This video shows demonstrators at the big 1 July 2017 anti-Theresa May march in London, England.
From daily News Line in Britain:
Tuesday, 4 July 2017
THE contemptuous treatment of the survivors of the fire that killed 80 people at least has been sickening.
Last week it emerged that those who had been placed in emergency hotel accommodation had been informed by Tory run Kensington and Chelsea council that they would have to leave by 4pm last Friday, as the hotel had prior bookings that took precedence.
On being given just hours to pack what few belongings they had, all that the council would offer was an emergency telephone number for them to ring while the council tried to move them to unspecified locations.
Some of these locations turned out to be completely unsuitable, with families split up or put up in poor quality bed and breakfast accommodation with showers that don’t work.
Those in hotels have no idea how long they will be staying and are forced to phone every day to check where to go.
The contempt for the survivors doesn’t stop at pushing them from pillar to post in sub-standard temporary accommodation with no commitment to re-house them in the area.
This contempt was demonstrated last Thursday night, when the council closed down the first council meeting since the fire after the high court ruled that excluding the press was illegal.
One of these men, Nicholas Holgate, is reported in the press as being expected to receive a ‘six figure payout’ for resigning.
So payouts for those who had responsibility for ignoring all the warnings from tenants and the fire brigade about the risks of using inflammable cladding while for the victims nothing but being shunted around and left in the dark.
So far only 65 offers of temporary accommodation have been made.
The survivors of this atrocity, along with the entire general public, are demanding full disclosure and that legal action be taken against those responsible.
At the moment they are being told nothing, no-one even knows how many actually survived let alone how many were injured or died.
In the meantime the Tory government has announced that a public inquiry will be held and appointed a retired commercial judge, Sir Martin Moore-Bick, to preside over it.
As a judge, he made the controversial decision that allowed Westminster Council to re-house a homeless mother-of-five 50 miles away in Milton Keynes, a decision that was described by a solicitor involved in the case as giving Westminster council ‘the green light for social cleansing . . . setting a terrible precedent for local authorities to engage in social cleansing of the poor on a mass scale.’
This decision was later overturned by the high court on appeal but the fact remains that the man in charge of the inquiry has been chosen by May for his track record of support for sending social housing tenants miles out of London in order for councils to rip down their homes and build luxury apartments.
The scale of the risk caused by cost-cutting in order to save money, even at the expense of the lives of workers and their families, is enormous as cladding on 181 high rise buildings across 51 local authorities in England have failed fire safety tests according to latest figures, while cladding on schools and student accommodation have also failed fire tests.
The victims of the Grenfell fire are demanding that those responsible for the tragedy be brought before the courts and jailed for their crimes.
The whole working class will join them in this and go further in demanding that the entire capitalist system of private profit is overthrown.
This means demanding the TUC act by calling a general strike to kick out this weak, minority Tory government and go forward to a workers government that will implement socialist policies including the provision of safe, decent housing for all.
From daily News Line in Britain:
Tuesday, 4 July 2017
Flammable cladding. No sprinklers! In tower blocks across UK
CLADDING on 181 tower blocks in 51 areas of the country have now failed fire safety tests.
Meanwhile it also emerged yesterday that there are no sprinklers in 300 Scottish tower blocks.
Right across the UK there are hundreds of potential disasters waiting to happen.
Reports confirm that the Grenfell Tower inferno, which claimed the lives of over 80 men, women and children, was completely avoidable if fire-proof cladding and sprinklers had been fitted.
Cladding from as many as 600 tower blocks across England is being tested as it is thought Grenfell Tower’s recently-installed cladding may have helped the fire to spread.
All of the material checked so far in the wake of the tragedy on 14 June has failed the tests.
A new investigation has now found that thousands of homes in more than 300 tower blocks across Scotland do not have potentially life-saving sprinkler systems.
This is despite the fact that every high-rise built in Scotland since 2005 must have sprinklers, by law.
After the Lakanal House fire in Camberwell in 2009, which tragically claimed the lives of six people, a special report was done by the all-Party Parliamentary Group on Fire Safety and Rescue.
This report, which was sat on for four years, recommended that sprinklers be fitted in every tower block – these recommendations were ignored.
According to Assistant Chief Officer David McGown, of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service (SFRS) sprinkler systems can be a ‘cost effective and potentially lifesaving intervention in the early stages of a fire.’
Indeed, this was exactly what the report by the all-Party Parliamentary Group on Fire Safety and Rescue found.
The report found that sprinkler systems were 99% effective at controlling or extinguishing fires when they operate.
Meanwhile, Grenfell Tower survivors have threatened to boycott the inquiry unless the judge, who has been chosen to lead it, is removed.
Justice 4 Grenfell campaign group says ‘systemic issues’ need to be looked at, rather than just the fire itself.
Yvette Williams, one of the organisers of the Justice 4 Grenfell campaign group, said survivors and victims’ families were ‘very, very angry’ and wanted the ‘systemic issues’ related to the fire to be looked at as part of the inquiry.
‘They cannot just look at 14 June, when that building became an inferno. They can’t do that.
‘If we don’t get good terms of reference for the public inquiry and we don’t get a wide remit so that those people can take responsibility for what they’ve done, then we won’t participate in it.’