Shouts for justice at Grenfell anniversary march before tower demolition begins
The Government announced earlier this year that the remains of the building will be brought down.
It is thought the earliest that demolition will start is September and the process is expected to take around two years.
Hundreds walked in silence through west London on Saturday evening before hearing the names of the 72 dead and speeches by campaigners, as the tower overlooked them.
Vice chairman of Grenfell United, Karim Mussilhy, who lost his uncle in the blaze, told the crowd: 'Eight years have passed, eight years since the fire – lit by negligence, greed and institutional failure – tore through our homes, our families and our hearts.
'And still no justice has come. The truth is, there's almost nothing new to say because nothing has changed.
'As we stand here eight years on, the only decision this Government has made is to tear down the tower – our home.'
The crowd shouted 'shame' and Mr Mussilhy continued: 'Not because justice has been delivered, but despite the fact it hasn't – before a single person has been held accountable, to make what happened disappear.
'The tower has stood not just as a reminder of what happened, but of what must change – a symbol and a truth in the face of denial, of dignity in the face of power, of our resistance, of our 72 loved ones who can't fight for their own justice.
People gather ahead of a silent march in west London in memory of those killed in the Grenfell Tower disaster (James Manning/PA)
'And now they want it gone, out of sight out of mind, a clear skyline and a forgotten scandal.'
The crowd faced the tower and chanted: 'Justice, justice.'
At the close of the speeches people filed in through the gates, which are rarely opened, and paid their respects at the base of the tower.
Attendees held each other and children wrote tributes on electric candles that were left on a podium between the flowers.
What remains of the tower has stood in place in the years since the disaster, with a covering on the building featuring a large green heart accompanied by the words 'forever in our hearts'.
The final Grenfell Tower Inquiry report, published in September, concluded victims, bereaved and survivors were 'badly failed' through incompetence, dishonesty and greed.
A person hugs a firefighter during a silent march in west London in memory of those killed in the Grenfell Tower disaster (James Manning/PA)
The tower block was covered in combustible products because of the 'systematic dishonesty' of firms who made and sold the cladding and insulation, inquiry chairman Sir Martin Moore-Bick said.
News of the Government's demolition decision earlier this year was met with criticism from some bereaved and survivors of the 2017 fire who expressed their upset and shock, saying they felt they had not had their views considered before the decision was taken.
Deputy Prime Minister and Housing Secretary Angela Rayner later said in an interview that she knew the meeting with those most closely affected was going to be 'really difficult' and that there was 'not a consensus' among everyone over what should happen to the tower.
On Saturday, placards read 'this much evidence still no charges' and 'Tories have blood on their hands. Justice for Grenfell'.
Large green papier-mache hearts were held aloft, with words including 'hope', 'integrity', 'enough is enough' and 'justice' written across.
Around a dozen fire fighters stood to attention on each side of the road outside Ladbroke Grove station, facing the passing crowd with their helmets at their feet.
Karim Mussilhy speaking after people took part in the silent march (James Manning/PA)
Some members of the Grenfell community walked up to hug them and shake hands.
After an hour of walking in silence the crowd gathered for the speeches outside Notting Hill Methodist Church.
The Government confirmed in February that engineering advice is that the tower 'is significantly damaged' and will get worse with time.
Separately, the Grenfell Tower Memorial Commission has been consulting on plans for a permanent memorial in the area of the tower, with recommendations including a 'sacred space', designed to be a 'peaceful place for remembering and reflecting'.
It is expected a planning application for a memorial could be submitted in late 2026.
According to the Government's latest figures, published last month, there were 5,052 residential buildings in England which are 11 metres or taller identified as having unsafe cladding as of the end of April.
Firefighters line the street as people take part in a silent march in west London in memory of those killed in the Grenfell Tower disaster (James Manning/PA)
Fewer than half – 2,477 buildings or 49% – had either started or completed remediation works, with just a third – 1,652 buildings or 33% – having had remediation works finished.
