GRENFELL ANNIVERSARY – RIDE FOR GRENFELL

Image | Posted on by | Tagged , , ,

GREEN FOR GRENFELL DAY

 

Please Support the Green for Grenfell Illuminations to “shine a light” of love and solidarity by illuminating the TWELVE tower blocks closest to Grenfell Tower between 14th-17th June 2018.

https://www.gofundme.com/green-for-grenfell-illuminations

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , ,

O’HAGAN AND HIS IVORY TOWER

There have been rumblings of disquiet and discontent recently among those affected by the Grenfell fire disaster concerning a lengthy essay, ‘The Tower’, published in the London Review of Books by Andrew O’Hagan, one of the glitterati of the UK literary scene. Melanie Coles, a local woman who consented to be interviewed for O’Hagan’s essay was appalled when the essay was published to see how her input, and that of others, was misrepresented, and how inaccurate much of the essay was, so she complained to the London Review of Books. She has now given her consent to have her letter of complaint reproduced as a blog by the Grenfell Action Group. Read On!

I wish to complain about the article ”The Tower” and the author (Andrew O’Hagan), published in the London Review of Books for a number of reasons, based on the IPSO Editors Code of Practice, regarding the content of the article itself; a (video) image that was used without consent sought for it to be used in this way; about the information given by the author regarding their intentions for this piece, and the author’s failure to be sensitive when dealing with a case involving grief or shock.

The article in question is littered with inaccuracies, including even spelling mistakes of people’s names, although these pale in comparison to the level of inaccuracy in recounting events. I hope that others will respond with their complaints, as I cannot comment on their behalf. I shall only be commenting here on my own small contribution to the article and my own feelings regarding this.

I live in the community local to Grenfell Tower, and personally knew a number of people who died in the fire. I am a teacher, and some of them were children I taught. We are a community saturated with grief and trauma, many of us nowhere near something that could be seen as recovery. Andrew O’Hagan’s article contains much that could be seen as damaging to the credibility of our community, at a time it is essential our voices are heard, through the public enquiry which has just started. The content is also highly distressing reading for people who are directly affected, and for some of them offensive, due to the inaccuracies it contains.

I was approached by a researcher on Andrew O’Hagan’s behalf, around October 2017, who talked to me about the intentions of the author with regards to a book he was writing. I agreed to an interview, which was recorded with my understanding that this was for the purpose of transcripts only. I also met with Mr O’Hagan, who gave me various assurances, the most important being that the book was going to be about the lives of the people who died in the Tower, not about their deaths. It was to be a sensitive and respectful tribute, exploring what life was like in the Tower and the local area prior to the fire. I was told that there might be some commentary on the background of social injustice in the area, and problems with housing. I was assured that the author and his team were attempting to contact families and friends of people who lived and died in the tower, and that people were not being unnecessarily pressured, but that the author wanted to ensure that everyone who might want to contribute had been offered the opportunity. I was told that if people did not want to contribute their wishes would be respected. I was assured that truth and accuracy were of the utmost priority. I felt reassured by the fact that at least two people who live locally were on the author’s team.

I was sent a message by the author, via a text message from one of his researchers. This included references to some of his earlier works, and reviews, ending with these words:

“My Wikipedia entry, though not written by me, is pretty accurate in summing up my attempt to get at the truth of British society. My career has given me a megaphone, and I want to make sure I can speak into it of the right subjects and that I channel the true voices. The right wing press hate me and I can’t sell myself any better than that. I know it must be odd to meet a stranger, a well-known writer, to turn up and say he wants to get it all down right. But I do and I will. And I’m asking the community to help me as only they can, to defy years of prejudice and censorship and corruption in local and national government, and let me tell the truth of Grenfell going back years.”

I was also assured verbally that before the book came out, relatives of the deceased who had contributed would be approached to ensure they were happy with the content. I have no idea if this has happened in the case of this article, and I did not know there would be a preceding article in the London Review of Books.

I think it is important to note that I was not consulted by the researchers or author on my own experience of being a resident of Kensington and Chelsea all my life, or my experiences or opinions with regards to the local council. Yet I see the author spent a significant amount of time with Rock Feilding-Mellen’s family and other council figures. If the researchers were collecting information from bereaved local people only with regards to the lives of the people lost, and not asking them directly about their experiences of the council, then speaking in detail with figures in local government, then the account cannot be a balanced perspective, as the information on the issues of local government have only been explored on one side. And that is the side the author appears to strongly favour.

Towards the end of the first chapter of the article (I only have access to the online version so cannot give page numbers) there is a video of me speaking, with the caption “Melanie Coles describes Fethia Hassan’s last day.” I did not give my consent for the video to be posted publicly. I was assured that the purpose of recording me was solely for the purpose of making transcripts, so that the interviewer did not have to make notes as we spoke. The act of posting this video is dishonest. I feel I was not just misled, but lied to. I do not want this video of me posted online so publicly, and I want it removed immediately.

