West London Fire

[floo]

So victims of the fire should have their positions suppressed because there have been terrorist attacks?

Nothing should be done to spark civil unrest like riots.

[Nearly Sane]

Nothing should be done to spark civil unrest like riots.

Are you saying ppvictins expressing themselves are trying to spark civil unrest? Or that you think that more people dying in fires is a price worth paying because you think expressing it might cause a riot?

[JP]

Are you saying ppvictins expressing themselves are trying to spark civil unrest? Or that you think that more people dying in fires is a price worth paying because you think expressing it might cause a riot?

McDonnell is doing that, not the victims.

[Nearly Sane]

McDonnell is doing that, not the victims.

I've heard the opinion from residents. If the opinion is likely to cause riots then you have to stop them saying it when interviewed. Further if they fi express it, why shouldn't a politician express it too?

[JP]

Over 170 years after Engels, Britain is still a country that murders its poor

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/20/engels-britain-murders-poor-grenfell-tower

[floo]

Are you saying ppvictins expressing themselves are trying to spark civil unrest? Or that you think that more people dying in fires is a price worth paying because you think expressing it might cause a riot?

Civil unrest could cause more deaths, there have been more than enough already!

[JP]

McDonnell is being very deliberate. He (they) will stop at nothing to get the keys to number 10.

[Nearly Sane]

Civil unrest could cause more deaths, there have been more than enough already!

So anything you, Floo,  think might cause civil unrest should be suppressed from being said?

[Nearly Sane]

McDonnell is being very deliberate. He (they) will stop at nothing to get the keys to number 10.

Who said he isn't being deliberate? What does your ad hom got to do with whether people shouldn't have their views represented?

[floo]

So anything you, Floo,  think might cause civil unrest should be suppressed from being said?

Nothing should be said, which will inflame an already volatile situation.

[Nearly Sane]

Nothing should be said, which will inflame an already volatile situation.

So you want yo stop the victims expressing themselves, on the basis of the judgement of Floo. Have you ever thought that suppressing their speech might cause civil unrest?

[floo]

So you want yo stop the victims expressing themselves, on the basis of the judgement of Floo. Have you ever thought that suppressing their speech might cause civil unrest?

Since when was MacDonnell a victim of the Tower Block fire?

[Nearly Sane]

Since when was MacDonnell a victim of the Tower Block fire?

Didn't say he was. But he is expressing a view I've seen the victims express. If you think the opinion is not allowed to be expressed, then that applies to the victims too.

[JP]

Who said he isn't being deliberate? What does your ad hom got to do with whether people shouldn't have their views represented?

Ad hom, hahahahahahaha. You're obsessed with that, you just love that phrase.

Can I not criticise a prominent politician without you calling it an ad hom. Ooooh next you will work in a tu quoque logical fallacy thingy, another favourite of yours.

I never said any one had said he wasn't being deliberate. Is what you did there a appeal to hypocrisy that just fell flat on its face?

There are people trying to keep the flames burning. McDonnell along with his Marxist cronies are fanning them as if there is no tomorrow.

[Nearly Sane]

Ad hom, hahahahahahaha. You're obsessed with that, you just love that phrase.

Can I not criticise a prominent politician without you calling it an ad hom. Ooooh next you will work in a tu quoque logical fallacy thingy, another favourite of yours.

I never said any one had said he wasn't being deliberate. Is what you did there a appeal to hypocrisy that just fell flat on its face?

There are people trying to keep the flames burning. McDonnell along with his Marxist cronies are fanning them as if there is no tomorrow.

Aw! So instead of dealing with the fallacy, you just try to say that I point out a lit of fallacies, and simply use another fallacy.

And I didn't say you were a hypocrite so your 'appeal to hypocrisy' line is simply nonsensical. Anyway what has any of the above got to do with whether people shouldn't have their views represented?

[Shaker]

McDonnell is being very deliberate. He (they) will stop at nothing to get the keys to number 10.

Hope so.

[Nearly Sane]

Now I have no evidence that MacDonnell's rhetoric helped the company to stop selling the cladding as has happened but at least they stopped of post what he said and, yes post hoc ergo prophet hoc is fallacious. But where is the evidence of what people , victims and politicians should be stopped from saying because of at the time of them saying it, non existent riots?


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40409981

[Aruntraveller]

McDonnell is being very deliberate. He (they) will stop at nothing to get the keys to number 10.

Why that is a surprise to you for a political party I have no idea.

Just as much, if not more is true of the Tories. Clinging on to the keys with cold, dead hands.

[jeremyp]

In case of pedantry, in all the below, I am assuming the fire was not deliberately set.

Is it an outright lie?

He claims the victims were murdered. That is a lie.

I heard the same said by residents, were they lying?

Yeah, that's poisoning the well.

I think we can assume that none of them believe that the victims were deliberately killed and their use of the word "murder" was hyperbole. I'd expect more considered language from a leading politician though unless that politician was trying to whip up hysteria.

It might be legally incorrect but murder in the sense of a culpable death has a more colloquial meaning. Why would be that not be applicable in a speech?

See above.

[jeremyp]

MacConnell's metaphor is accurate and is the sort of rhetoric needed to keep the pressure on ensuring change. Is it helpful to determining what happened, no. Might it be helpful to keeping the pressure on avoiding this in the future, yes.

No it isn't, it's dangerous nonsense. This is the mob mentality. What is actually needed is a calm considered approach to stop tragedies like this from happening again. Baying for blood is not the right way to go about that.

[Nearly Sane]

In case of pedantry, in all the below, I am assuming the fire was not deliberately set.
He claims the victims were murdered. That is a lie.
Yeah, that's poisoning the well.

I think we can assume that none of them believe that the victims were deliberately killed and their use of the word "murder" was hyperbole. I'd expect more considered language from a leading politician though unless that politician was trying to whip up hysteria.
See above.

I doubt you have any idea what someone who has had family members burnt to death believe but lying needs intent and merely by repeating that you think there is or describing an effect such as poisoning the well, doesn't show it. Indeed if you think that you are showing it by claiming it then it is a circular argument.

Hyperbole isn't lying either, and you have ignored the difference in the legal and colloquial sense of murder.

[Nearly Sane]

No it isn't, it's dangerous nonsense. This is the mob mentality. What is actually needed is a calm considered approach to stop tragedies like this from happening again. Baying for blood is not the right way to go about that.

In terms of investigation, as the rest of the paragraph you edited in replying to made clear, I agree that you need calmness but in terms of political will and getting things done, urgency can be spurred by rhetoric. And as I noted in the first part of the sentence that you edited, if  there has been a systemic failure here the metaphor is accurate.

[Nearly Sane]

So the judge picked to run the inquiry is already being questioned as to his suitability.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40438701

[floo]

So the judge picked to run the inquiry is already being questioned as to his suitability.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40438701

Anyone selected by TM to run this inquiry will be opposed by some.

[Nearly Sane]

Anyone selected by TM to run this inquiry will be opposed by some.

Perhaps, but if he doesn't get the confidence of the survivors and relatives, it won't work. The problem is that in order to investigate the 'establishment' , we turn to the 'establishment'.