Labour unveiled its remediation acceleration plan last year, pledging that, by the end of 2029, all buildings more than 59ft (18 metres) tall with unsafe cladding that are on a Government scheme will have been remediated.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
UCU academics oppose Glasgow Uni trans rights consultation
The review of the institution's gender policies is being carried out in the wake of a Supreme Court ruling on the legal definition of a woman in late April. In the wake of the judicial decision, which ruled that the term 'woman' derives its legal definition from biological sex, not gender identity; transgender women have been banned from a range of female-only toilets and sports teams, including at the Scottish Parliament. The UCU is a prominent supporter of trans rights. (Image: Andrew Milligan/PA)The email, sent last Thursday, reads: 'Communication with our membership is already evidencing that this consultation is causing distress and fear for trans, nonbinary and other gender diverse staff and students, by exposing them to scrutiny and debate about their rights, and requiring them to feel obliged to respond in defence of those rights – rights that the University is already on record as stating it supports as 'an inclusive community'. 'We recommend that UCU members do not respond to this consultation until we can issue further guidance. We are also preparing to ask UofG EDU to cancel this consultation and to discuss with us better ways of supporting staff and students around the Supreme Court decision. Read more: The communique goes on to state that the UCU 'unequivocally' promotes the rights of trans and nonbinary staff and students, adding: 'We believe that this type of consultation on the rights of marginalised groups increases their marginalisation, severely impacts their wellbeing and safety, and does not provide a sound basis for determining policy or practice. 'Human rights are not up for debate. It also increases the atmosphere of fear and uncertainty that has already been engendered by the Supreme Court ruling.' For Women Scotland took the Scottish Government to court in April. (Image: PA) A spokesperson for campaign group For Women Scotland has hit out at the union, telling The Herald: 'UCU appears to inhabit an alternate reality where universities can pick and choose which laws they obey. It benefits none of their members if the union or the university stick their fingers in their ears like a petulant toddler. It also reflects poorly on their capacity to understand pretty basic concepts. 'This is not a consultation on rights, it is about the application of the law. Women who understand the reality of sex-based violence and discrimination and work at the university also have human rights, and it may astonish the UCU to learn that they also have a responsibility to represent those members as well as the select elite they prefer to pander to.' Meanwhile, Helen Joyce, director of advocacy at human rights charity Sex Matters, said the 'era of no debate' was over. She told The Herald: 'Gender ideologues' attempts to thought-police and silence gender-critical academics in recent years have been shameful. It's hard to understand how this can continue even after the Supreme Court judgment. 'This letter raises an obvious question: what is UCU Glasgow afraid of? Could it be that it cannot counter gender-critical arguments on their merits, and must resort to shunning and ostracism instead?' Protestors blocked a screening of Adult Human Female in Edinburgh in the spring of 2023. (Image: Levi Pay) The academic union is no stranger to facing criticism over its position on trans rights. Two university lecturers behind the gender-critical film Adult Human Female recently sued the UCU over claims they had been discriminated against because of their views. Dr Deirdre O'Neill of Hertfordshire University, and Michael Wayne of Brunel University, told the Employment Tribunal that the union's public opposition to the film amounted to unlawful discrimination. Members of the UCU Edinburgh branch objected to the film being shown on campus in 2022 and 2023 over 'misinformation' relating to trans and nonbinary people. However, in a ruling handed down this week, a judge dismissed the claim, ruling that the pair had not been treated detrimentally under the Equality Act 2010. Read more: Mary Senior, Scotland official UCU, said: "This is a sensible and common sense decision, and we thank Judge Laidler and the tribunal for their careful deliberations. 'It cannot be right that a trade union is not able to protest peacefully within the law and to employers when material is presented on campus which it believes attacks the human rights of others.' Asked for comment on the UCU declining to participate in the consultation, a University of Glasgow spokesperson refused to be drawn. Instead, they repeated a statement previously issued to The Herald, noting: 'The University is committed to being an inclusive community and ensuring that everyone on our campuses is treated with care and respect. We are actively considering the Supreme Court ruling and are consulting with colleagues and students.' UCU Glasgow has been contacted for comment.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Labour's 1970s employment rights bill could send Britain over the edge
