That's a huge fire

User avatar
FourPart
Posts: 6474
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 3:12 am

That's a huge fire

Post by FourPart »

I just opted to View Post, thinking that Katsung might possibly - just possibly have something reasonable to contribute to the discussion, seeing as this wasn't one of his biazrre Conspiracy Theory threads. I really should have known better. He's on my Ignore list for a very good reason. As already stated, Katsung's vain attempts to make use of the Grenfell disaster in order to validate some tinfoil hat notion is disgraceful & disrespectful in the utmost degree & in my opinion, worthy of a ban.

Grenfell was caused by a faulty fridge, furthered by flammable cladding as a result of cheapskate austerity cutbacks. 9-11 was caused by a bunch of nutjob Islamist Terrorists flying a couple of planes into the side of a couple of massive tower blocks. Of that there is no doubt. They were filmed doing it. Claims of a controlled simultaneous demolition are equally crazy, as it furthers the question, why? Who, in their right mind would think that a couple of Jumbo Jets wouldn't do the job. There is absolutely no relationship between the two incidents. Grenfell remains as a steel shell. It remains upright because it wasn't hit by 2 Jumbo Jets. Why can't conspiracists get that into their tiny little heads?

Furthermore, as stated, I believe by Frankie Boyle, if you want further proof that 9-11 wasn't a conspiracy, remember it happened under the Bush administration - and it worked. The Bush administration was a catalogue of failures.
User avatar
spot
Posts: 39226
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

That's a huge fire

Post by spot »

FourPart;1510717 wrote: I just opted to View Post, thinking that Katsung might possibly - just possibly have something reasonable to contribute to the discussion, seeing as this wasn't one of his biazrre Conspiracy Theory threads. I really should have known better. He's on my Ignore list for a very good reason. As already stated, Katsung's vain attempts to make use of the Grenfell disaster in order to validate some tinfoil hat notion is disgraceful & disrespectful in the utmost degree & in my opinion, worthy of a ban.

Grenfell was caused by a faulty fridge, furthered by flammable cladding as a result of cheapskate austerity cutbacks. 9-11 was caused by a bunch of nutjob Islamist Terrorists flying a couple of planes into the side of a couple of massive tower blocks. Of that there is no doubt. They were filmed doing it. Claims of a controlled simultaneous demolition are equally crazy, as it furthers the question, why? Who, in their right mind would think that a couple of Jumbo Jets wouldn't do the job. There is absolutely no relationship between the two incidents. Grenfell remains as a steel shell. It remains upright because it wasn't hit by 2 Jumbo Jets. Why can't conspiracists get that into their tiny little heads?

Furthermore, as stated, I believe by Frankie Boyle, if you want further proof that 9-11 wasn't a conspiracy, remember it happened under the Bush administration - and it worked. The Bush administration was a catalogue of failures.


For goodness sake, the chap's tried several times to say no plane hit WTC7! How on earth can you fail to grasp his point - the only thing that WTC7 suffered from was a fire.

God's teeth it's hard work on occasion.

Fires don't bring down tower blocks, least of all tower blocks built to US regulations, unless they have WTC7 written on the side. That's his point. That's his only point. Nothing to do with planes. Fire causing building collapse, not possible, is his claim. It's easily disproved, all you need do is go out and find a comparable instance except there isn't one.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
FourPart
Posts: 6474
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 3:12 am

That's a huge fire

Post by FourPart »

So what were those big buzzy things with wings?
User avatar
spot
Posts: 39226
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

That's a huge fire

Post by spot »

They were the planes that hit WTC1 and WTC2.

Have you the slightest clue which buildings collapsed that day, or how many there were?
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
magentaflame
Posts: 2931
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2016 4:11 pm
Location: Victoria, Australia

That's a huge fire

Post by magentaflame »

Almost scared to say ..... there was a third.
The 'radical' left just wants everyone to have food, shelter, healthcare, education and a living wage. Man that's radical!....ooooohhhh Scary!
katsung47
Posts: 736
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2011 6:09 pm

That's a huge fire

Post by katsung47 »

Just reading this in APFN site.

