#KCBC: ‘if you accept temporary flats, you’re off rehoming list’ #Grenfell


It would be an understatement to say that Kensington and Chelsea Borough Council is not covering itself in glory in the opinion of its residents. Anger among local people is running high after the terrible fire and what they say is a lack of useful intervention by the council and its staff, fuelled still further by insensitive letters hand-delivered to neighbours of Grenfell Tower about matters as trivial as ‘antisocial behaviour’ letters about ball games.

But things are getting worse. Residents have told the SKWAWKBOX of a local builder who recently completed twenty new apartments in the area and who has taken them off the market for three months to make them available – for free – to families made homeless by the blaze.

It’s a generous act of kindness typical of the way in which the community has pulled together in the days after the tragedy – but the council has treated it as yet another opportunity to behave crassly toward people whose lives are in tatters at the moment.

Residents say that those who have been offered the free temporary accommodation have been told by the council that if they accept the offer, they will be removed from the council’s rehoming list – even though it’s clear that it’s only temporary.

At a time when you’d expect the council to be trying to retrieve a situation many feel it has handled terribly so far, it seems they are intent on making things worse.

The council’s press office was unavailable for comment.

The SKWAWKBOX is provided free of charge but depends on the generosity of its readers. If you found this information helpful and can afford to, please do click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal. Thanks for your support so this blog can keep bringing you information the Establishment would prefer you not to know about.


    1. Quickly joined by the Tory government. Every time ministers are asked a difficult question they immediately reply that this is a matter for the upcoming Public Enquiry. Philip Hammond did this repeatedly on TV today.

      The Conservatives are looking increasingly desperate, they are treating the Public Enquiry as some sort of pathetic fig-leaf. It makes one worry that they will attempt to restrict the scope and remit of the enquiry

  1. It’s practically a given that the historical record of council committee meetings will be “up for review”.

    Now would be a good time for investigative journalists to download everything.


    See the message about “damage to the Town Hall caused by protestors”.

    Already, the bullies are feigning victimhood.

  2. Further insensitivity, bordering on further provocation from ‘officialdom’.

    Yet the likes of Graham Hindson will shriek about the virtues of democracy WHEN it kicks off.

    Except this isn’t about democracy.

  3. @Skwawkbox

    I note that this is another headline in inverted commas.

    Is this a signal that the story is possibly as unreliable as the D notice one?

    @The Toffee

    I don’t know about shrieking, but I’ll certainly restate my position that peaceful protest is perfectly acceptable as a means to attempt to influence our elected representatives.

    “Kicking off” implies something other than peaceful protest and the prospect of it cannot be allowed to subvert our democratic and legal processes.

    1. Oh, alright then.

      Just keep piling the misery on the poor sods, and tell the survivors (and anyone else getting increasingly annoyed) that they ought to be grateful we live in a ‘democracy’, then.

      Jesus H Corbett.

      1. Do you disagree with my last sentence?

        ““Kicking off” implies something other than peaceful protest and the prospect of it cannot be allowed to subvert our democratic and legal processes.”

      2. Are politicians elected to listen to, and act upon, the wishes of the electorate?

        Have they done so?

        They’ve promised allsorts and delivered the sum total of piss-all. So, I’ll ask you – What the fuck is your major malfunction? If you push people so far, they’ll fight back however they see fit.

        Therefore, you can take your semantics regarding ‘democracy’ and shove them, because all your deflective and evasive bollocks is worthless in the eyes of man many people, and is beginning to grate as much as the two-hats YOU voted for.

      3. My position is, I think, clear.

        Yours is less so.

        Do you agree or disagree that the prospect of “kicking off” should be allowed to subvert our democratic and legal processes? (Lest we forget it’s exactly 10 days since more people voted Conservative than Labour.)

      4. Belt up, you colossal bore.

        ‘My position is clear’ … For fuck’s sake, get your own default phrase, instead of hijacking that worn-out one from your dear leader.

        By virtue of continuing to bait people your ‘democracy’ will be out the fucking window squire, rendered immaterial by those putting up with your (On behalf of your fellow, more senior, richer & greedier bullshitters’) inane garbage in it’s unabashed attempt to obfuscate, deflect & deprive even further.

        So my message is – Fuck you, and fuck your ‘democracy’. You and your ‘government’ will be to blame if people riot. I will not censure those who have had enough that they feel the must in order to make their point.

        In fact, I will have every sympathy with them, after what they’re being put through.

      5. Leaving aside the obscenities, thanks for clearing that up.

        It would appear that the days of “my” democracy – that’s the Parliamentary kind – are numbered under your vision of the future, and that rioting is OK so long as it’s for the “right” cause by the “right” people.

        Perfectly clear.

