It's just money, I guess. Probably cheaper to pay this than any subsequent fines and court costs the council might end up paying should these people try suing them later.What do people make of this:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...enfell-survivors-DIDNT-live-tower-hotels.html
A couple of survivors who didn’t live there are still being put up by the council at a four star hotel as they don’t want to return to their own private accommodation due to panic attacks:
“One student, who said he was visiting a friend on the night of the blaze, has argued that what he witnessed caused him such distress he cannot return to his home.
He did go back to his privately-rented shared flat in another part of London for a few weeks following the fire, but after contacting the council he was placed in a four-star hotel in west London.
He has been living in the hotel, with breakfast and dinner included, for much of the past 12 months at an estimated cost of more than £1,000-per-week. The student said he could not return to his original accommodation four miles from the tower because he is suffering from flashbacks and panic attacks.
‘I didn’t live there but I’m affected like everybody else,’ he said. ‘I went to the council support centre and told them how I am affected and asked whether they could pay the rent or get me a room. I said I needed urgent help. I need to be in a safe environment. They wouldn’t listen to anything because I came from a different borough. They kept pushing me away.’”
Seems a bit of a piss take that. It absolutely right that those that lost their houses are looked after and the same for those sub-letting or whose partners lived there but the guy above seems to be just milking it.
But why would that make him need to stay in a hotel where he’s given free breakfast and dinner as opposed to living in his own private accommodation in another part of London?It might seem like a pisstake but I guess it depends on their experience of the event. Might/probably have seen some dreadful stuff, and whatever the circumstances, the council are responsible for that.
Are you saying that you can’t follow two distinct thought processes at the same time? Or that you can but other can’t?there is a danger that this story will deflect the search for culpability as to how this tragedy occurred in the first place. Given the track record of the mail , it is probably the intention of the article to do just that. In the overall scheme of all things Grenfell ( multiple deaths, dereliction of duty, potential for many millions of pounds in reparations to be paid by the tax-payer, and the likelihood that flammable fire-prevention measures will have to be replaced nationwide ) surely, petty crime of this nature is very small potatoes, but then entirely predictable that the mail should deem it important
Are you saying that you can’t follow two distinct thought processes at the same time? Or that you can but other can’t?
It absolutely fine to take the two themes separately, have genuine concern for the residents, want blame to be apportioned to those responsible AND think this guy is a chancer.
But I’m not surprised by your reaction, I expected it from someone, so just to be clear, my comment was about this guy and this guy alone.
What do people make of this:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...enfell-survivors-DIDNT-live-tower-hotels.html
A couple of survivors who didn’t live there are still being put up by the council at a four star hotel as they don’t want to return to their own private accommodation due to panic attacks:
“One student, who said he was visiting a friend on the night of the blaze, has argued that what he witnessed caused him such distress he cannot return to his home.
He did go back to his privately-rented shared flat in another part of London for a few weeks following the fire, but after contacting the council he was placed in a four-star hotel in west London.
He has been living in the hotel, with breakfast and dinner included, for much of the past 12 months at an estimated cost of more than £1,000-per-week. The student said he could not return to his original accommodation four miles from the tower because he is suffering from flashbacks and panic attacks.
‘I didn’t live there but I’m affected like everybody else,’ he said. ‘I went to the council support centre and told them how I am affected and asked whether they could pay the rent or get me a room. I said I needed urgent help. I need to be in a safe environment. They wouldn’t listen to anything because I came from a different borough. They kept pushing me away.’”
Seems a bit of a piss take that. It absolutely right that those that lost their houses are looked after and the same for those sub-letting or whose partners lived there but the guy above seems to be just milking it.
What do people make of this:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...enfell-survivors-DIDNT-live-tower-hotels.html
A couple of survivors who didn’t live there are still being put up by the council at a four star hotel as they don’t want to return to their own private accommodation due to panic attacks:
“One student, who said he was visiting a friend on the night of the blaze, has argued that what he witnessed caused him such distress he cannot return to his home.
He did go back to his privately-rented shared flat in another part of London for a few weeks following the fire, but after contacting the council he was placed in a four-star hotel in west London.
He has been living in the hotel, with breakfast and dinner included, for much of the past 12 months at an estimated cost of more than £1,000-per-week. The student said he could not return to his original accommodation four miles from the tower because he is suffering from flashbacks and panic attacks.
‘I didn’t live there but I’m affected like everybody else,’ he said. ‘I went to the council support centre and told them how I am affected and asked whether they could pay the rent or get me a room. I said I needed urgent help. I need to be in a safe environment. They wouldn’t listen to anything because I came from a different borough. They kept pushing me away.’”
Seems a bit of a piss take that. It absolutely right that those that lost their houses are looked after and the same for those sub-letting or whose partners lived there but the guy above seems to be just milking it.
They key thing about Grenfell is that someone should be going to prison for a long time it's just a question of who.
Someone lied somewhere along the track and it's finding out who this person is that's the hard bit. Is it the person who signed off the cladding as being safe, is it the company CEO lying about their cheap fire proof cladding, is it the councillors for cutting the budget knowing full well the cladding wasn't fire proof. Someone has lied somewhere and whoever this is they need to be out on trial for manslaughter.
Idiotic post.It's in the daily mail so it's either bullshit or incredibly inaccurate. That's what I make of it
As for the hotel accommodation thats as much down to the absurd property market in London that means suitable alternative ( and cheaper ) accommodation probably isn't available.
Idiotic post.
When you’ve done your research and proven it incorrect then come and enlighten us.ha ha really I prefer to do proper research rather than read that crap
When you’ve done your research and proven it incorrect then come and enlighten us.
This is the problem with off topic. Some people are so hell bent on carrying on their own line of argument that they can’t remotely engage with something that doesn’t agree with that argument.
No one is arguing that someone doesn’t do time for the tragedy. This story is completely separate however and it’s a chancer just wanting to live off the council (tax payer) and profit from a tragedy. But some on here would rather ignore than and attack the source or deflect rather than decry his actions.