking a chance of claiming and being denied asylum, so be it. Perhaps they shouldn't be here in the first place.

We would be in the ridiculous situation of granting British citizenship and a £1m apartment to someone who, not only did not contribute to Britain, but snuck into the UK illegally, evaded the Home Office, occupied social housing intended for British citizens, and had the misfortune to be caught in a fire. Ridiculous!

Edited by eugeneonegin
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Grenfell Tower: Corporate manslaughter considered by police
 

Police investigating the Grenfell Tower fire say they have "reasonable grounds" to suspect that corporate manslaughter offences may have been committed.

It means senior executives from the council and the tenant management organisation that ran the block are likely to be interviewed under caution.

A letter from the Met Police to residents said officers had "seized a huge amount of material".

At least 80 people died in the fire in North Kensington on 14 June.

Organisations guilty of the offence of corporate manslaughter are liable to an "unlimited fine".

Individuals cannot be charged with corporate manslaughter, an offence which is intended to work "in conjunction" with other forms of accountability.


http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-40747241

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Gingitsune said:

Grenfell Tower: Corporate manslaughter considered by police
 

Police investigating the Grenfell Tower fire say they have "reasonable grounds" to suspect that corporate manslaughter offences may have been committed.

It means senior executives from the council and the tenant management organisation that ran the block are likely to be interviewed under caution.

A letter from the Met Police to residents said officers had "seized a huge amount of material".

At least 80 people died in the fire in North Kensington on 14 June.

Organisations guilty of the offence of corporate manslaughter are liable to an "unlimited fine".

Individuals cannot be charged with corporate manslaughter, an offence which is intended to work "in conjunction" with other forms of accountability.


http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-40747241

What material 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, The Silver Thong said:

What material 

I copied and pasted these bits directly from the article, so I know as much as you. I would guess debris from the building...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gingitsune said:

I copied and pasted these bits directly from the article, so I know as much as you. I would guess debris from the building...

If they are pursuing corporate manslaughter I am guessing it would be documents pertaining to the maintainance and state of the building the owners and local authority are required to keep, such as statutory inspections, health and safety reports etc and interviews of employees.

To be honest, corporate manslaughter will mean nothing to the victims, they want blood, as we have seen in the initial investigation consultations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.