Couldn't find any threads on search so https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-44824102 actions like this give no help to the genuine victims of the tragedy.

Poundworld set to close 80 stores

Whoops!

Stinky linky!

Found the correct link now and edited post.

There not the first 2, and they won't be the last 2.

And yet those who knew the cladding was defective will walk away, even though they should be prosecuted for manslaughter!

Some people have no shame. Two horrible people.

Why on earth are we jailing these b@stards instead of deporting them ?

What on earth is wrong with this country, for crying out loud ?

They have cost us enough as it is.

You think they should have been allowed to walk free after committing a crime like that?

Elaine's quite the looker.

Bordeauxclaret wrote:You think they should have been allowed to walk free after committing a crime like that?

Narr, let's give them free board and lodgings for 3 years or so, and then look after them when they are released. It's the least they deserve.

What was I thinking ?

duncandisorderly wrote:Elaine's quite the looker.

Good deterrent that. Commit fraud, steal a load of money but go and walk free in another country.

Bordeauxclaret wrote:Good deterrent that. Commit fraud, steal a load of money but go and walk free in another country.

They've probably already done that one, in their long careers.

I admit that there is more than one way of looking at this, but I think they have cost the state enough already.
The money has gone, never to be retrieved most likely, so why compound it by costing us more ?

i can also see the counter argument, but I'm sticking with mine to get shut of them.

Where do we draw the line on just kicking people out like that rather than punishing them?

For instance this dick from Nelson who got 25 years yesterday. I’ve no idea where the moron was from originally but for arguments sake let’s pretend he’s from the same place as these two.
Should we just be deporting people like that rather than punishing them with a long prison sentence?
Save us a lot of money won’t it?

Bordeauxclaret wrote:Where do we draw the line on just kicking people out like that rather than punishing them?

For instance this dick from Nelson who got 25 years yesterday. I’ve no idea where the moron was from originally but for arguments sake let’s pretend he’s from the same place as these two.
Should we just be deporting people like that rather than punishing them with a long prison sentence?
Save us a lot of money won’t it?

Honestly yes.


That why not only do we not have to pay the cost of imprisonment, but there will also be no risk of him radicalising others in prison.

This country would be a lot better place if our prisons were just full of honest English criminals.

They can't go to jail**

This might be an elaborate plot to put two trained killers* into the system, where they can then get to St Tommy.

*immigrants, but hey, its the same thing isn't it?

**just in case one of you numb ***** don't get this is a joke, jail and then deportation is of course the correct way to do this.

ClaretMoffitt wrote:Honestly yes.


That why not only do we not have to pay the cost of imprisonment, but there will also be no risk of him radicalising others in prison.

It’d be an interesting strategy. I wouldn’t want to be the government minister who rolls it out.
Anyone who’s not originally from our country can do literally whatever they want but if we catch you the punishment will be we’ll send you on a plane home.

Can’t see it being a huge vote winner myself.

The lavish gifts handed out to these two pathetic spongers should be paid back from the personal assets of the deluded idiots who sanctioned them.
Also I thought the Grenfell action group keep claiming the state have ignored them and treated them harshly. I'd love a pre paid credit card and months in a top hotel courtesy of the government.
Won't happen as I am a working class cash cow.

I can't get over that some people think that illegal immigrants, who commit crimes here in the UK, that are punishable by imprisonment, should be deported and not jailed. That would be a ''get out of jail free' card. Basically, you would be giving some people a free pass to do whatever criminality they wanted. The law applies to everyone.

bfcjg wrote:Also I thought the Grenfell action group keep claiming the state have ignored them and treated them harshly. I'd love a pre paid credit card and months in a top hotel courtesy of the government.

So you think it's ok to lose everything, your home, possessions etc and others burning to death?

Remember, the cladding wasn't up to standard etc.? Wonder why that was? But it's obvious why - money.

