Latest news with #GrenfellNextofKin
BBC News
18-04-2025
- Politics
- BBC News
Rapid purchase of properties for Grenfell residents criticised
A London council is trying to sell 14 properties it bought to house the survivors of the Grenfell Tower tragedy that are in such a poor state that they cannot be rented and Chelsea Council said it knowingly took some risks purchasing the properties "in the necessary interest of speed", a council report authority had to find homes for hundreds of residents displaced by the fire in Grenfell Tower in June 2017, in which 72 people died and more than 70 were injured. In all, they bought a total of 290 group Grenfell Next of Kin said the admission was just one example of "epic failures in the aftermath of a disaster". A council spokesperson told the Local Democracy Reporting Service: "Purchasing 290 homes in 2017 was an unprecedented challenge, and the council knowingly took some risks to complete sales quickly."The authority said it soon became evident some of the properties were unsuitable and would prove difficult to bring up to the high safety standards required for social housing. They added the purchases would not have been made had more detailed information been available and had the "necessity of the circumstances" been different."This included conducting only limited surveys and purchasing privately owned properties that we assumed could be made suitable for social housing," they said."It is inevitable that quality will vary when purchasing this many properties at speed, especially as many had been in private ownership."The council wants to sell 14 homes it purchased because they are in such a poor state that they cannot be brought up to standard, which has raised questions about council processes and a waste of taxpayer money. Emma O'Connor, who escaped in a lift from the 20th floor with her partner, accused the council of failing to learn from its said: "They don't investigate before they do something. Rush is the biggest red flag. You cannot rush fire safety."People's lives mean more than money. If it takes a long time [to find a suitable property], so be it. It's a human right to live somewhere safe."Survivors group Grenfell Next of Kin said the admission was "the tip of the iceberg".They said: "The decision made by the Tory government in the immediate aftermath of the fire to leave the same negligent Tory council in charge of the aftermath with a blank cheque, without any oversight or scrutiny, was a grave misstep, harmful for the victims and irresponsible."Kensington and Chelsea Council said residents were moved on once issues were raised with the properties it purchased after the tragedy. Some of the properties were never occupied due to safety issues such as unusual layouts or fire escape council said it would reinvest the proceeds from the sales back into social housing in the February, the government said the 24-storey Grenfell Tower would be gradually dismantled. A spokesperson said the process was expected to take around two years and it would be done "sensitively", with no changes to the building before the eighth anniversary of the disaster in June.
The Guardian
08-02-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
The Observer view: A robust watchdog is vital to avoid another Grenfell Tower tragedy
The remains of Grenfell Tower have for the last seven years stood as a testament to the worst British fire disaster in living memory. They have become a permanent feature of the west London skyline; one that means the people who live and work in north Kensington – including those who survived the fire – are never far away from the reminder that 72 people died, and that this terrible loss of life was entirely avoidable were it not for a series of dreadful failures by the public bodies, private companies and regulators responsible for ensuring the safety of its residents. The question of what should happen to the tower was always going to be highly sensitive. Some survivors and family members desperately want it to remain standing as a memorial to those who were killed. Nabil Choucair, who lost six family members, says it should at least be allowed to stand until the criminal investigation – still ongoing – has concluded. There are some local residents who say they find its continuing presence difficult and who worry about whether it is structurally safe, following engineers' reports that have said that the tower needs to be taken down above its 10th floor for safety reasons. Last Wednesday, deputy prime minister Angela Rayner told a community meeting that the tower would be dismantled entirely after the eighth anniversary of the fire, to be replaced by a memorial that could incorporate elements of it. The government rejected suggestions from some survivors that the lower levels should be allowed to stand, arguing this would be unfair to those with a connection to flats on the upper levels that have to be removed. Grenfell United, which represents some survivors and family members, has been highly critical of the way the government has handled the decision process; another survivor group, Grenfell Next of Kin, attributed the best of intentions to Rayner. It is understandable and to be expected that some relatives find the prospect of the tower being taken down extremely painful, particularly given the fact that no one has yet been held criminally responsible for the fire; the outcome of any criminal trials is not expected until a full decade after it happened. Given this decision has now been made by the government, it remains critical that the Grenfell Tower Memorial Commission – itself mainly made up of elected representatives from the community – continues to engage with families and survivors with a range of views about what form the memorial should take. Sign up to Observed Analysis and opinion on the week's news and culture brought to you by the best Observer writers after newsletter promotion At the time the final report of the public inquiry was published, the government promised it would produce its response to the inquiry's recommendations within six months; that response is due by early March. After a National Audit Office report last November called on the government to speed up the pace of remedial work on buildings with dangerous cladding – seven years on from the fire, only a third of tower blocks have had the cladding removed, and half a million people are estimated to live in dangerous buildings – ministers announced plans to bring forwards the deadline for buildings over 11 metres to be fixed or have a date in place for completion to the end of 2029. But that is still almost five years away. And the government will need to undertake radical reform of the construction industry to avoid another lethal fire: the inquiry recommended setting up a new public regulator, with a single line of ministerial responsibility, to oversee building construction, including licensing companies involved in the construction of higher-risk buildings. Such a scheme will be expensive, but it is of paramount importance that the resources are found.
Boston Globe
07-02-2025
- Politics
- Boston Globe
Grenfell Tower Was a Death Trap. Some Wanted It to Stand as a Warning.
Rayner said the demolition would be carried out methodically over two years behind the protective wrapping. Parts of the tower, and material from it, will be preserved so they can become part of a future memorial. The carefully worded statement, issued by the Ministry of Housing, Communities, and Local Government, tried to navigate the emotional crosscurrents of the debate. Advertisement 'The tower was the home of the 72 innocent people who lost their lives, and of survivors whose lives were forever changed,' the statement said. 'It is clear from conversations it remains a sacred site. It is also clear that there is not a consensus about what should happen to it.' The government might well have been alluding to the reaction after Rayner's meeting with survivors and families of the victims when she informed them of the decision. One of the groups, Grenfell United, accused her of ignoring their views and claimed there was little support in the room for tearing it down. Karim Mussilhy, whose uncle, Hesham Rahman, perished in the fire, said the government had short-circuited the debate by asserting — wrongly, he claimed — that there was no alternative to demolishing the building completely. Advertisement 'There's no reason the tower needs to come all the way down,' Mussilhy said. 'There are parts of it that can remain forever.' But another group, Grenfell Next of Kin, said the focus should be on a memorial rather than preserving the blackened remains of the building. 'Do we wish the whole tower could stand forever? Yes. Is that an option? Not from a structural point of view,' the group said. 'Do we need a way forward? Yes.' Although the building had been reinforced after the fire with thousands of props, structural engineers warned that it would continue to deteriorate. The government said that preserving multiple floors did not make sense from an engineering point of view. Even preserving a smaller number of floors, it said, would raise issues of equity with the families of victims. 'It would not be fair to keep some floors of the building that are significant to some families, whilst not being able to do so for others and knowing that, for some, this would be deeply upsetting,' the statement said. Some have argued that the building should be preserved because it is, in effect, a crime scene. The public inquiry concluded that the disaster was caused by unscrupulous manufacturers who supplied cheap, flammable cladding, which turned the tower into an inferno after it caught fire in the early hours of June 14, 2017. The inquiry's report also blamed the Conservative-led local council, which was eager to cut costs, as well as acquiescent contractors and the architecture firm that oversaw the 2015 renovation of the 24-floor building. Originally constructed in 1972, Grenfell Tower became a Brutalist landmark, near some of London's most upscale neighborhoods. Advertisement In its statement, the government said it had consulted police, the coroner's office, and the office of the public inquiry, all of which said they had what they needed to pursue investigations of the fire. The Metropolitan Police may not bring the first criminal charges in the case until 2027. 'These conversations are not about who's right or who's wrong,' said Edward T. Linenthal, an emeritus professor of history at Indiana University, who has advised memorial commissions on how to honor victims of terror attacks and mass shootings. 'It's about whose sensibilities you choose to honor and why.' In the case of Grenfell Tower, he said, the unresolved quest for justice adds another layer of complexity: While the fire was an accident, not an attack, unlike in Oklahoma City or on Sept. 11, 2001, it has some of the same qualities. 'When there's malfeasance of any kind involved — loose wiring, class issues, poor regulation by authorities — that adds a sharpness to it,' Linenthal said. 'People died there who weren't supposed to. Whatever they decide to do, it has to take time, and it has to be done carefully.' Among the proposals for a memorial are a garden and a monument that would reach into the sky. Last month, the Grenfell Tower Memorial Commission named a shortlist of five candidates to submit designs. It hopes to choose a winning team by the end of the summer and submit a detailed plan by the end of 2026. In its ruined state, with the green hearts and the phrase 'Grenfell, Forever in Our Hearts,' stamped at the top of the wrapped building, Grenfell Tower has become a different kind of landmark — a symbol of social inequality and the costs of rampant deregulation. To some, it is even a source of solace. Advertisement 'Being able to see the tower every day helps some people continue to feel close to those they lost,' the government said. 'For others, it is a painful reminder of what happened and is having a daily impact on some members of the community.' This article originally appeared in
New York Times
07-02-2025
- Politics
- New York Times
Grenfell Tower Was a Death Trap. Some Wanted It to Stand as a Warning.
For nearly eight years, wrapped in white and crowned with green hearts, Grenfell Tower has stood as a tragic monument to the worst residential fire in the post-World War II history of Britain. On Friday, the government confirmed it would demolish the building, where 72 people died in a blaze that a public inquiry blamed on a lethal combination of negligence, cost-cutting and deregulation. The decision, by the deputy prime minister, Angela Rayner, divided families of the victims when she told them of it on Wednesday, in advance of the official announcement. Some condemned the plan to tear down the building before justice had been meted out to those responsible for the disaster; others conceded the tower could not stand in its present state indefinitely. The anguished debate over Grenfell Tower echoes those over the sites of other tragedies, such as the 9/11 attacks in New York City and Washington or the bombing of a federal building in Oklahoma City, where ruined structures become sacred ground, steeped in symbolism and memory. Ms. Rayner said the demolition would be carried out methodically over two years behind the protective wrapping. Parts of the tower, and material from it, will be preserved so they can become part of a future memorial. The carefully worded statement, issued by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, tried to navigate the emotional crosscurrents of the debate. 'The tower was the home of the 72 innocent people who lost their lives, and of survivors whose lives were forever changed,' the statement said. 'It is clear from conversations it remains a sacred site. It is also clear that there is not a consensus about what should happen to it.' The government might well have been alluding to the reaction after Ms. Rayner's meeting with survivors and families of the victims when she informed them of the decision. One of the groups, Grenfell United, accused her of ignoring their views and claimed there was little support in the room for tearing it down. Karim Mussilhy, whose uncle, Hesham Rahman, perished in the fire, said the government had short-circuited the debate by asserting — wrongly, he claimed — that there was no alternative to demolishing the building completely. 'There's no reason the tower needs to come all the way down,' Mr. Mussilhy said. 'There are parts of it that can remain forever.' But another group, Grenfell Next of Kin, said the focus should be on a memorial rather than preserving the blackened remains of the building. 'Do we wish the whole tower could stand forever? Yes. Is that an option? Not from a structural point of view,' the group said. 'Do we need a way forward? Yes.' Although the building had been reinforced after the fire with thousands of props, structural engineers warned that it would continue to deteriorate. The government said that preserving multiple floors did not make sense from an engineering point of view. Even preserving a smaller number of floors, it said, would raise issues of equity with the families of victims. 'It would not be fair to keep some floors of the building that are significant to some families, whilst not being able to do so for others and knowing that, for some, this would be deeply upsetting,' the statement said. Some have argued that the building should be preserved because it is, in effect, a crime scene. The public inquiry concluded that the disaster was caused by unscrupulous manufacturers, who supplied cheap, flammable cladding, which turned the tower into an inferno after it caught fire in the early hours of June 14, 2017. Its report also blamed the Conservative-led local council, which was eager to cut costs, as well as acquiescent contractors and the architecture firm that oversaw the 2015 renovation of the 24-floor building. Originally constructed in 1972, Grenfell Tower became a Brutalist landmark, near some of London's most upscale neighborhoods. In its statement, the government said it had consulted the police, the coroner's office and the office of the public inquiry, all of which said they had what they needed to pursue investigations of the fire. The Metropolitan Police may not bring the first criminal charges in the case until 2027. The treatment of sites where a tragic loss of life occurred has long been a fraught issue. After a truck bomb destroyed a federal building in Oklahoma City in 1995, there was a lively debate over about whether to preserve and display remnants of the ruined building as a monument to the 168 people killed there. A small section of the building's granite wall was preserved and integrated into a memorial. More symbolically, so was a segment of the chain-link fence that had surrounded the site for four years after the attack and became a repository for flowers, photos and other mementos left by visitors. 