      6. And where exactly did I say it’ll be ok for people to riot?

        Go on, I’ll wait….

        Oh, you can’t? Thought not.

      7. Again apologies if I have misunderstood you.

        I read the following:

        “…You and your ‘government’ will be to blame if people riot. I will not censure those who have had enough that they feel the must in order to make their point.

        In fact, I will have every sympathy with them, after what they’re being put through.”

        as meaning you would not censure those who might riot, and would indeed have sympathy with them. ie “It’s OK to riot”

        For the avoidance of doubt perhaps you could clarify your position with regard to peaceful versus non peaceful protest, and your position on whether we should allow the prospect of possible violence to subvert our democratic and legal processes.

    2. You are obviously, for reasons best known to yourself, trying to create disharmony and conflict. Please just go away, Please

      1. I’m putting up a point of view.

        I may be in a minority, although I hope not on the subjects of democracy and violent protest, but I am entitled to hold the views I do.

        If Skwawkbox wants to suppress all of my comments rather than what appear to be random ones that’s a matter for him.

  4. Graham Hindson You sicken me and that includes your precious Tory Party, who do not have a single humanitarian bone in their bodies, they would not know empathy if it bit them on their arses & by your remarks neither do you.
    RIP Grenfell

    1. If, by stating that I do not condone violent protest and do not think we should allow the prospect of it to subvert our democratic and legal processes, I am sickening you then I can only apologise, but it is my point of view.

      Presumably your view must be different, and we can only agree to disagree on this.

      1. Graham
        It’s perplexing why anyone would seek to create conflict out of this horrific incident. It is rather sad that feeding your own hubris is so important to you.

  5. Graham you are twisting people’s words no one is condoning violent protest, I am 66 years old & certainly do NOT condone it BUT the way the residents/ survivors of Grenfell are being treated by the Government I for one can UNDERSTAND them protesting & god forbid if it does turns violent then the responsibly for that lies solely at the feet of our uncaring government.
    If you cannot see that then there is no hope for you & unfortunately you are a lost cause.

    1. Save your words, Hilary. Your reasoning is wasted on someone who must question people’s motives, while saying nothing about the treatment of said people at the hands of their preferred ‘government’.

      A government that looks after their own interests at the expense of the masses – whether they vote for them or not. A government that ignores legitimate, prophetic concerns in their megalomania.

      Remember when Ceausescu & his missus got shot? Right up until the bullets went through them they were asking why they had been sentenced to death…

  6. @The Toffee, @SteveG

    I’m stating my point of view, just as you and others do.

    It was @The Toffee who raised the prospect of it “kicking off” which I read to mean more than peaceful protest. If he/she can confirm that it was not his/her meaning then the whole discussion is moot and we can move on, but his/her post of 18/06/2017 at 7:27 pm was not encouraging in this respect.


    You say that you do not condone violence, then you say that the first broken window would be the government’s fault, not the stone thrower’s. I don’t agree with that – I think that the responsibility for violence lies with the perpetrator of that violence

    But there’s an underlying issue.

    Violence can only be against people or property

    People – I hope that we would all agree that violence against people is unacceptable in any circumstances, save self defence to a direct physical threat, but in any event against whom would such violence be directed? It’s unlikely to be government ministers because they’re too well protected, and it’s more likely to be a poor old bobby tasked with their protection who takes the “hit”.

    Property – This can be seen as the victimless crime, but property is either publicly or privately owned.

    Damage to public property is paid for by the taxpayer.

    Damage to private property is paid for by the insurers (or in some cases an underinsured owner) which, in effect, means you or me at renewal time.

    Purely on a practical level therefore, any violence would end up hurting innocent parties.

    1. I’m not spelling it out for you. You’ve already made your mind up as to my mindset.

      And we don’t need hear about the consequences of violent disorder/riot, thanks. Rather, people would prefer to discuss what’d be the cause of the tumult – NOT whether it’s right or not, because you know as well as anyone else when desperation kicks in, law & order takes a back seat…REGARDLESS of the government of the day when it does.

      And your beloved bastard tories are turning young against old, employed against unemployed, national against immigrant etc etc, ad-fucking-nauseam….And that’s AS WELL as forcing people into abject penury on a daily basis and stripping public services that WE ALL pay for in order to save their corporate buddies a few shillings, and to cap it all they deny people access to justice or help to get justice, and then get themselves on corporate boards when the public finally cotton on that they’re completely fucking useless as public servants.

      Now go away.

      1. And they say Mrs May can’t answer a straight question!

    2. Graham
      It’s perplexing why anyone would seek to create conflict out of this horrific incident. It is rather sad that feeding your own hubris is so important to you.

  7. I’m afraid conflict is inevitable if I’m taking a strict anti violence approach and other are more ambivalent.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: