Is there a difference?

That is the question that overcame me. I was considering a new IP on gaming and it is actually going well, but about that soon. Leave it to me to create a Blizzard contender but now as public domain (for Sony and Amazon). And I do need a hobby so it might as well be sawing the chair-legs away from the Microsoft board of directors. Anyway, as I was contemplating a new path in IP, the Guardian gives us (at https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/jan/20/tower-twice-grenfell-height-planned-single-staircase-urw) with the title ‘Tower twice Grenfell’s height planned nearby with single staircase’, so the initial example on June 14th 2017 was not enough, construction and architectural companies in the UK as vying for the title of who can kill the surplus population the fastest. A few small details, the Grenfell tower was 67 metres high and became a coffin for 72 people. Now we see that the mistake is overtaken by to buildings, one of 130 metres, one 174 metres and again the singular stairs. I reckon that cladding will not be a problem either, there are always ways to avoid cost overruns. So when we are given “A planning application for a 51-storey residential tower in Docklands with one fire escape has been paused after a safety outcry”, my initial thought was “At what point will Mayor of London Sadiq Khan wake the fuck up?”. Not only was once not enough, we now see two plans, one in Docklands and one close to Grenfell, so the people will not see this nightmare, once, they optionally (if they are lucky) see it twice, what a joy greed makes!

So when the guardian treats us to “Grenfell United, a group representing the survivors and bereaved, said: “After half a decade of campaigning for safer homes, it’s shocking to hear that a new tower block, a stone’s throw from Grenfell, rigged with a fire safety defect before it’s even been built, is being planned.” It considers a single staircase inadequate for use by residents and firefighters if an evacuation is needed, even though it is allowable under building regulations.” I am left with the cornerstones.

1. Why is this still allowed under building regulations?
2. Why did the Guardian and Grenfell United need to bring this to the people attention?
3. What on earth is the Mayor of London doing by allowing this targeted killing of London citizens under his watch?

You think that point 3 is overreaching? Consider the Guardian, yes I have had disagreements with them, yet they are giving us a while places like the BBC people (and others too) seemingly have nothing. So at what point will the BBC wake up, when will the larger news take this up and asks loudly the serious questions that should be asked? 

I know, only 72 died, London has roughly 9,000,000 people, so it is nothing. If this upsets you excellent! You see, we saw all the trial shenanigans. Now consider the video (from a firefighter) that some might have seen (at https://youtu.be/QM4RJE81fh4) and now consider and wonder how these two plans were set in motion, moreover we get to hear “a 51-storey residential tower in Docklands with one fire escape has been paused after a safety outcry” at what point will you consider ‘has been paused after a safety outcry’. This required an outcry? This was not stopped from the moment the plans were submitted? It would have been long before the people and in particular Grenfell United would have been aware. 

So when we see the video with the response from a firefighter ‘How is that even possible?” and now the Guardian informs us that two more apartment buildings, buildings that are even higher are planned, I reckon that a lot of people want to know who is at the helm of these folly pieces and a list of civil servants that are seemingly asleep at the wheel of city governance, because as I personally see it heads will roll on this one. So we might be drawn by “as some safety experts call current staircase rules ‘madness’”, I would be much more interested on the setting that someone signed off on this, because we see “has been paused”, this implies that someone gave the signal to go ahead on this, or not?

So when the Guardian gives us “as part of a complex of 1,760 new homes being planned by the owner of the Westfield shopping centre in west London.” I merely wonder if that Westfield complex has an undertaker on the spot, because for them business will be booming with up to 3,500-4,000 new customers soon enough. You think I am too blunt? Consider that being soft seemingly did nothing and the fact that someone was optionally willing to repeat the 72 deaths with up to 4,000 souls for bartering in a second attempt. I believe we need a sledgehammer, not the subtlety of tweezers. We did that in 2017 and it seemingly led nowhere. So as the Guardian gives us “but it will rely on the same “stay put” strategy that failed on 14 June 2017 contributing to deaths, according to planning documents.” I feel anger, but mostly because there is some logic in the ‘stay put’ setting, yet it cannot be denied that is failed completely in Grenfell, so why were ALL London building plans not stopped to investigate the logical sanity of that procedure? And moreover, why is that setting as well as the conclusions of that not in EVERY newspaper in the Commonwealth? 

I will let you ponder on this whilst I continue on the idea that gives Blizzard a run for their money, mostly it is me having a go at Microsoft for buying an ice-cream cone for $37,000,000,000 whilst the supermarket 253.4 meters away sells them by the bucket for $50,000,000. It is only a mere factor of 740, and if I get a decent result on my first attempt Microsoft stock would go straight to the basement, and that is before they get a clue on the other issues that Activision might give them, which makes my attempt a lot easier. Ah well, I hope to give you the news soon. 

When a hobby give that much satisfaction, it is almost criminal to be on an income (I would still take it), and the better case for laughter is that one in 740 implies that statistics would fall towards me no matter how it goes. Consider a dartboard. How many darts will it take for you to throw 180? Microsoft can only win if I fail 740 times any success hit sooner becomes a massive cost for them. And there is the rub, only if I fail more than 740 times will Microsoft win, now you try on a dartboard and see how many times it took you to get 180. That is the folly Microsoft started and I am about to rain the size of a blizzard on their parade. Life can be fun and rewarding at times, unless you live in an apartment building in London.