CIA Agent Confesses On Deathbed: ‘We Blew Up WTC7 On 9/11’

July 13, 2017 Baxter Dmitry

79-year-old retired CIA agent, Malcom Howard, has made a series of astonishing claims since being released from hospital in New Jersey on Friday and told he has weeks to live. Mr. Howard claims he was involved in the “controlled demolition” of World Trade Center 7, the third building that was destroyed on 9/11.

Mr. Howard, who worked for the CIA for 36 years as an operative, claims he was tapped by senior CIA agents to work on the project due to his engineering background, and early career in the demolition business.

Trained as a civil engineer, Mr. Howard became an explosives expert after being headhunted by the CIA in early 1980s. Mr. Howard says has extensive experience in planting explosives in items as small as cigarette lighters and as large as “80 floor buildings.”

The 79-year-old New Jersey native says he worked on the CIA operation they dubbed “New Century” between May 1997 and September 2001, during a time he says the CIA “was still taking orders from the top.” Mr. Howard says he was part of a cell of 4 operatives tasked with ensuring the demolition was successful.



Mr. Howard says the World Trade Center 7 operation is unique among his demolitions, as it is the only demolition that “we had to pretend wasn’t a demolition job”. He claims he had no problem going through with the deception at the time, because “when you are a patriot, you don’t question the motivation of the CIA or the White House. You assume the bigger purpose is for a greater good. They pick good, loyal people like me, and it breaks my heart to hear the **** talk.”


CIA Agent Confesses On Deathbed: 'We Blew Up WTC 7 On 9/11'
User avatar
magentaflame
Posts: 2931
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2016 4:11 pm
Location: Victoria, Australia

That's a huge fire

Post by magentaflame »

I think we've touched on this many years ago, about the controlled demolition of WTC7 . It was a necessary demolition. It wasn't a secret. Confusion at the time but it was soon announced that it was deliberate

Grenfell is a fire that shouldn't have been so devastating. lack of sprinklers, wrong building materials....etc.

Heads should certainly roll.
The 'radical' left just wants everyone to have food, shelter, healthcare, education and a living wage. Man that's radical!....ooooohhhh Scary!
User avatar
spot
Posts: 39226
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

That's a huge fire

Post by spot »

magentaflame;1510933 wrote: I think we've touched on this many years ago, about the controlled demolition of WTC7 . It was a necessary demolition. It wasn't a secret. Confusion at the time but it was soon announced that it was deliberate
I'll ask a silly question then. Do you think there's time between the attacks and WTC7 falling for controlled demolition charges to have been placed? I would have thought it takes days to set up such a demolition, especially in a building that's on fire while the charges are being placed. Perhaps you know a URL which describes the "soon announced that it was deliberate" part, I've never seen one and I'd be very interested.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
magentaflame
Posts: 2931
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2016 4:11 pm
Location: Victoria, Australia

That's a huge fire

Post by magentaflame »

I stayed glued to the TV for a couple of days when they did it. It was mentioned then explained. It seemed perfectly reasonable to me to clear the surrounding area. A four story building was also demolished.

The popping on the buildings also seems reasonable to me. (remember there is footage of the floors popping? ) Large buildings can make a hell of a mess, contingency plans were put in place to destroy the buildings. People find it unnerving that the buildings they work in have 'added' safety ....lets call them 'capabilities'.

How they did it...we know

when they did ...we know.

Why they did it... could be guessed at for the rest of time itself, and I'll leave that to the conspiracy people, and the engineers at the time.
The 'radical' left just wants everyone to have food, shelter, healthcare, education and a living wage. Man that's radical!....ooooohhhh Scary!
User avatar
spot
Posts: 39226
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

That's a huge fire

Post by spot »

So you think WTC7 had demolition charges in place before the attack? I'm only asking in order to clarify what I think you just wrote.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
magentaflame
Posts: 2931
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2016 4:11 pm
Location: Victoria, Australia

That's a huge fire

Post by magentaflame »

I'm not sure 7 wasn't a tall building...... I just know (from the sources at the time) it had to come down.
The 'radical' left just wants everyone to have food, shelter, healthcare, education and a living wage. Man that's radical!....ooooohhhh Scary!
User avatar
magentaflame
Posts: 2931
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2016 4:11 pm
Location: Victoria, Australia

That's a huge fire

Post by magentaflame »

FourPart;1510720 wrote: So what were those big buzzy things with wings?




