Latest news with #Grenfell:Uncovered
Cosmopolitan
01-07-2025
- Cosmopolitan
Where are the 21/7 bombers now? The true story of the failed terrorists and their attack on London
Netflix has had a fascinating run of devastatingly powerful true-crime series and films of late. We're talking the deeply disturbing A British Horror Story, revisiting the horrific crimes of Fred and Rose West and their killing spree back in the 1980s. And Grenfell: Uncovered, a documentary which looks at the safety failings that resulted in 72 people dying when a London tower block caught fire in 2017. Another four-parter that you should add to your watchlist is Attack on London: The 7/7 Bombings. The documentary, released 20 years after the July 7 bombings that killed 52 people and injured a further 700, looks at how four British citizens became extremists. The series also touches on the eerily similar suicide bomber plot which took place just two weeks after the 7/7 bombings. Known as the 21/7 bombings, this plot also involved extremists targeting the London underground and bus routes. Luckily, their plan failed when the explosive devices they were carrying didn't detonate properly. All five men fled the scene, sparking a high-pressure international manhunt to find the would-be terrorists before they potentially struck again. Here, we explore what happened to these men, where they are now and the events that happened followed the botched terror attack. At 12.26pm on 21 July 2005, Osman detonated a bomb at Shepherd's Bush Market tube station on London's Hammersmith & City underground line. The homemade explosive device failed to work because the solution of hydrogen peroxide used in the weapon was not strong enough. Instead of causing the chaos, carnage and casualties hoped by the terrorists, the bomb only had the strength of a small firework. Osman fled the scene immediately, and a manhunt was sparked as the Met Police scrambled to find him and his accomplices. However, officers discovered a gym membership card with Osman's name on it in the bag with the bomb. It linked him to an address in Scotia Road, Tulse Hill. When surveillance was placed on the property, officers wrongly identified Brazilian electrician Jean Charles de Menezes as Osman and shot him dead. Osman himself had fled the country on a false passport, and was hiding in Rome at an apartment owned by his brother-in-law. Police, who were now monitoring Osman's phone, were alerted to Osman's whereabouts after he put an Italian SIM in his device. Osman was arrested in a raid by Italian authorities on 29 July 2005 and extradited to the UK. In a lengthy and well-documented trial, Osman's defence team claimed his bomb was a hoax, and was not intended to hurt bystanders; instead, this was only meant to be a protest about the Iraq war. However, this was rejected by the court and Osman was sentenced to life in prison, serving a minimum of 40 years. In 2008, the Court of Appeal dismissed a challenge by Osman and the four other bombers to have their convictions overturned. He is thought to be in the high security British jail, Belmarsh Prison. At 12.30pm on 21 July 2005, a small explosion was reported at Oval Underground station. However, the bomb did not detonate properly, resulting in Mohammed fleeing the scene. When police released images of the assailants, a member of the public recognised Mohammed and gave his name to the authorities. With Mohammed's name now on file, police were able to trace him to Dalgarno Gardens, a block of flats in west London by 29 August. Because there were fears Mohammed may have explosive devices on him, police told those who lived in the area to evacuate over a gas leak. They then raided the property, using tear gas to try and lure Mohammed out of his flat. Police ordered him to come out in his underwear with his hands up to ensure that he was not wearing any explosive devices. He followed orders, giving himself up to the police alongside Muktar Said Ibrahim, another suspected failed bomber, who was also hiding in the flat. At trial, Mohammed was found guilty of conspiracy to murder and sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of forty years. A 2008 appeal was rejected. In 2014, Mohammed and two of the other failed bombers appealed to the European Court of Human Rights about overturning their conviction. They claimed their convictions were unfair as they were denied access to lawyers during police questioning and statements they gave were subsequently used at trial. However, this was rejected. Mohammed is also thought to be serving his sentence at