You’re Telling Us What We Already Know…

What is justice for Grenfell? After seven years of public inquiry we have a 1,700-page report and a cost of more than £200m. We have had investigations, books, plays and more than £100m spent on an ongoing police investigation. Yet so far we have no closure, no prosecutions and no convictions. The word ‘“justice” does not appear in the recommendations of this week’s Moore-Bick report of the inquiry’s findings. Ask any lawyer why, and you will get a knowing smile. Justice means trials, more delays and more fees.

Well I never! You don't say, Simon? And yet, they roll on and on and on. With the bereaved always hoping for change as a result.

The answer is that the “judge-led” public inquiry has become an embedded institution in British democracy. By postponing blame, it somehow softens the guilt and gets a generation of politicians and regulators off the hook. When the Institute for Government (IfG) in 2019 looked back at the 68 public inquiries held in the previous 30 years, it found they had cost a total of £639m.

And why worry about that? After all, it’s only taxpayer’s money. As long as it produces results, right?

The give-away in the IfG report was that one in seven inquiries took more than five years to report, while only six cases produced evidence of a parliamentary follow-up. The public inquiries had served what seemed their hidden purpose, which was to delay blame until those responsible had passed out of sight. That is the only reasonable conclusion for the seven-year Moore-Bick Grenfell enterprise.

Well, they aren’t quite out of sight yet, should Starmer wish to flex his political muscles against a worthy target for once.  

Last month came a breath of fresh air from the new prisons minister, Lord Timpson, with his company’s long record of aiding former inmates. He reckoned that only a third of prisoners should have been locked up. The rest needed the sort of remedies adopted by more progressive regimes such as those in Norway and Germany. In the cases of Grenfell, the Post Office and infected blood, this should surely mean heavy fines, dismissals and restrictions on office-holding. In most non-violent crimes, this should be coupled with various forms of restorative justice.

We’ll have to see if justice is a thing Starmer’s mob really care about as much as they claimed when in opposition, when they never had to actually do anything but snipe from the benches. 

That Definition Of Madness Again...

A pre-inquest review hearing was today (Monday, March 27) held at Bolton Coroner's Court.

The hearing was told that there was still some evidence yet to be submitted in the case. And Emily's father Mark Jones said: "I just find the process very frustrating. Deadlines are set and are never adhered to. It's like groundhog day coming her all the time."

Mr Jones made the comment after correspondence he sent to the coroner's office airing his frustration was referred to by the coroner.

Understandably so. And how did the coroner deal with it? 

Senior Coroner Timothy Brennand said to Mr Jones: "I am sorry you saw fit to communicate in those very clear and upsetting terms."

Yes, I just bet you are... 

He added that he wanted to address Mr Jones' concerns as he didn't want him to feel there were 'in any way being swept under the carpet'.

He already feels like that, and it's no surprise... 

He said the coroner's service always tried to work 'collaboratively with families' and to 'manage expectations' however he said Mr Jones had made it clear that in his case he did not feel they were being met.

"All I can do is apologise," Mr Brennand continued. "Your experience is your experience and I am not going to in any way quibble with it."

Because you can't. So...how are you going to deal with his belief that the case is being delayed unnecessarily by people who don't adhere to deadlines? 

Mr Brennand set deadlines for the disclosure of remaining evidence and legal submissions ahead of the inquest at the short hearing.

*sighs* 

I Don't Think You're Making The Argument You Think You Are, Laila...

If insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result, then perhaps coming to the Baftas looking for diversity is an exercise in madness.

Well, yes, Laila, since it's just a luvvie's award show. If you want diversity, trip down your local enriched high street (if the cops haven't sealed off the road for another machete attack) instead and marvel...

...awards are fundamentally subjective exercises. Trying to get film fans to unanimously agree that Cate Blanchett was more convincing as a lecherous conductor than Deadwyler as the bereaved mother of a lynched child, or vice versa, is a fool’s errand.

And yet here you are, a fool... 

Some of our best filmmakers, such as Terence Davies and Joanna Hogg, are studiously ignored by Bafta voters, and Black British directors Menelik Shabazz, Horace Ové and Ngozi Onwurah innovated without the support of many of the bodies that purport to champion British film.

Excellent! They can be scrapped then. Since they are obviously not required. Eh, Laila..? 

Awards are only as prestigious as the public perception of them, and by the time the Bafta inclusivity targets are met in 2025 it may be too late to claw back any cultural relevancy.

Guess the public have spoken. 

Yes, It Is Broken, You're Right There...

One Eritrean asylum seeker who reluctantly agreed to move from the Greenwich hotel to the one in Bedfordshire, and did not join in with the protest, said he was distraught about the enforced move but felt he had no choice but to go.

“We came to the UK looking for freedom but the reality is not like that. I’ve lost my friends, my community, my college with this move. I’ve lost everything. The system is broken.”

A system that houses asylum seekers who come in illegally from safe countries, in the most expensive part of the country, and allows their claims to drag on for so long they put down roots, all at the expense of the poor bloody taxpayer, is irretrievably broken. 

When is someone going to fix it? 

I'm Really Glad To Hear It, Ehwi...

Ehwi, who lives with his wife and young daughter in Cambridge, sends money to Ghana, and is facing the squeeze. His monthly electricity bill has more than doubled, and he has had to limit the amount he spends on “luxuries” such as taking his wife out to eat.

“The frequency I’m sending money home is increasing because the economic situation in Ghana is worse than the UK … [but] I’ve received practically nothing to help deal with the cost of living here.”

Because why should they, if you have enough excess cash to send it to people abroad, rather than spending it in this country? 

“Sending money home is something I have to do, it’s not an ‘I would like to do this,’” says Toyin Oshinowo. A project manager who moved to the UK from Nigeria when she was one, Oshinowo, 42, remits money between her “two homes” to support friends and family and pay bills in Nigeria.

One year old. And as soon as she starts earning, she's expected to support moochers abroad. Christ, what a 'culture'... 

Those flows of money are hugely important for developing economies, vastly outweighing foreign aid sent by governments.

Let's stop all foreign aid then! It clearly isn't needed.