Rachel Reeves made vast spending pledges last week in a bid to placate fellow ministers, Labour MPs and party activists and save her political skin. She made no effort whatsoever to explain how she will pay. Yes, this was the Chancellor's spending review. We will get more detail on taxation and borrowing, the other side of the Government's ledger, during her next annual Budget, expected in late October or early November. Given how borrowing has ramped up over recent months, though – with debt interest payments surging as gilt yields have soared – it's astonishing that Reeves said absolutely nothing to reassure financial markets during her House of Commons speech. Back in March 2024, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) forecasted borrowing for the financial year from April 2024 to April 2025 of £87bn. After the first Labour budget in 14 years last October – during which Reeves increased borrowing and taxation by a combined £70bn, green-lighting hefty public sector pay deals, net zero projects and much else on her party's ideological wish-list – the year's borrowing forecast ballooned to £127.5bn. Spool forward to the March Spring Statement and estimated 2024-25 borrowing was up another £10bn, to £137.3bn. And by the time the financial year ended a month later, the total had surged again to £148.3bn, a rise in our national debt in a single year more than £60bn up on the forecast Labour inherited on entering government last July. Reeves claims endlessly to have 'discovered a £22bn black hole in the public finances left by the Tories' on taking office. This is fictitious nonsense, used by ministers to justify tax rises not mentioned in Labour's election manifesto. But even if you accept this rhetorical tosh, which I don't, the £60bn-plus rise in borrowing in 2024-25 alone is almost three times bigger. The more Reeves drones on about 'the black hole we inherited', as she did yet again at the top of her speech last Wednesday, the more she undermines her fast-diminishing credibility in the eyes of financial markets. That's yet another thing she simply can't afford. Before last October's budget, the 30-year gilt yield – the rate of interest charged by investors to lend the UK government long-term money – was about 4.35pc. Yields in recent weeks have moved in a range of 5.25-5.5pc, having been above the 4.85pc peak during the height of the 'Liz Truss mini-Budget crisis' for the whole of this year. Yes, sovereign bonds yields have risen in other highly-indebted Western nations since last autumn. But 30-year yields in France, Germany and Italy are all considerably lower and have gone up far less (by less than half a percentage point in each case). Plus, about a quarter of the UK's sovereign debt is index-linked, far more than other G7 economies, which makes us uniquely vulnerable, with debt-service costs spiralling rapidly upward as inflationary pressures rise. After what shadow chancellor Mel Stride rightly called a 'spend now, tax later' spending review, we're now in for 'a cruel summer of speculation'. Cash-strapped companies and households will now angst about yet more Labour tax rises in this autumn's Budget. The fine print of last week's Treasury documents shows Reeves's plans are predicated on council tax in England rising by 5pc every year during the rest of this Parliament. The only way the UK can avoid a really serious fiscal crisis is to get economic growth going on – with more consumption and investment driving tax receipts up and a larger economy then more able to shoulder our huge national debt stock. Yet the day after Reeves's statement came news the economy shrank 0.3pc during April – the first monthly drop in headline GDP for six months and the worst single month since October 2023. Labour's 25pc rise in employer national insurance contributions (NIC), implemented from April, has seriously hammered hiring. Provisional data shows payroll employment fell by a vast 109,000 in May alone, with employment having fallen every single month since this ill-judged NIC rise was announced last October. And now, just as we really need to get people back to work, to kick-start growth, Labour's employment rights bill is set to clear Parliament. Deeply counterproductive, this legislation takes the UK back to the 1970s by significantly increasing trade union influence, a sure-fire route to stagnation. Championed by 'Red Queen' Angela Rayner, the Deputy Prime Minister, this bill removes qualifying periods for sick pay, maternity pay and unfair dismissal, granting all of these from day one of employment. No wonder countless employer surveys point to fears of lawsuits and greater reluctance to take on more staff. The legislation repeals plenty of the trade union controls from the early-and mid-1980s onwards that rescued Britain from the dystopian and destructive industrial relations of my childhood. The 50pc threshold for strike ballots is set to go, along with vital minimum service levels during industrial action, handing ever more bargaining power to Labour's trade union paymasters. Creating new finger-pointing quangos to chide employers, and requirements for companies to implement endless 'equality action plans', there are also insidious 'opt out' clauses designed to maximise worker contributions to unions and therefore the Labour party, with scant disclosure. It is yet another example of how the Government is determined to replace enterprise, prosperity and opportunity with regulation, entitlement and state overreach. I'm amazed this ghastly legislation has attracted so little media attention. It must be vigorously opposed and called out by the leadership of both the Tories and Reform, the only two parties likely to acknowledge the dangers. Because unless the economy gets going, and the UK escapes this low-growth, high-borrowing, high-tax doom loop, we're heading for a serious fiscal crisis.
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
UK government rollout of Humphrey AI tool raises fears about reliance on big tech
The government's artificial intelligence (AI) tool known as Humphrey is based on models from OpenAI, Anthropic and Google, it can be revealed, raising questions about Whitehall's increasing reliance on big tech. Ministers have staked the future of civil service reform on rolling out AI across the public sector to improve efficiency, with all officials in England and Wales to receive training in the toolkit. However, it is understood the government does not have overarching commercial agreements with the big tech companies on AI and uses a pay-as-you-go model through its existing cloud contracts, allowing it to swap through tools as they improve and become competitive. Critics are concerned about the speed and scale of embedding AI from big tech into the heart of government, especially when there is huge public debate about the technology's use of copyrighted material. Ministers have been locked in a battle with critics in the House of Lords over whether AI is unfairly being trained on creative material without credit of compensation. Its data bill allowing copyrighted material to be used unless the rights holder opts out passed its final stage this week in a defeat for those fighting for further protections. The issue has caused a fierce backlash from the creative sector, with artists including Elton John, Tom Stoppard, Paul McCartney and Kate Bush throwing their weight behind a campaign to protect copyrighted material. A freedom of information request showed the government's Consult, Lex and Parlex tools designed to analyse consultations and legislative changes use base models from Open AI's GPT, while its Redbox tool, which helps civil servants with everyday tasks such as preparing briefs, uses Open AI GPT, Anthropic's Claude and Google Gemini. Ed Newton-Rex, the chief executive of Fairly Trained, who obtained the FoI and is campaigning against AI being trained on copyrighted material, said there was the potential for a conflict when the government was also thinking about how this sector should deal with copyright. He said: 'The government can't effectively regulate these companies if it is simultaneously baking them into its inner workings as rapidly as possible. These AI models are built via the unpaid exploitation of creatives' work. 'AI makes a ton of mistakes, so we should expect these mistakes to start showing up in the government's work. AI is so well known for 'hallucinating' – that is, getting things wrong – that I think the government should be keeping transparent records of Humphrey's mistakes, so that its continuing use can be periodically reevaluated.' Shami Chakrabarti, the Labour peer and civil liberties campaigner, also urged caution and to be mindful of biases and inaccuracies such as those seen in the Horizon computer system that led to the miscarriage of justice for post office operators. Whitehall sources said Humphrey tools all worked in different ways, but users could take different approaches to tackling 'hallucinations', or inaccuracy, and the government continually publishes evaluations about the accuracy of technology in trials. An AI playbook for government also sets out guidance to help officials make use of the technology quickly and offers advice on how to ensure people have control over decisions at the right stages. The costs of using AI in government are expected to grow as Humphrey is further rolled out but officials say prices of AI per-use in the industry have trended downwards, as models become more efficient. Whitehall sources said big projects such as the Scottish government's use of AI to analyse consultation responses had cost less than £50 and saved many hours of work. Using the government's AI Minute software to take notes for a one-hour meeting costs less than 50p and its early data shows that it saves officials an hour of admin each time. A spokesperson from the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology said: 'AI has immense potential to make public services more efficient by completing basic admin tasks, allowing experts to focus on the important work they are hired to deliver. 'Our use of this technology in no way limits our ability to regulate it, just as the NHS both procures medicines and robustly regulates them. 'Humphrey, our package of AI tools for civil servants, is built by AI experts in government – keeping costs low as we experiment with what works best.' When the Guardian asked ChatGPT what base models were used for the Humphrey AI toolkit and if Open AI was involved, it replied that the information was not available. At the time the tool was announced earlier this year, the government said its strategy for spending £23bn a year on technology contracts would be changed, boosting opportunities for smaller tech startups.
