My sarcasm filter isn’t good enough to work out when you’re just trying to wind me up and when you’re not. So assuming this is more on the level than that business about a demagogue forcing poor people into abandoned buildings, you’ll be glad to know these flats are being sold to government for purpose. Check the related links. It’s not that government must never, nor ever has found homes for the homeless. It’s just that it’s not only Chavistas that give a shit about survivors of disastrous fires. I’ve escaped from a fire with nothing but the clothes on my back and then stank of house fire at school the next day, and probably a few days after that. You haven’t, I’m guessing. Perhaps if you had, you’d be less sanctimoniously apoplectic about condemning the property of rhetorical, absentee, money laundering, foreign criminal interests.
I know, my sarcastic nature is also compounded by not being a native English speaker. I just find that using the /s tag kind of defies some of the purpose of sarcasm.
I didn't see the part about them being sold. Offering to buy or rent them to house the victims is definitely ok. Just forcefully taking over them is not. In a different situation I might have a different opinion, for example if the government didn't have any other option, but we're talking about the Council of the Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. I'm pretty sure they have enough money to find alternative housing for the victims without forcibly taking it from private owners.