*hand shoots up "MISS! MISS!" ..............*

A PLANE A PLANE!

(this man talks my language)
The 'radical' left just wants everyone to have food, shelter, healthcare, education and a living wage. Man that's radical!....ooooohhhh Scary!
User avatar
magentaflame
Posts: 2931
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2016 4:11 pm
Location: Victoria, Australia

That's a huge fire

Post by magentaflame »

Just watched footage. Yes I think it did. And probably many others have too.

I'm only guessing here, but if a major catastrophic event happened In New York ( and i don't mean this particular event) How would they get all the buildings down? I'm guessing other major, densely populated cities have the same strategy.
The 'radical' left just wants everyone to have food, shelter, healthcare, education and a living wage. Man that's radical!....ooooohhhh Scary!
User avatar
spot
Posts: 39226
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

That's a huge fire

Post by spot »

magentaflame;1510948 wrote: I'm not sure 7 wasn't a tall building......


The original 7 World Trade Center was 47 stories tall. I've never been in a building even half that height and I worked ten years in the City of London.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
spot
Posts: 39226
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

That's a huge fire

Post by spot »

spot;1510178 wrote: I jotted a few numbers on a scrap of paper, I reckon that building had 50 tons of styrofoam wrapped around it with air-gaps to stay dry, all of which went up in flames.


Not a bad estimate on the day of the fire, that.

Energy emitted from the cladding and insulation would have been equivalent to burning 51 tonnes of pinewood, University of Leeds research suggests.

The cladding's plastic core would have burned "as quickly as petrol", it said.

Grenfell cladding '14 times combustibility limit' - BBC News

Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
Clodhopper
Posts: 5115
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm

That's a huge fire

Post by Clodhopper »

Even if you want to defend the official story, clean your mind first to read my words.


Clean my mind to read your stuff? I'd have to be completely brainwashed to believe any of it.

It's about WTC 7. Was there a Jumbo jet hit WTC 7?


Then explain what the hell you are talking about. Actually, don't bother because I won't waste time reading it.
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"

Lone voice: "I'm not."
Clodhopper
Posts: 5115
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm

That's a huge fire

Post by Clodhopper »

Been a struggle to find some good news but if you look at the small print I have!



Another survivor told the chamber he had been living in a hotel room since the fire, with just one double bed between him, his wife and three children.

He said that the residents' main problem was a lack of action.

"I was forgotten about," he added.

"You know who has done something for us? The residents of North Kensington. Our community. Our neighbours."


(my bold)

from Grenfell Tower fire: New council leader heckled by public - BBC News
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"

Lone voice: "I'm not."
User avatar
spot
Posts: 39226
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

That's a huge fire

Post by spot »

I'll drop this here for want of a better thread. Conservative twattery, the sort of thing one would expect.

Bussetti is the co-owner of an £8 million apartment building in Clapham and is believed to have inherited a fortune from his father who was murdered in 2002.

He is also one of three people suspended from South Norwood Conservative Club over the incident.

Dressed smartly in a black suit with a white shirt, Bussetti only spoke to confirm his name, address and pleas of not guilty.

“It is not in dispute that Mr Bussetti sent the footage of the video to two groups within the WhatsApp group chat, one with six or eight people and the other with 14 or 15”, said Mr Wang, explaining that people in the groups Bussetti shared the video with would be called as witnesses in arguing whether Bussetti had caused offence.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... urt-london and other places, I imagine.




