What made my observation incredibly stark was finding a video of Moore-Bick attempting to speak to the Grenfell survivors in what I can confirming being in patronising terms. Every pronounced word seemed to bringeth to the fore the behemoth class divide, and if I was in the room, I'd be tempted to lynch Moore-Bick and offer him to the local street-dealer for the princely sum of a scratch card.
What's totally absurd is the fact Moore-Bick felt he could represent the people of Grenfell. By activating a disingenuous bureaucracy that's devised for those who've got all the time in the world. The victims of Grenfell don't have the luxury of painstaking inquiries to basically state what they know already: corporate murder on a grandiose scale. Why I value Moore-Bick's morale comprehension no greater than a foxhound hunting a destitute prize; whereby the inevitable outcome will be social demoralisation at the hands of bureaucracy and it's happening now. Our humanity is deficient for the majority of the survivors reside in temporary shelter, the term 'home' is non-compliant with their psyche, their profound loss is incoherent alas worse still their human status lay in the ruin of the chard Grenfell high-riser. A year on, I am not surprised about the lack of progress made, because it's a testimony of how frail our mindful urgency is; nevertheless, those whom seek paid-for-opportunism never care, Moore-Bick fits the mould although, I'll contently state he isn't alone, inquiries are innately expensive and are conducted by a lengthily bureaucratic gravy-train. Moore-Bick is just another archetypal Hutton and Chilcott - if there was a differing context - you can witness the tragedy against the London skyline. Of course the daily visual reality is a potential baptism for an authoritarian dissenter, something what the Westminster bubble ignores at their peril.
Noam Chomsky recounts hearing the news of the obliteration of Hiroshima as a young man and experienced the need to venture into solitude; duly for his ilk couldn't offer him amenity. I am certain Grenfell has sparked a similar reaction, a challenge to pedagogical stupidity, in a spontaneous fashion; Moore-Bick is in a way gauranteeing a backlash is cemented. A backlash tends to be not directly affiliated to the original crux of the problem but has an identity of its own. For example future protests may erupt elsewhere, albeit the seeds were sown in the chard ruins of Grenfell. No investigation can verify this societal conundrum unless a team of Bertrand Russells' spoke to the right people under a professional environment suited to psychoanalysing. Bureaucrats wouldn't have a clue what that entails. Idiotically, Moore-Bic has negative intention to provide helpful answers per se, he's more concerned to put a lid on it and I'll say a short term oppressive lid to systematically patronise the survivors. To call it provocative is an understatement; of the onus Moore-Bick's quest is to take the heat out of the Grenfell United fury; if you want evidence, I'll give it to you. In September 2017, he relayed his duty was to making criminal inquiries against individuals under the subheading of: 'list of issues.' What I found worrisome was his need to probe into the immediate events of the fire, by Easter 2018.... (Moore-Bick is not a Fire Safety expert) what followed up on March 15th 2018 was a statement from the then Housing Minister and now Home Secretary Sajid Javid.
The statement was from the Met Police Investigation Team not Moore-Bick, (yes he's already breached his own scheduled report timetable) The Met claimed they managed to do a thorough examination of every aspect of the Tower and that inspection tests showed the 'fire doors' couldn't resist the fire for the standard thirty minutes - fifteen minutes was a more accurate timescale. Notably, the Met Police thought the shocking fire hazzard finds should be alerted to the government who inadvertently informed their Expert Panel of Fire Safety Gurus chaired by Sir Ken Knight. Ultimately the panel consulted with representatives from the Met and the government's Chief Scientific Adviser Dr Patrick Vallance who is another newly appointed government official - he's a Professor of Medicine, thus would know about combustible materials you'd thought -- albeit, 'The Fire Safety Experts' concluded the flammable products offered low risk to public safety. Odd analogy to take considering what we witnessed at Grenfell and for the 'Grenfell Action Group' this should be a warning shot of incessant incompetence to come as they move into differing phases of the 'inquiry.' Fundamentally, though this is what's expected when the governance, i.e. Sajid Javid embarks on a new 'Expert Panel' who claim to be independent - again, this isn't the case.
