THE FALL-OUT from this disaster is taking many forms, opening up several cans of worms and bringing to the surface prejudices and attitudes not normally associated with the relatively easy-going but traditionally organised and accepted behaviour associated with people of Great Britain, perhaps more specifically the English, though the Scots and the Welsh, with their presbyterian background, have often been just as organised and if anything slightly less easy-going.
As ever, the media — notably the on-line versions where commenting by the anonymous ignorati is tolerated if not actively encouraged — must take a share of the blame. Recent commenters have included one who, two weeks after the event, was incensed that “we” still did not know the identities of various officials connected with regulations concerning the fire safety of the building. Given the tone of the comment and the insistence that “they” needed to go public because “we” (ie “he”) wanted them to, it would probably be as well if this name, and doubtless others, were not made public until the true causes become clear. The whole comment reeked of, at the very least, the fantasy of taking to the streets with rope and a portable scaffold.
The “true causes” are irrelevant, of course. The empty vessels who fill the comment columns with their empty-headed noise have already decided on “the facts” which are what they deem them to be. Like the extreme Brexiteers they have decided how they want things to be and have determined therefore how things are. The global warming activists are cut from the same cloth. Their beliefs brook no deviation from their version of the truth. In all these cases nuance is dead.
As, even more regrettably, is any freedom of thought. The tongue-in-cheek jest that a liberal is someone who allows you to believe anything you like as long as he agrees with it has more than a grain of truth.
Hard on the heels of this outright demand for the general public to be kept fully informed came the statement — why didn’t we see this one curving in from left field? — that the appointee to head this Inquiry is the wrong person, not because he at some time in his past has found against a council tenant in a court case but because — yes, we ought to have known! — he is middle-class, male, and white!
The Social Justice Warriors strike again!
Sir Martin now has two choices and it will be interesting to see which he opts for. He can either follow the SJW rule book, apologise profusely for allowing his name to go forward, express deep regret that he might have offended anyone in doing so, and stand down.
Or he can tell the SJWs to **** off and leave him to get on with the job he has been chosen to do. If he is feeling really brave he could add that he is probably better qualified for the job than them or anyone they would choose as an alternative, most of whom would be more likely, in the case of a court appearance, to be standing in the dock facing him than on the Bench beside him.
Fighting their fire with a flamethrower of your own is the only way to deal with these people, m’lud. Please do not kowtow; follow the cardinal rule — never apologise, never resign!
This is a convoluted problem with — as is becoming clear — ramifications far beyond the boundaries of Kensington & Chelsea. This would seem to be a time for clear heads and some objectivity, not arrogant commenters, social justice warriors, political point-scorers and other assorted hangers-on with an agenda.