There you are. Conservative club. It's what they do. "Grotesquely offensive" would be a perfectly good motto for the whole pack of them. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... ENDED.html has a few photos.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
magentaflame
Posts: 2931
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2016 4:11 pm
Location: Victoria, Australia

That's a huge fire

Post by magentaflame »

I don't understand????? These people owned the building that caught fire or something else entirely?
The 'radical' left just wants everyone to have food, shelter, healthcare, education and a living wage. Man that's radical!....ooooohhhh Scary!
User avatar
spot
Posts: 39226
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

That's a huge fire

Post by spot »

magentaflame;1524165 wrote: I don't understand????? These people owned the building that caught fire or something else entirely?


No, they went to a bonfire party. Someone at the party had made a four-foot model in cardboard of a social housing council-owned building, Grenfell Tower, which burned out two years ago killing 70-some tenants. There were paper cut-outs of immigrants at the windows of the model. The party-goers put the model on the fire and howled racist abuse as it burned.

They were Conservatives, it was a social event of the South Norwood Conservative Club and these pricks were letting off steam thinking nobody would see them in their natural habitat doing what Conservatives do. One of them, a local millionaire landlord, thought it was so funny that he filmed it on his phone and sent the imagery to a dozen mates. From there the footage escaped to the wider public. That's why they're in court answering a hate crime charge. I don't think the KKK would have managed anything as vile.

The trick is never to forget that these people are actually like this.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
magentaflame
Posts: 2931
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2016 4:11 pm
Location: Victoria, Australia

That's a huge fire

Post by magentaflame »

OH I see. I thought it was the people who owned the building doing this...so just some rich plebs. fair enough. I didn't realise you could end up in court for that.
The 'radical' left just wants everyone to have food, shelter, healthcare, education and a living wage. Man that's radical!....ooooohhhh Scary!
User avatar
spot
Posts: 39226
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

That's a huge fire

Post by spot »

magentaflame;1524219 wrote: OH I see. I thought it was the people who owned the building doing this...so just some rich plebs. fair enough. I didn't realise you could end up in court for that.


I'm not sure the attendees are going to be found guilty but they're never going to live down the disgust. I'll post all their names later just so Google gets another bite at them.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
spot
Posts: 39226
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

That's a huge fire

Post by spot »

Here you are, this chap is another of the same.

“This is a man who funded Brexit lies, lives a life of excess and chooses to wish an accident on Greta Thunberg. It’s an absolute disgrace, his tweet should be reported as a hate crime.” She said Banks should have “opened his wallet and offered to pay for the journey for Greta. The sewer he chooses to swim in is not one which we should have to expose our children to.”

Prof Tanja Bueltmann, founder of campaign group EU Citizens’ Champion, said Banks had “invoked the drowning of a child” for his own amusement.

“Verbal attacks on Greta Thunberg have been coming from many different people for quite some time. Their common characteristic? Most of them are white middle-aged men from the right of the political spectrum.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... -accidents

Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
G#Gill
Posts: 14736
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 1:09 pm

That's a huge fire

Post by G#Gill »

What an idiot. He thinks he's so clever with such words, but he has just caused himself to be ridiculed by every right-thinking human being who has learnt about this ignorant man's efforts to belittle a young girl in her efforts to draw attention to this earth's impending destruction! She wasn't even born when Greenpeace warned the world of the terrible plight that is about to strike us all !

Perhaps, if 40 years ago, people had taken notice of what Greenpeace were warning us about and started to reduce the need for fossil fuels and develop wave power, solar power, wind power, and rejected the potential of devastation by nuclear power, we would not be in the perilous position that we find ourselves in now !

Why do some overweight, self opinionated fools try to sarcastically disparage the honest efforts of children who seem to have more common sense and more nouse than many so-called world leaders. Is it because they really don't care, and is it because it will not actually affect the older generation because they will be dead anyway when the world degenerates into a lifeless mass. Whereas children will have to try to survive in such conditions, not those overweight, self-opinionated brainless idiots.