Belmarsh Prison. At 12.45pm on 21 July 2005, a small explosion was reported between Warren Street and Oxford Circus tube stations on the Victoria Line. Yasin Hassan Omar was the man carrying the homemade device, but — just like Osman's bomb — it wasn't strong enough to cause the carnage Omar had hoped. Omar escaped capture but, after the police appealed for information, he was identified by a neighbour who lived in the same block of London flats. When police raided Omar's address, they found evidence of extremist paraphernalia, but he was no longer there. He had, however, been recognised by a member of the public in Birmingham. When police reviewed CCTV, they found Omar had managed to travel openly by wearing a full Burka (a long, loose garment which covers the wearer and is traditionally worn by Muslim women). It was down to West Midlands Police to investigate the flat Omar had been traced to in Birmingham. When they arrived on 27 July, they found Omar in a bathtub wearing a backpack he claimed was full of explosives. However, one officer chose to taser Omar, and the backpack was actually empty. Omar was found guilty at Woolwich Crown Court of conspiracy to murder and sentenced to life imprisonment, with a minimum of 40 years before being considered for release. His 2008 appeal was rejected. In 2014 Omar, alongside Mohammed and another failed bomber, appealed to the European Court of Human Rights to have their conviction overturned. They claimed their sentences were unfair as they were denied access to lawyers during police questioning and statements they gave were subsequently used at trial. However, this was rejected. Omar is thought to be serving his sentence at Belmarsh Prison, alongside Mohammed and Osman. At 1.30pm, Muktar Said Ibrahim's bomb on the 26 bus from Waterloo to Hackney Wick failed to detonate. After the police released CCTV of Ibrahim on the bus, his own father recognised him and gave his name to the police. In a statement released at the time, Ibrahim's family distanced themselves from the failed bomber and said they had no knowledge of his terrorist activities. A statement issued by police read: 'The family wish to express their shock regarding recent events and in no way condone any acts of terrorism.' Ibrahim was arrested on 29 July 2005 after police raided a property in west London linked to Ramzi Mohammed. As Ibrahim was hiding alongside Mohammed, the pair were arrested together. At the 2007 trial, Ibrahim was found guilty at Woolwich Crown Court of conspiracy to murder and sentenced to life imprisonment, to serve a minimum of forty years before being considered for release. In 2014, Ibrahim joined Omar and Mohammed in appealing to the European Court of Human Rights about overturning their conviction. They claimed their convictions were unfair as they were denied access to lawyers during police questioning and statements they gave were subsequently used at trial. However, this was rejected. He is thought to be held at Belmarsh Prison. Asiedu was linked to the attempted 21/7 bombings – however, he ditched his device in little Wormwood Scrubs Park in west London and later turned himself in to the authorities. During the 2007 trial, he testified against the other five defendants and later pleaded guilty to conspiracy to cause an explosion. On 20 November 2007, he was sentenced to 33 years in jail. He is thought to be held at Belmarsh Prison. In the weeks following the bombing, Brazilian electrician Jean Charles de Menezies was wrongly put under surveillance by the Met police. He lived in the same block of flats as Hussain Osman — and police mistook him for the Shepherd's Bush bomber. He was fatally shot at Stockwell station on 22 July 2005. In a statement, the Met Police said what had happened to de Menezies was 'a tragedy, and one that the Metropolitan Police Service regrets'. They also agreed to pay compensation to the de Menezes family. While the amount has not been publicly confirmed, reports at the time believe the payment was around £100,000. In 2015, the de Menezes's family took the British government to the European Court of Human Rights over the decision not to prosecute any police officer for the fatal shooting, which ultimately proved unsuccessful. Attack on London: Hunting the 7/7 Bombers is available to watch on Netflix now Kimberley Bond is a Multiplatform Writer for Harper's Bazaar, focusing on the arts, culture, careers and lifestyle. She previously worked as a Features Writer for Cosmopolitan UK, and has bylines at The Telegraph, The Independent and British Vogue among countless others.