In a section of the text in the article, in the first chapter, the day before the fire started is described. There is a reference to Fethia’s teacher (myself) recounting a memory of that day and Fethia being upset about losing a white flower from her shoe. Apart from this being a simplistic summary of my account, the article states: “It would be there the next day. ‘Fethia gets herself all churned up about such things, but it will all be fine’, her teacher said to herself as she closed her classroom for the day and made her way home.”
I do not know how much poetic licence is “allowed” in an account like this, but to me, if you put something in quotation marks, this implies that is what the person actually said, or at least said that they thought (as I apparently said this to myself). I did not say “Fethia gets herself all churned up about such things”, nor did I say that I thought it. I do not think I have ever used the term “churned up” about anything. It seems like a minor thing, but if a small detail like this is fictionalised, how can we the readers (especially the wider public) feel sure that other, more significant apparent quotes by the people referred to, are not also fictionalised. And many of these quotes may be far from trivial details (there is a criminal investigation and public enquiry going on). This author is being irresponsible. Also, the effect created when quotes are used (I think) gives a powerful impression of having an insight into that persons character. So it needs to be accurate.

In addition, a little earlier in the article it is stated “…Rania at the Maxilla Children’s Centre, a nursery their children attended. Melanie Coles, one of the workers there, remembers…” This is another inaccuracy. Maxilla Children’s Centre, which I did work at, closed years ago. Fethia never attended there. She attended Golborne and Maxilla Children’s Centre, where I taught her at the time of her death. This may seem unimportant, but someone aware of local history, background and politics should be very aware of the significance of the difference between Maxilla, and Golborne and Maxilla. Either research has not been thorough enough, or the author has been careless, because any local resident would immediately notice and recognise the significance of this flaw.

Is this piece of writing to be perceived as fictional or factual? Of course it must be factual, these are real events, and highly sensitive ones, emotions are still raw, people are still traumatised, this has had a massive impact on our lives. I think that the fictionalisation of words, and events, is highly morally questionable, especially given the timing of the piece. If a small detail is questionable, what else in here can be relied upon? And yet the whole article works towards giving itself an air of credibility which it cannot deserve.

Mr O’Hagan has reached various conclusions, interpretations based on his “research”, which I feel are presented as factual when they are opinions. I personally do not agree with his conclusions. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but it must be presented as opinion, not as authoritative when it is not. I originally consented to my words being used by Andrew O’Hagan based on a very different premise, he stated his intentions to me and he has clearly been dishonest. I want my contribution to his work withdrawn, and I want the video of me taken offline. I do not want my name associated with his work, now or in future, unless this is in relation to my objection to it.

I would like an apology from the author, for myself and more importantly for the Grenfell community, and a statement from him explaining his actions to the people who feel he has let them down.

I would be happy for any of my comments here to be published, although I would require my consent being sought beforehand, with the assurance that my comments will not be presented out of context.

Yours faithfully,

Melanie Coles

An attempt was made by Ms Coles to lodge the above complaint with the Independent Press Standards Association (IPSO) but the London Review of books appears not to be registered on their website. She has emailed IPSO to query this and has sent her complaint directly to the London Review of Books, of which Mr O’Hagan is an ‘editor at large’.

MUST READ BREAKING NEWS:-

O’HAGAN’S IVORY TOWER CRUMBLES BEFORE OUR EYES!

“Exclusive: London Review of Books used quotes without consent in Grenfell article, interviewee claims”
http://talkradio.co.uk/news/exclusive-london-review-books-used-quotes-without-consent-grenfell-article-interviewee-claims

“Sympathy for the Council: Some comments on Andrew O’Hagan’s Grenfell Tower article”
https://libcom.org/blog/sympathy-council-some-comments-andrew-ohagans-grenfell-tower-article-04062018

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , ,

FUEL POVERTY ACTION – BILL OF RIGHTS

https://www.fuelpovertyaction.org.uk/energy-bill-of-rights-2/

Email: fuelpovertyaction@gmail.com
Twitter: @fuelpovaction
Facebook.com/ fuelpovertyaction

Fuel Poverty Action Bill Of Rights.pdf

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , ,

Fuel Poverty Action – Letter To The Secretary of State

Below is a letter sent on 17th May by Fuel Poverty Action to the Secretary of State at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, immediately after the government’s announcement that they would “fully fund” replacement of flammable cladding on social housing tower blocks. They estimated the cost at £400 million. FPA believe this breakthrough is largely the result of pressure from grassroots organisers, beginning with Grenfell survivors who, in the worst conditions, have still included the fate of other tower block residents in their concerns.

FPA has up to now been circulating an open letter to the Secretary of State, which was to have been delivered on 11 June. This will not now happen: we are updating the letter in the light of this partial victory, and will include the issues raised below.

There is a long battle ahead to make sure that safe cladding and insulation are fitted without delay, wherever they are needed, and without leaving residents in danger from fire or from cold. But definitely, there is progress!

The fight goes on, as well, for homes that people who are not on high incomes can genuinely afford to buy or rent – and can heat, as well – without going hungry to pay the bills.