The comparative rage from some people about a govts sheer negligence resulting in the region of 70 innocent deaths and two immigrants committing fraud is astounding but not surprising for this board

As for the idea to just deport criminals and not give them any punishment or deterrent is one of the most ridiculous things ive heard on here and that is really saying something

He's just saying that cos he's trying to be the biggest dickhead on the thread.

Don't sweat it, someone will be along in a minute to say something even more offensive.

Just point it out, and laugh at them.

Bordeauxclaret wrote:Where do we draw the line on just kicking people out like that rather than punishing them?

For instance this dick from Nelson who got 25 years yesterday. I’ve no idea where the moron was from originally but for arguments sake let’s pretend he’s from the same place as these two.
Should we just be deporting people like that rather than punishing them with a long prison sentence?
Save us a lot of money won’t it?

It won’t cost a lot to send that dick from Nelson home to where he was born, it was in Lancashire...

But I do understand your frustrations, however people who commit a crime need to be punished according to our laws. We can’t pick and choose which laws apply in different scenarios - you made the mistake of wanting to send someone born in England back to their own country - based on what exactly? It’s our laws and punishments that make our society what it is and also what makes it appealing to those from abroad in the first place. Some of us don’t realise the Liberty we have here.

Spijed wrote:So you think it's ok to lose everything, your home, possessions etc and others burning to death?

Remember, the cladding wasn't up to standard etc.? Wonder why that was? But it's obvious why - money.

Where did i say it was acceptable to be burnt to death lose your possessions etc ?
Where did i say the cladding was perfectly safe ?
The point is vermin jump on the bandwagon taxpayers cash given out without due diligence. That cash could and should have gone to real victims.
The problem being the left wing liberal brigade straight away pressurise the state to take action or they are deemed racist uncaring etc etc.
But like you actually.

Might have been an idea to check their story out before they gave them all that money and a free hotel.

Stan Tastic wrote:Might have been an idea to check their story out before they gave them all that money and a free hotel.

Probably Lancaster and his sort on the dishing out other peoples money panel.

Seems the flat they claimed to live in was not even on the same level they said it was and it took a year to realise .

Who checked their story out Diane Abbott.

They were illegal immigrants as well and had been for 16 years.

Rick_Muller wrote:It won’t cost a lot to send that dick from Nelson home to where he was born, it was in Lancashire...

But I do understand your frustrations, however people who commit a crime need to be punished according to our laws. We can’t pick and choose which laws apply in different scenarios - you made the mistake of wanting to send someone born in England back to their own country - based on what exactly? It’s our laws and punishments that make our society what it is and also what makes it appealing to those from abroad in the first place. Some of us don’t realise the Liberty we have here.

I’m not sure what mistake you think I’m making. I’ve said the same as you.

Probably Lancaster and his sort on the dishing out other peoples money panel.

Not at all, I'd check their story out, but after giving them food, clothes and somewhere to live.

And then if it didn't check out, I'd exactly what has been done by the government - put them on trial, put them in jail and then deport them.

Cos I'm not a ****.

Usual incompetence from people in power.

Few years in jail and throw the fraudsters out the country afterwards.
That will do nicely.

People in power who failed to do the required checks also need sacking for gross incompetence.

Thats like saying "Brexit means Brexit" and then getting annoyed when it turns out its a bit more complicated than that.

Illegal immigrants need to be deported

Refugees need to be kept track of until either the status in their home country improves (or they are found to be claiming to be refugees when they are not) or they are allowed to settle here

We need to stop blaming everybody else for the cuts

The people who built and made sure Grenfell tower was a death trap need to be arrested and jailed, but only after due process of the law

Think that covers it all, and I don't think I'm being unreasonable.

Lancasterclaret wrote:The people who built and made sure Grenfell tower was a death trap need to be arrested and jailed, but only after due process of the law.

Do we even know whether any laws were broken in the construction or re-cladding of Grenfell Tower?

Nope, but that is why you have inquires and follow the due process of law

Its more a point that you can't just go "Oh, he might be an illegal immigrant, lets not give him food and lodging because he MIGHT be" and have to follow procedures, the first being is that they are human beings and deserve treating as such.

