I MORE OR LESS abandoned this blog a year ago when I came to the conclusion that the climate battle was won (intellectually speaking that is — convincing the hard-of-thinking and those whose livelihoods depend on perpetuating the scam may take a while) and the Battle of Brexit was causing me more pain than I saw any reason to undergo.
However, having acquired a couple of new followers I thought maybe the least they deserved for such bravery was a post or two. So here I am again.
I shall avoid as far as possible the current political situation (“In which country?” you ask. To which I reply, “there’s a difference?”) though I may get dragged into it yet. Instead I’ll start off this round with a look at some of the implications — and there are many — of Grenfell House.
To be clear, I am not a housing expert nor do I have any qualifications in building or building maintenance or fire safety. What I do have is several years experience as a local reporter which probably makes me better qualified than the many moder journalists to understand the workings, the machinations, and indeed the dedication to be found in local government.
I am most profoundly of the view that there should be no rush to judgement for all sorts of reasons not least because the end result is either that the real reasons, usually mind-numblingly ordinary, get crowded out by the much more interesting but usually wrong ones or that people who should know better end up with egg on their faces when their pet theories are debunked. Or both.
We can all agree, I would hope, that what happened on June 14 was a tragedy, for the 80(+? we hope not) people who lost their lives, and for the others who lost homes and possessions and have no idea at this moment when or where they are going to find some place that they can once again call ‘home”. It is not surprising that a first reaction from them is to lash out, in the manner of a cornered animal, at anyone they see as potentially responsible for their plight.
This plight is not helped by voracious media or the unwelcome interference of the far-left rent-a-mob always on hand to stir up trouble and recently given a new lease of life by a Labour party newly taken over by a clutch of cretinous political dinosaurs whose determination to return to the golden age (joke!) of the 1970s serves as an awful reminder that, in Wendell Phillips’ famous words, “eternal vigilance is the price of liberty”.
Rent-a-mob can’t help itself and it seems that in the 21st century neither can the media. No sooner has the Prime Minister announced a Public Inquiry into the affair and appointed a highly-respected judge (on the recommendation of the Lord Chief Justice) than The Times — that once great and formerly highly-respected newspaper — is engaging in a little unnecessary shit-stirring by dredging up anything it can find to denigrate the man and imply that he is not “suitable” for this job because he is “controversial”.
Inevitably ‘Justice 4 Grenfell’ — and how boringly predictably meaningless that is — has leapt on to this toboggan and claims it has no confidence in Sir Martin Moore-Bick and doesn’t trust him. Well, who asked you? And “trust him” to do what? Come up with your pre-selected answer, probably. It is hard to see how any objective truth on any matter of public importance can ever by established against the background of a chorus of “victims” seeking “justice” for themselves especially when they are seeking it through a medium which is not designed for such a purpose (in this case an Inquiry whose function is to establish causes, how those causes came to be, and how those causes can be eliminated in the future). The residents of all the other high-rise developments in the UK have every bit as much of an interest in the outcome of this Inquiry as the residents of Grenfell Tower and it is not up to them to have confidence (or not) or trust (or not) the man appointed to head that Inquiry.
And one would have hoped, forlornly as it turned out, that the media would have avoided making matters worse by egging on the irresponsible. It could be that objectivity is in danger of being compromised and certainly I can envisage barristers arguing further down the line that a fair trial on whatever charges the CPS might see fit to bring is impossible given that same “rush to judgement”.