Daily Mirror
24-06-2025
- Daily Mirror
NICOLA METHVEN 'New Netflix disaster documentary will make your blood boil'
I defy anyone to watch the Netflix documentary about the Grenfell disaster without feeling anguished at what the victims and their families went through, followed by an even stronger emotion - fury. There won't be many viewers who get to the end of the 90 minutes without their blood boiling as the multiple injustices suffered by those living in Grenfell Tower at that time are laid bare for all to see. It's a film that should be watched by everyone, so the full extent of the many failings that led to the fire are remembered, at a time when not a single person has been prosecuted. Grenfell: Uncovered was released on Friday, and many who've watched it have been left - like me - gasping in shock at the way in which those affected by the tragedy were treated both in the run-up, the aftermath and ever since. The stand-out moment, perhaps, is the unearthing of emails which prove beyond all doubt how cladding company Arconic absolutely knew that its flammable plastic product was unsuitable for a high rise building, or indeed any building over 12metres, but they sold it for Grenell anyway. The safety tests they'd carried out told them in no uncertain terms about the lethal 'flaming droplets' that would be created in the event of a fire. They knew human life would inevitably be put in danger. But in the dogged pursuit of profit they decided to bury the outrageously bad safety results, hiding behind the fact that the sale of the cladding was at least legal in the UK at the time (it wasn't in many other countries). The emails, especially those from technical manager Claude Werhle and others from senior Arconic executive Diana Perriah, show how the company's insistence that nothing was concealed from the public or customers or officials in terms of safety testing results is categorically untrue. In fact they had fire tested the ACM cladding several times and the results were that it was so bad it was deemed upgradeable. The comment to this discovery, sent in an email, was "oops". You've got to wonder how Mr Werhle sleeps at night.. 'This product was safe to use as a building material and permissible to sell in the UK,' Arconic insists in an infuriating statement shown at the end of the film. 'AAP [the company's French subsidiary which did the deal for Grenfell] did not conceal information from or mislead any certification body, customers or the public.' It's frankly astonishing, considering the inquiry found them to have "deliberately concealed" the true extent of the fire risk while displaying "systematic dishonesty". The documentary highlights many shock moments as the survivors and the families of the victims push for justice. These include: So the next big question is over whether the failings by the cladding companies, by the fire brigade or by the building's owner, the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea, constitute criminal negligence. By next year, or perhaps 2027, this will be known, because the Met is carrying out its own investigation. That it could take a full decade for the culprits to be brought to justice - if that is indeed what happens - is yet another travesty, on top of the many that the survivors and bereaved have already endured. Anyone watching the documentary about the avoidable tragedy should prepare themselves for an extremely emotional ride. I do hope Lord Eric Pickles tunes in to see just how badly he comes across - there won't be many who witness his arrogance and aren't left staggered that he was made a life peer in 2018. And perhaps, just a thought, it's time to remove all flammable cladding from UK buildings? As fire-fighter Dave Badillo sighed in an interview with the Mirror earlier this month - 'just get it off!' - Grenfell: Uncovered is now streaming on Netflix
Daily Mirror
23-06-2025
- Entertainment
- Daily Mirror
Netflix's devastating Grenfell documentary leaves viewers in tears
Viewers are re-living the 2017 inferno and the devastating aftermath in Grenfell: Uncovered as Netflix shines a light on the struggle for justice eight year on from the blaze As new Netflix documentary Grenfell: Uncovered lays bare the full horror of the tower block fire, viewers took just moments to be left completely overcome with emotion. The film delves into the lead-up to the notorious west London tower blaze on June 14, 2017, and the harrowing events of that night. Featuring interviews with survivors, experts, and a detailed look at the subsequent investigation, the programme is stirring deep emotions with justice still not served. Netflix describes Grenfell: Uncovered as: "Survivors, witnesses and experts tell the story of the tragic fire that engulfed a residential tower block in London - and the investigation that ensued." Days after its release, those who have already watched the heartbreaking opening show didn't take long to break down. In the documentary, which launched on Friday, new evidence is unearthed which suggests the president of the company that made the cladding knew it was dangerous two years before the fire that claimed 72 lives. Many have taken to X to give their reaction. One posted: "NetflixUK Grenfell uncovered is truly heartbreaking and had me in tears. The survivors are so brave telling their stories from such a traumatising event." Another took to the platform to tell their followers: "Not a comfortable watch but such an eye opener." Meanwhile, a third person gave their assessment, writing: "Powerful doco. To say I enjoyed it isn't really correct, but to dig into why it happened and how damning the evidence makes it essential viewing I hope the victims and their loved ones get the justice they deserve." Viewers see how arconic executive Diana Perreiah was warned by French colleagues - who sold the product to the UK - that the type of flammable cladding chosen for cost-cutting reasons on Grenfell was not suitable over 12 metres and caused excess smoke and 'flaming droplets'. In 2015, Perreiah had asked for details of cladding types and their burn times during negotiations for the Grenfell contract but failed to stop the deal, despite the clear warning. This new information comes after the public inquiry found that Arconic had "deliberately and dishonestly" concealed 2005 test data that showed its cladding burnt in "an extremely dangerous way" and had issued safety statements which "it knew to be false'. Arconic's statement issued to the Netflix film-makers, Rogan Productions, is that the product was 'safe to use as a building material and permissible to sell in the UK'. It also insisted that Arconic's French subsidiary AAP 'did not conceal information from or mislead any certification body, customers or the public'. Grenfell Tower was 67 metres tall. Its 129 homes were covered in PE cladding towards the end of 2015 with the panels later found to be the main cause for the rapid spread of the fire that killed 72 people, including 18 children, on June 14, 2017. The documentary highlights that using the fire retardant version of the panels would have cost around £2 per square metre more, which works out at around £40 per flat, or £5,000. Grenfell survivor Eddie Daffarn, told The Sunday Times: "It is bad enough to know that they knew about the danger this product posed to tall buildings, but to learn that they specifically knew it was sold for use on Grenfell Tower and did nothing to stop it just proves what a callous and uncaring company they are, and how they simply put profit above human lives." Grenfell Uncovered is available for streaming on Netflix now.