The Rt Hon James Brokenshire MP
Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
2 Marsham Street
London SW1P 4DF                                                                                                                               17 May 2018

Dear Secretary of State,

We were very glad to hear of the government’s intention to fully fund replacement of cladding and insulation for social housing tenants. Late though it is, the announcement will bring hope to many homes.

We are writing about a number of points of concern which we hope you will address this week.

1. We hope you will spell out that the £400 million cited is an estimate (from the information we’ve seen it is an underestimate) of the cost of recladding social housing tower blocks, and that no social housing provider will be told, “We’re sorry, the money’s run out.” That is, that the government will genuinely “fully fund” this programme. This should also include other fire safety measures, beyond insulation and cladding.

2. It is essential that the materials used to replace both cladding and insulation are not
flammable. We find it extraordinary that this should be a matter for consultation, after
what has happened.

3. What are you planning to offer leaseholders in private blocks? We believe the government should equally fund replacement of dangerous materials there, and then seek to recover the funds from landlords or developers as appropriate. In our experience, leaseholders often have trouble meeting even their normal heating bills, and many go cold each winter. They cannot be expected to fund re-cladding projects, costing tens of thousands each, or continue to live in fire-trap homes. This crisis was not of their making, and there is no justice in a proposal that penalises some residents.

4. As well as housing, schools, hospitals, workplaces, and student residences, are also in
danger.

5. Cold, like fire, kills. Even in a normal year, thousands die when they cannot heat their homes. Residents in many blocks already going through re-cladding know that when
cladding is off in the winter, uninsulated flats are places of constant cold, condensation,
damp and mould, and astronomical bills.

The health and safety of residents must not be sacrificed during the process that you are now promising to fund. Works have gone on for months; some are scheduled for nearly two years, with housing way below any legal decent homes standards, and families constantly ill. Some local authorities, some more than others, have taken steps to mitigate this nightmare. One issue of many is: last winter, residents who were unable to keep their homes warm were buying cheap space heaters to top up central heating. These can be not only extremely expensive to run, but represent a real fire risk. Will the government now guarantee that every possible measure will be taken to ensure residents’ safety and health during the process of re-cladding? Will you fund such a guarantee?

We and others will also be anxiously awaiting your announcement of the timing and details of the new funding. Timing, with deadlines for completion of works is crucial. The time for this work to happen is now – while the weather is warm. There are many other issues around consultation, regulation, inspection and accountability that we hope to raise with you in future, to help ensure that the same thing does not happen in the future. But the urgent thing now is the fine print on Theresa May’s statement yesterday.

We await your explanation statement this week with great interest.

Yours sincerely,

Ruth London

Letter to James Brokenshire 17-05-2018 PDF

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , ,

FBU – Foam Insulation Banned In Furniture Since 1988

Marking eleven months since the tragic Grenfell Tower fire disaster, which claimed the lives of so many men, women and children, the community turned out again on Monday for yet another silent march demanding justice and truth for the survivors and their families. A demonstration was earlier held outside Parliament where the Grenfell Inquiry petition had been scheduled for debate the same day.

Since the fire the truth has gradually started to emerge. Recently evidence came to light which shows that Chelsea and Kensington council opted for a cheaper refurbishment than they had originally budgetted for. The  cladding specified in the planning application was replaced with a cheaper flammable alternative, the insulation specified was also replaced with a cheaper alternative that emitted deadly cyanide gas when burned, and misfitting windows were installed, apparently without any firestopping of the gaps they created.

The firefighters union, the FBU, states that the same poisonous foam insulation had been banned from use in furniture after years of campaigning. On 8th May 1979, toxic fumes from plastic foam-filled furniture killed 10 people and left 47 injured in a fire at the Woolworths store in Manchester city centre.

Woolworths fire veteran Kevin Brown doubts if firefighters would be able to respond so speedily to a fire on the same site today. “There were 10 appliances at the scene within 10 minutes when Woolworths caught fire,”  he says. “Now, since the cuts,  four of those appliances have disappeared.”

Fire at Woolworths departent store in central Manchester, Tuesday 8th May 1979.

https://www.fbu.org.uk/blog/long-fight-ban-toxic-foam

After the Woolworths fire vigorous campaigning by the FBU and other fire safety experts, including enlightened chief fire officers, paved the way for vital safety changes as the death toll from toxic plastic fumes continued to mount in the 1980s. But it took another nine years and the deaths of 17 more children, killed by toxic fumes in their own homes, for the government to act. The Furniture and Furnishing (Fire Safety) Regulations 1988 banned the use of polyurethane foam and other flammable insulation in household furniture.  This made people safer in their homes and saved countless lives.

Mike Fordham, who retired from the FBU 12 years ago after a lifetime campaigning for improved fire safety, watched the live TV footage of flames shooting up the sides of Grenfell Tower. He later shared his thoughts which had turned immediately to earlier fire tragedies;

‘They’ve put the stuff we got banned from the inside of buildings on the outside of tower blocks … we got foam furniture banned for giving off horrendous toxic fumes and they went and lined the outside of tower blocks with similar stuff’.

PLEASE SHARE THIS

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , ,