After Grenfell – 3

FOR THE time being, Grenfell seems to have disappeared from the front pages. The Hard Left Activists (hereinafter referred to as HLAs) are busy being revolting in Hamburg where the leaders of the G20 are meeting. Grenfell will be here for a while and anyway Hamburg has been in the diary/filofax/2017 equivalent for months.

Having criticised The Times and the numpties its comment columns seem to attract it is only fair to say that the report today (Jul 7) gives a somewhat calmer view of  a meeting between Moore-Bick and the Lancaster West Residents Association yesterday evening. This was at least a meeting involving a properly constituted residents’ organisation. Perhaps some progress can be made before the HLAs return from their weekend away in sunny Hamburg.

Frustration was clearly in evidence and as usual seems to be directed at the wrong target. Not that any blame for that attaches to the frustrated — at least not directly.

It is worth quoting some of the remarks in full because they have a bearing beyond the immediate.

Describing the “anger and confusion” at the meeting, Mr Akins said: “People firmly believe that arrests should be made as a result of the outcome of all of this. If arrests are not made, people are going to feel justice may not be being done.”

Thanks for this piece of nonsense go to the HLAs whose ‘Justice 4 Grenfell’ starts from the assumption that if somebody was in some way damaged or disadvantaged then somewhere or other there must be someone (else) to blame. In this instance they are probably right but as a commenter under the article says:

If any person or organisation is found to have a criminal case to answer so be it. But you cannot undertake an enquiry on the supposition that someone is guilty of something. And the wider the enquiry is the longer it will take and the muddier the waters.

True. But you can if you’re a Trot!

The Times reports that “Many are frustrated at his perceived reluctance to address how the wider state of social housing may have contributed to the fire.” Where has that come from? It isn’t clear whether we are talking about social housing in the borough or England as a whole and whether that should go so far as to include the practice of illegal sub-letting sometimes even to illegal immigrants. The answer to whether any Inquiry should look at that aspect would be a good indication of who was asking for the wider remit!

The local people appear to be unaware that the wider it ranges the longer the Inquiry will take and the more diffuse it will become. And a bit like a net the wider it spreads the bigger the holes for the fish to escape through. Is that what they want? I doubt it!

Joe Delaney, of the Grenfell Action Group, appears to have been concerned that Moore-Bick “couldn’t even control the crowd and hold them. I have heard public speakers who can shut up a stadium full of thousands of people. This man couldn’t hold a room with 200 or so people.”

Sorry, Joe, but the guy is not a public speaker. He’s an Appeal Court judge and before that a barrister. He doesn’t need to “hold” people, except maybe a jury. He was appointed to use his forensic skills to get to the root of a problem not to orate like a cross between Martin Luther King and Demosthenes! He will ask searching questions and woe betide anyone who tries to give less than full and frank answers. Isn’t that what you want? I presumed it was.

Joe’s other complaint is interesting”

He said other officials visiting the scene of the disaster in north Kensington would “act in a high-handed fashion, pretend to listen to us and then leave”. This also appeared to be Sir Martin’s “modus operandi,” Mr Delaney told the Today programme on BBC Radio 4.

Joe, how do you know they only “pretended” to listen? How do you know Moore-Bick only “pretended” to listen? What brings you to that conclusion? Has no-one explained to you a couple of very important facts of life?

1. Any incautious remark by an employee of Kensington & Chelsea will instantly be leapt on and twisted to suit the purpose of the listener. Ditto for any comment by a government minister or civil servant. Your HLA pals would be first in line to use any comment by anyone to further their aims which, by and large, are not the same as yours.

2.  Virtually any statement by anyone in authority in the present circumstances can be interpreted by a skilful lawyer as prejudicing the Inquiry or any subsequent civil action or any criminal case that may result. So it is in your interests that they listen to you but say nothing.

I’ll end this with two comments from under the article — not unsympathetic but trying to be as fair as possible to all concerned:

This judge does have some relevant technical knowledge, is independent, is available and is listening to comments. I fail to see how anyone else would be better suited. Some of those complaining need to be advised how the due process of law works in the UK.

And that includes not a few born and brought up in the UK,

Since when have ordinary people, victims or not, had the right to decide who chairs an inquiry?

Since the British replaced their sense of honesty and belief in the law with a sense of entitlement, Penny!

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s