Buzz Feed
23-06-2025
- Entertainment
- Buzz Feed
Grenfell Uncovered Reviews: Netflix Documentary Hailed As 'Urgent' And 'Heartwrenching'
ASSOCIATED PRESS A new documentary exploring the Grenfell Tower disaster is being lauded by critics. In June 2017, a fire broke out at the tower block in North Kensington, London, killing at least 72 people. Eight years later, questions are still being asked about the tragedy – which are explored further in Netflix's new documentary Grenfell Uncovered. An official Netflix synopsis for the doc reads: 'This feature length documentary examines the disturbing chain of events that led to the Grenfell Tower fire in 2017. 'By uncovering actions taken by business and government years before the tragedy, the film shines a light on how it could have been prevented, and 72 lives could have been saved. The documentary gives a platform to survivors, bereaved families and firefighters to share their story.' The documentary has already been praised as 'agonising', 'rage-inducing' and 'heartwrenching' by critics in their early reviews. Here's a selection of what has been said about it so far… The Guardian (5/5) 'The 2017 Grenfell Tower fire in London which caused 72 deaths is now the subject of Olaide Sadiq's heartwrenching and enraging documentary, digging at the causes and movingly interviewing survivors and their families, whose testimony is all but unbearable. At the very least, the film will remind you that when politicians smugly announce they wish to make a bonfire of regulations, they should be taken, under police escort if necessary, and made to stand at the foot of the tower.' The Telegraph (5/5) 'Vital journalism [...] the documentary's trump card is its editing. That sounds very boring, but for the viewer it means a linear narrative, starting from the first 999 call, that then spread its tentacles down timelines of personal stories and historic corporate malfeasance. The dexterous splicing means that in spite of all this context, the film retains an agonising momentum.' The Standard (4/5) 'This litany of failures is rage-inducing [...] the information is technically already out there, but it's never really been condensed into something this concise and easily understandable before – certainly not on a massive streaming channel like Netflix, which will put it in front of millions of viewers.' The Independent (4/5) '[Netflix has] plenty of schlocky miniseries about serial killers, but when it comes to institutional failings and social affairs, they are more sensitive [...] this dynamic – the film is more interested in apportioning blame than it is in memorialising the victims – makes it feel raw, angry and urgent.' Financial Times (4/5) 'The film is upsetting and harrowing throughout, but it is driven by a clear sense of a need for justice, and an acknowledgment of the lack of justice to date. Though Mr Bates vs The Post Office was a drama, and this is a documentary, Grenfell: Uncovered may well have a similar effect on the public's understanding of what happened in 2017.'