Conveniently, Sir Ken Knight was appointed Chairman of the Independent Expert Advisory Panel at the Ministry of Housing within weeks of the Grenfell Tower inferno. Yes, timely, because Sir Ken Knight signed off building materials in his Directorial role at 'Warrington Certification', which is a private firm that provides safety certificates for corporations to work without further authority checks. Automatically this included high-riser cladding in London, the firms 'Reynobond FR' and 'Bailey Facades Ltd' who provided the flammable building products knew of the combustible nature of the Grenfell Tower refurbishment - thus, Sir Ken Knight consciously overlooked the Health and Safety measures in their entirety when he waved through the Certification particularly for Reynobond FR; now Warrington Certifications ironically have removed the corporation from their recommended building material lists. Understandably this is quite mandatory for Warrington Certification to remove corporations which are allegedly under investigations / or known future ones -- however, you'd have thought the same would apply to personnel who authorised safety certifications; effectively allowing firms to produce flammable cladding for high-risers. Only an innate governance without any social responsibility whatsoever for human life would promote suchlike onto chairing a government advisory panel as a 'fire safety expert.' Stinks of a corporate cover up, and I am not just looking at the Independent Advisory Panel as a whole, but the coincidental timing of their appointments - and it unrivals anything I've paid due to witness on the public stage.
One worryingly prominent mantra stands out for me at Warrington Certification which appears to be at pandemic levels is Simon Cable's peculiar intolerance for red tape. By openly exposing a myopic opinion on bureaucratic fire safety procedures, actually identifies the systematic problem that results in Grenfell. It's not sensible to be so candidly open on the public domain how one conducts a Fire Risk assessment. Another issue I had with 'Fire Assessors' is the willingness to overcome product issues that are identified in safety orientated surveys; this makes me ask the question: does the term 'overcome' equate to meaning turning a blind eye? I'll say that Grenfell is a resulting factor this is the case. I hate to state this but I have little doubt Martin Moore-Bick has zero inclination to verify actuality on the behalf of the survivors of Grenfell, who'll have legal representatives of their own accords, alas have been inhumanly given a restrictive remit by Moore-Bick to not raise issues of the the social economical and political nature. Inadvertently turning the procedure into a clinical one not an all inclusive one. His initial insertion was to allow core participants to collectively monitor the inquiry how they see fit - albeit, this was prior to assumption Moore-Bick was going to publish a report at Easter, it never happened; proof the didn't envisage the corruption behind Grenfell you could surmise. Apparently, Phase One of the inquiry starts on May 21st 2018, determining what started the Tower inferno? Phase Two, in regards to why it occurred; really won't configure... Moore-Bick has already announced: "it'll take place at a time in the future."
For the destitute, who require a permanent home and have lost everything, you're experiencing 'systematic proxy deflection.' Out of two hundred and nine households, only sixty two have been rehoused, eleven months after the Tower inferno. What's transpired since is absolutely no national accountability of the corporate manslaughter that took place that shocking night - there's an ubiquitous echo from the current governance injustice is taking shape, and Sajid Javid stated this on March 15th 2018: "I should stress that in carrying out these tests 'Health and Safety' conclusions should not be drawn about the nature and cause of the Grenfell tragedy, That's a matter for the separate police investigation. It must be allowed to run its course." A harrowing indictment that requires to be extinguished.
To conclude is to subjugate Moore-Bick's public inquiry; on grounds of Corporate Manslaughter -- henceforth, activate CMCHA (2007). Not via occupation or commercially but through the generic cross-corporation / public sector gross breach of duty of care by Warrington Certificate, Reynobond FR, Bailey Facades Ltd, Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea and Her Majesty's Government. Two hundred and nine individual cases will quicken up the procedural hearings remarkably duly of the main aspect a case by case jury will ascertain if the accused failed to comply with UK's Health and Safety Legislation ------- And we all know the answer to that.
Comments
Post a Comment