Banks has done himself no good with his big ignorant mouth. Perhaps now is the time for the idiot to crawl back into the sewage hole that he crawled out of.
I'm a Saga-lout, growing old disgracefully
User avatar
spot
Posts: 39226
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

That's a huge fire

Post by spot »

The case collapsed. One wonders why the CPS isn't replaced by an unpaid volunteer panel from the local back-to-work scheme coordinator, which might do a far better job and add lustre to the volunteers' CVs.

Mr Bussetti has been discharged a free man.

Bussetti, from South Norwood, south-east London, had used terms including “Paki” and the N-word in WhatsApp chats and forwarded racist content, the court heard, but said he was not a racist.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... roup-video




He's a lying scoundrel then, if that's what he claims, but he wasn't on trial for being a racist.

The country is in his debt for peeling back the veneer surrounding South Norwood's unpalatable rogues. I hope he continues to post material of a similar nature.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
spot
Posts: 39226
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

That's a huge fire

Post by spot »

The inquiry, which examined what happened on the night of 14 June 2017, concluded that "many more lives" could have been saved if the advice to residents to "stay put" had been abandoned earlier than 02:35 BST.

It said London Fire Brigade's preparations for such a fire were "gravely inadequate".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50230188




I have yet to read the report on the Grenfell Fire but the idea that the London Fire Brigade's commissioner Dany Cotton "said the inquiry had no expert evidence to support its conclusion about evacuating the tower" is scandalous. Those who did leave despite being told by fire officers to stay did not die, and those in contrast who stayed were among the dead. If the commissioner can't bring herself to stand down after this report then she should never have been appointed.

I think the reverse case ought to be asked. Why was the official advice to stay in the first place? If the immediate advice had been to evacuate, nobody at all would have died. I do not understand why the advice was the way it was, or who benefited from the advice. Why was the standing rule to remain? Was there ever a fire where the casualties were those who evacuated, while those who stayed put were the survivors? My impression is that the policy of instructing people to stay in their flats was simply to keep civilians from being in the way of the firefighters, in which case it was not necessarily a lifesaving approach. The LFB should be invited to justify the policy.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
spot
Posts: 39226
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

That's a huge fire

Post by spot »

The Leader of the House has been criticized for saying the same thing. I have no idea why.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-50302573

"The advice is designed to prevent hundreds of people descending stairs while firefighters are coming up during a contained fire", apparently. That's exactly why it was such disgraceful advice, in my opinion. I suggest that all those lives were lost in order to make the work of the brigade less problematic, and that the advice should be changed in future.

Nobody from the brigade seems able to say that anyone immediately trying to leave the building on hearing about the fire came to harm as a consequence, or caused anyone else to die as a consequence. If they can't say that, they ought to accept their policy of convenience clearly kills people.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

That's a huge fire

Post by gmc »

spot;1527187 wrote: The Leader of the House has been criticized for saying the same thing. I have no idea why.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-50302573

"The advice is designed to prevent hundreds of people descending stairs while firefighters are coming up during a contained fire", apparently. That's exactly why it was such disgraceful advice, in my opinion. I suggest that all those lives were lost in order to make the work of the brigade less problematic, and that the advice should be changed in future.

Nobody from the brigade seems able to say that anyone immediately trying to leave the building on hearing about the fire came to harm as a consequence, or caused anyone else to die as a consequence. If they can't say that, they ought to accept their policy of convenience clearly kills people.


Apart from getting in the way of firefighters on the stairways each flat is a concrete box that is fire resistant staying put would normally have been the safer option. What was the problem is the cladding that no one at the scene realised was going toact as a chimney drawing the fire up and in to the building. This is diverting attention from the real issue of inadequate checking by the building inspectors and the lossening of building controls by tory governments. when the cladding was put in place or the fact that many building have not yet had the cladding replaced. It 's atory council that post fire did little to help the residents. Jacob rees mogg is an idiot.

