In some ways there are parallels with the Queen's reaction to the death of Diana and lack of regard for the public mood then. And respect for her back then was definitely not absolute. But it's how it speaks of May's response as a human as much as a politician that concerns me.
The Queen definitely learned a lesson back in 1997 and the twenty years since has been an extended exercise in gaining public support back. She's also 91, she's no doubt mellowed in her old age (as much as some like to paint her a grumpy old bitch) and become a far more sympathetic individual.
I don't think the Red Cross coming in is a sign of anything other than that this is a crisis probably closer to the sorts of humanitarian crises we would typically associate them with. In fact, they are probably one of (if not THE) most appropriate agency to be dealing with this. I totally concur that the government response has been underwhelming. But at the same time, I'm not sure that something like this could ever truly be planned for - if there was a contingency plan for a UK crisis that saw great chunks of a community and several generations of family wiped out in a few hours, I imagine it wasn't really at the forefront of anyone's mind. And I think people would probably have cut Theresa May some slack if she hadn't been so robotic and cold about the whole thing. I suppose it's somewhat telling of the times we live in that we're much more prepared for (and resilient to) terrorist atrocities than something like Grenfell happening on our own doorstep. The Red Cross is something we're used to seeing work at a distance, not at home. But I don't think it makes their presence here wrong.
How can the supposed number of suspected dead be so low yet we're not hearing from any of the 'survivors'? Weren't there 500 people in that block? Who is all the food and aid going to exactly?
What's the role of the Red Cross going to be? If it includes co-ordination of volunteer efforts and donations and getting things to the people affected, then BRING IT
I think that's pretty much exactly what they will do. And I agree with Slave that they are an entirely appropriate organisation to do it. I guess we may just think that here, our support infrastructure would mean they wouldn't be needed.
I've seen a number of interviews with and articles about the survivors, although an actual number of survivors wouldn't go amiss and there's a certain invisibility which concerns me...
I assume this is sarcasm, but historically the idea of the Queen visiting is normally met with appreciation that the head of state (a 91 year old) would go and show empathy at times of distress.
I think that is exactly where you need an organisation like The Red Cross. This is not to take ANYTHING away from the immense actions of all those who have helped, but when it isn't coordinated, you don't really get a clear picture of what is being given to people and in what quantity. Therefore it's also difficult to assess what is needed. That's where the government have been too slow and even now, will be playing catch-up and dealing with a lot of anger from people who may have gone without unnecessarily.
It was part sarcasm but I don't think the Queen turning up to these things actually counts for a lot in reality. However, I do wish she, as the Head of State, would take a stand. Would that change anything? Sadly probably not. But it would send out the signal that we are serious about righting this wrong. Of course she can't as our proxy Head Of State. I would be happy to see the day where an elected head of state could call out the prime minister on their actions.
With this issue in particular, is she not in a fairly difficult position with having to remain politically neutral? Any comment regarding the conditions of the building or the response to the crisis would surely be skewed to be a criticism of the government, which is probably not what the country needs at the moment.
I do agree with you Slave. I just find it frustrating when I see other European countries with a presidential system who are still able to drive policy and deliver change. The UK seems to have happily absolved itself of that option.
The charity single is apparently 'Bridge Over Troubled Water' () and features worldwide smash hitter LOUISE JONSTON, fresh from Broadway LEO LEWIS, always popular PIXIE LOT and everyone's favourite EMILY SANDY I cannot find a font size big enough to say FUCK RIGHT OFF!
I think it's only fair after the way she has failed to deliver so far that Theresa May does a solo verse in this song
How amazing would a Labour vs Tory charity chart battle be? especially if they just whole-sale replicated the classic Sophie Ellis-Bextor vs Victoria Beckham 2000 feud and had Corbyn nonchalantly singing "Groovejet" and May blowing the billion pound Tory donation funds on her "Not Such an Innocent Girl" video
Details of how the government's £5m emergency fund will help have been outlined, including: Every household whose home was destroyed will receive at least £500 in cash and £5,000 paid into an account Ooh how fucking generous.
IKR. One would hope this is the first instalment of many and they're not expected to use it to pay rent or hotel bills. Mind you, it is at least SOMETHING One thing that particularly horrified me today - any attempt to disengage from this has been futile - was a story about the council trying to plonk survivors on the upper levels of high rise hotels. (I think this was via DJ Isla who is really bringing it.) I mean really, what the actual fuck
Well, after the 'essential' £370m refurbishment of Buckingham Palace. Unless you wanted to buy all the families whose home was destroyed a new home with that, anyway.
That single has all the hallmarks of being less successful than the Chicken Shed Theatre Company or the Childliners.
£5500. FIVE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED? Are they having a fucking laugh? They've spent over £1million on the search for Corrie McKeague which they actually have no liability for, how much did they spend on Maddie McCann? These people are just worth less to them. So angry.
That's not much at all, you should be covered for replacing EVERYTHING in your house. £5k would cover our laptops, phones, tablets and TV with little room for anything else like furniture, clothes.
I'd say the majority of these people didn't even have home contents insurance. When I worked in social housing we used to encourage people to take out policies but hardly any ever did.