Time Magazine
20-06-2025
- Time Magazine
The True Story Behind the 'Grenfell: Uncovered'
In the early hours of June 14, 2017, residents of Grenfell Tower were caught off guard by a deadly fire that would turn the building into an international symbol of negligence and injustice. What started as a small kitchen fire in the 24-story residential building in North Kensington, London, quickly spread uncontrollably through the exterior, ultimately resulting in the deaths of 72 people. The tragedy is revisited in the documentary Grenfell: Uncovered, which premieres on Netflix on June 20. The film gives voice to victims, reveals behind-the-scenes details of the investigation, and exposes how corporate interests and government failures contributed to the disaster. But what exactly happened that night—and what followed? How did the Grenfell Tower fire start? The fire originated in Flat 16, on the fourth floor. The resident, Behailu Kebede, was awakened by the smoke alarm and saw flames near the fridge and freezer, which had caught on fire. He immediately called the fire brigade at 12:54 a.m., and the first crews arrived at the building five minutes later. The first firefighters entered the flat at around 1:07 a.m. They conducted a quick sweep but didn't reach the kitchen until seven minutes later. According to a firefighter's account, there was a 'curtain of fire' rising to the ceiling. Thermal images captured by the team suggest that gases and flames were already escaping through the kitchen window, which was located by the fridge. From 1:09 a.m. onwards, the fire began to break through to the outside of the building—marking the start of a devastating spread. Within 30 minutes of the firefighters' arrival, the fire had climbed up the east side of the tower and reached the top floor. By 4:30 a.m., the entire building was ablaze, and more than 100 flats had been affected. Why did the fire spread so quickly? Several structural and design flaws contributed to the rapid and catastrophic spread of the flames. The most critical factor was the exterior cladding installed during a 2016 refurbishment. Grenfell Tower had been covered with aluminum composite panels (ACMs) that contained a polyethylene core—a highly flammable plastic that releases enormous amounts of heat when burned, essentially acting as fuel for the fire. Additionally, the thermal insulation installed beneath the cladding — made of polyurethane foam — was also combustible and helped the fire spread, as did other construction materials. Renovations to the windows included the use of flammable materials, which allowed the fire to pass from one floor to another through gaps in the structures. Experts featured in Grenfell: Uncovered highlight that the ACM cladding—made of aluminum composite material with a polyethylene core—had already been flagged in previous fire tests as dangerous, with rapid burn, intense heat, and heavy smoke release. These test results were kept secret by companies like Arconic, the manufacturer of the material used in Grenfell Tower. The failure of the emergency plan Like many residential buildings in the UK, Grenfell Tower followed a fire safety policy known as 'stay put'—the idea that in the event of a fire, residents should remain in their flats, trusting that the building's design would prevent the flames from spreading. But this plan failed catastrophically that night. By 1:26 a.m., less than 30 minutes after the fire brigade arrived, it was clear the situation was out of control. In desperation, some people climbed to neighbors' flats on higher floors, others jumped from the building, and many ignored the official advice and fled down the stairs in search of safety. Even so, an evacuation order was only issued at 2:47 a.m. Richard Millett QC, the lead counsel to the Grenfell Tower Inquiry, stated in a hearing on June 4, 2018, that 144 people had evacuated the building before 1:38 a.m. After that point—when the 'stay put' advice was finally abandoned—only 36 more people managed to escape. The role of the government in the tragedy While corporate negligence was a key factor in the fire, government oversight—or lack thereof—also played a central role. The cladding material used in Grenfell Tower had already been banned in countries like the United States due to its flammability. Yet, in the UK, it remained legal, largely due to years of deregulating the construction industry. Policies implemented encouraged the loosening of safety standards in favor of cost-cutting and efficiency measures, creating a regulatory vacuum in which unsafe materials could be approved and used. Furthermore, internal documents later revealed that the local authorities responsible for Grenfell—the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC) and the Kensington & Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation (KCTMO)—were aware of the potential risks. Cost-cutting decisions during the tower's refurbishment led them to choose the cheaper, more dangerous cladding, instead of safer alternatives like zinc. Residents had long raised safety concerns. Six months before the fire, a local tenant group had warned about fire risks in an open letter. Their pleas were ignored. The fire at Lakanal House in 2009, which killed six people and also involved flammable cladding, should have served as a wake-up call. But once again, authorities failed to act. The investigation and the pursuit of justice After the fire, an extensive public investigation was launched. The Grenfell Tower Inquiry, established to determine causes, was divided into two phases. The first began in September 2017 and concluded in October 2019, focusing on the events of the night itself through witness testimony. The second phase, which began in January 2020, examined broader structural issues—including decisions made during the building's refurbishment and the involvement of companies that supplied flammable materials. Following years of extensive hearings, the final report was published on September 4, 2024. It attributed the disaster to failures by the government, the construction industry, and especially the companies responsible for installing flammable cladding on the building's exterior. The report found that the cladding did not meet fire safety regulations and was the primary reason for the rapid spread of the fire. It also criticized the London Fire Brigade's delayed shift from 'stay put' advice to a full evacuation order, which significantly compromised rescue efforts. A total of 58 recommendations were made, including updates to building regulations. With the official inquiry concluded, it is now up to the police to identify potential criminal cases and refer them to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), which will decide whether to bring formal charges. Due to the complexity of the material gathered, authorities have stated that any criminal charges are unlikely to be filed before the end of 2026.