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/06/c ... fell-fire/

"Social housing magazine Inside Housing has carried out an extensive investigation into why the government failed to learn the lessons of the Lakanal fire, which made the spread of the flames at Grenfell more likely. It points out that in 2010, David Cameron announced a ‘one in, one out’ policy for regulations, which was designed to lower the cost of building homes. Even when campaigners pointed out that buildings were now being clad in highly combustible materials, the response from ministers was allegedly that a fire ‘hasn’t happened yet’." Note the date.
User avatar
spot
Posts: 39226
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

That's a huge fire

Post by spot »

So one needs to ask the question if one finds there's a fire while being in a high-rise. Does one feel lucky, in which case stay in the safe room.

No thank you, not even if I'm told the regulations have been conformed to. I'll leave immediately.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
spot
Posts: 39226
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

That's a huge fire

Post by spot »

This is the Bolton student accommodation fire aftermath. Nobody died, because everyone evacuated immediately.

The 2017 review said safe as houses, not the same cladding as Grenfell, nobody need worry. On the other hand the outside was uncontrollably ablaze in the news clips.

The government has been accused of downplaying the fire risk posed by the type of cladding that burned ferociously on a Bolton student housing block on Friday – and of refusing help to worried residents of other affected buildings.

Officials were dismissing pleas for the removal of high-pressure laminate panels similar to those used at the Cube in Bolton as recently as a fortnight ago, the Guardian has learned.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... ng-lottery




The photo looks as though a tin shack in Kampala had burned, not student accommodation in England. What did they build that place from? Scrap metal and a shiny coat of top-paint over chipboard?




Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
spot
Posts: 39226
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

That's a huge fire

Post by spot »

spot;1526922 wrote: I have yet to read the report on the Grenfell Fire but the idea that the London Fire Brigade's commissioner Dany Cotton "said the inquiry had no expert evidence to support its conclusion about evacuating the tower" is scandalous. Those who did leave despite being told by fire officers to stay did not die, and those in contrast who stayed were among the dead. If the commissioner can't bring herself to stand down after this report then she should never have been appointed.


London's first female fire commissioner says she will quit at the end of the year - four months earlier than previously planned.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-50686015




Quite right too. A personal apology about "the inquiry had no expert evidence to support its conclusion about evacuating the tower" wouldn't go amiss either.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
spot
Posts: 39226
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Re: That's a huge fire

Post by spot »

spot wrote: Thu Aug 22, 2019 11:00 am The case collapsed. One wonders why the CPS isn't replaced by an unpaid volunteer panel from the local back-to-work scheme coordinator, which might do a far better job and add lustre to the volunteers' CVs.

Mr Bussetti has been discharged a free man.

Bussetti, from South Norwood, south-east London, had used terms including "Paki" and the N-word in WhatsApp chats and forwarded racist content, the court heard, but said he was not a racist.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... roup-video

He's a lying scoundrel then, if that's what he claims, but he wasn't on trial for being a racist.

The country is in his debt for peeling back the veneer surrounding South Norwood's unpalatable rogues. I hope he continues to post material of a similar nature.



And, surprisingly but as a very welcome move, the case is now back in court after a successful appeal. Whatever Masonic handshake Mr Bussetti exchanged within the first court has been splatted on, and Mr Bussetti may yet get his just deserts.
The prosecution at the original trial argued the footage, in which cardboard figures burned as the model went up in flames, was racist in showing black and brown characters representing victims of the Grenfell Tower blaze, which killed 72 people in 2017.

Bussetti said the characters were images of his associates, including a black-clad figure meant to represent a friend who did martial arts and had been referred to as “little ninja”.

Near the end of the trial, Bussetti’s lawyers said a second video of the bonfire existed of which they were not previously aware, meaning there was no way to know which footage had been uploaded to YouTube and gone viral.

The then chief magistrate, Emma Arbuthnot, who is now a high court judge, said she could not be sure he had filmed the video that was widely seen – including by some directly affected by the tragedy.

However, in his ruling ordering a retrial, Lord Justice Bean said the trial judge should have found that the two videos of the bonfire were similar.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... es-retrial


Mr Bussetti is an entitled Conservative millionaire.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!

Return to “Current Events”