'These conversations are not about who's right or who's wrong,' said Edward T. Linenthal, an emeritus professor of history at Indiana University, who has advised memorial commissions on how to honor victims of terror attacks and mass shootings. 'It's about whose sensibilities you choose to honor, and why.' In the case of Grenfell Tower, he said, the unresolved quest for justice adds another layer of complexity: While the fire was an accident not an attack, unlike in Oklahoma City or on Sept. 11, 2001, it has some of the same qualities. 'When there's malfeasance of any kind involved — loose wiring, class issues, poor regulation by the authorities — that adds a sharpness to it,' Professor Linenthal said. 'People died there who weren't supposed to. Whatever they decide to do, it has to take time, and it has to be done carefully.' Among the proposals for a memorial are a garden and a monument that would reach into the sky. Last month, the Grenfell Tower Memorial Commission named a short list of five candidates to submit designs. It hopes to choose a winning team by the end of the summer and submit a detailed plan by the end of 2026. In its ruined state, with the green hearts and the phrase 'Grenfell, Forever in Our Hearts,' stamped at the top of the wrapped building, Grenfell Tower has become a different kind of landmark — a symbol of social inequality and the costs of rampant deregulation. To some, it is even a source of solace. 'Being able to see the tower every day helps some people continue to feel close to those they lost,' the government said. 'For others, it is a painful reminder of what happened and is having a daily impact on some members of the community.'
Reuters
07-02-2025
- General
- Reuters
Community emotions run high as UK government confirms Grenfell Tower demolition
LONDON, Feb 7 (Reuters) - Hamid Ali Jafari says he feels his father's presence every time he walks or drives past London's Grenfell Tower, where the 82-year-old died in a devastating blaze more than seven years ago. The fire ripped through the 23-storey social housing block early on June 14, 2017, killing 72 people - Britain's deadliest blaze in a residential building since World War Two. "My dad has two cemeteries - one where we buried him and one is Grenfell Tower," Jafari, 42, told Reuters as he stood in a community space not far from the building, currently covered in protective wrap. "When we come to the tower I feel... at peace. And when the wind blows around the tower, I can feel my dad," Jafari said. The British government confirmed on Friday the tower would be demolished. It had informed survivors and bereaved families of its decision on Wednesday. The demolition will not start before the eighth anniversary of the tragedy in June, the government said, adding that a detailed plan would be developed and that the whole process was likely to take around two years. Jafari said the government's decision was painful, and that they could have kept some of the tower's floors to be part of a future memorial at the site: "If you don't see... the tower, the memory will be erased." Engineers advising the government said the tower's structure would worsen over time, and that it was not practical to retain many of the floors as part of a memorial as it must last in perpetuity. LETTING GO "It's a bit like grieving, it's like letting go of something," said Kimia Zabihyan, from the Grenfell Next of Kin group, which represents relatives of nearly half of those who died. Zabihyan said that, although the demolition would be emotional, the engineering reports were key to understanding why the government took the decision. Grenfell United, which also represents those affected by the fire, said the voices of survivors and bereaved families were not heard or considered by the government. The government said they were offered the opportunity to meet in person or online. A public inquiry into the fire, which published its final report last year, blamed the disaster on failings by the government, construction industry and the firms involved in fitting the exterior with flammable cladding. Several survivors and families have said the inquiry has delayed any criminal proceedings, and some feel the tower should remain until those responsible are held accountable. "There needs to be a lot of thought about what happens next," said David O'Connell, resident on the Lancaster West estate of which the tower is part. A final design for the memorial is expected by spring 2026, and construction could begin that year. O'Connell said it would be impactful if the memorial included a structure to depict the height of the tower "to make sure it is never forgotten".