Some posters on here forget that, or think they are not the same sort of human beings as they are.

Im not sure the police broke any laws at Hillsbrough but it doesn't stop them being legally culpable for the deaths of the people they were paid to have a duty of care over

Lancasterclaret wrote:Nope, but that is why you have inquires and follow the due process of law

Its more a point that you can't just go "Oh, he might be an illegal immigrant, lets not give him food and lodging because he MIGHT be" and have to follow procedures, the first being is that they are human beings and deserve treating as such.

Some posters on here forget that, or think they are not the same sort of human beings as they are.

Oh, I totally agree. Just pointing out that there’s a very good chance that no laws were broken during the construction and re-clad of the building. More than likely a set of weak regulations, bad decisions and incompetence by the collective parties involved.

Devils_Advocate wrote:Im not sure the police broke any laws at Hillsbrough but it doesn't stop them being legally culpable for the deaths of the people they were paid to have a duty of care over

True, although I think it’s likely that none of the design/construction team will have any legal culpability and any blame may sit with those in the local authority who seemingly ignored the concerns raised by residents.

Rileybobs wrote:True, although I think it’s likely that none of the design/construction team will have any legal culpability and any blame may sit with those in the local authority who seemingly ignored the concerns raised by residents.

Sorry your discussion with LC was around the construction company whereas im more thinking of the govt and local authorities so dont disagree with you

Lancasterclaret wrote:...need to be arrested and jailed, but only after due process of the law

Doesn't sound like you're waiting for due process to be honest.

Worth mentioning btw that the converted mill next to where I live has

- sprinkler system
- four fire escapes

And it has about the same amount of people living in it*

*not illegal immigrants. I mean they are white, how could they be? **

**see what I did there

Devils_Advocate wrote:Sorry your discussion with LC was around the construction company whereas im more thinking of the govt and local authorities so dont disagree with you

No probs. It will be interesting to see where, if anywhere, the buck stops. For example, is someone in the LA to blame if the building adhered to current Building Regulations when built and re-clad? The residents’ concerns were clearly valid but if the regulations were met then I find it hard to see how someone can be held accountable.

Sorry thatdberight, but someone is responsible for this.

It could be anyone at the moment, which is why we are having an enquiry.

There is that rileybobs, but someone, somwhere has made a mistake that has cost all those lives, and just like Hillsborough, when it all comes out someone will have to stand trial.

In a perverse sort of way you've got to hand them some sort of credit duping the authorities for so long, more front than Blackpool. Nevertheless deserve the book getting thrown at them & possible deportation depending on they status.

Lancasterclaret wrote:Worth mentioning btw that the converted mill next to where I live has

- sprinkler system
- four fire escapes

And it has about the same amount of people living in it*

*not illegal immigrants. I mean they are white, how could they be? **

**see what I did there

Yes, a recent conversion will have to meet current Building Regulations - Grenfell Tower was built in the early 70’s when such regulations were much slacker. Re-cladding a building requires certain standards to be met but it doesn’t require the entire building to perform as it would if being built from scratch, or in your case converted with a change of use.

I read down this thread wondering how long it would take before someone mentioned Brexit.
34 comments. Not bad

I have to admit the day after when I found out that it had no sprinklers and one fire escape my thought was "WHAT? That is legal?"

Context Damo, Context!

Lancasterclaret wrote:I have to admit the day after when I found out that it had no sprinklers and one fire escape my thought was "WHAT? That is legal?"

Until recently I owned an apartment in Leeds which classified as a new-build but was a complete gutting and conversion of a block of council flats. They only retained the concrete frame. I was on the top floor and only had one means of escape. The idea being that in the event of a fire I would stay put and the 60 minute fire protection surrounding the flat would give adequate time for the fire brigade to rescue me.

It’s fairly common. You only need two means of escape if the travel distance to a fire-protected lobby is above a certain distance.