Grenfell fire disaster scandal news


This 22 May 2018 video from Britain says about itself:

Deborah Lamprell remembered at Grenfell Inquiry – 5 News

A presentation was made on behalf of Deborah (known as Debbie) Lamprell’s mother, who criticised the refurbishment of Grenfell Tower.

From daily News Line in Britain:

Saturday, 19 January 2019

There was no fire safety report before refurbishing Grenfell

GRENFELL Tower was safe until the refurbishment took place, when it was wrapped in highly flammable insulation and cladding, described by fire safety experts at the inquiry into the fire as the equivalent of dousing the tower in petrol.

Now we find out that no fire safety report was commissioned for the final Grenfell cladding refurbishment plans. Inside Housing obtained the previously unreleased ‘Outline Fire Safety Strategy’ for the refurbishment of the tower, which was written by fire safety firm Exova Warringtonfire in October 2013.

The 10-page document into earlier refurbishment plans for Grenfell Tower determined that the refurbishment would have ‘no adverse effect on the building in relation to external fire spread’. The plans were for a simple conversion of the lower floors to residential use and did not include the addition of external combustible cladding, or other major changes such as new windows.

Matt Wrack, Fire Brigades Union (FBU) general secretary said: ‘This concerning development sheds further light on the complacent attitude towards resident safety shown by the council, the Westminster government, and the businesses involved in Grenfell.

‘The FBU has repeatedly highlighted the dangers of the cosy relationship between councils, the construction industry, and fire safety regulators. ‘This new evidence provides further proof that corners were cut, exposing the endemic cost-cutting mentality surrounding social housing, and which placed profit before the lives of residents.

‘This is rightly a matter for the inquiry and potentially for police investigation.

‘We need to know why Rydon (the construction company that refurbished Grenfell Tower) failed to commission a fire safety report into the final plans; whether the council overlooked its responsibilities; whether cost-cutting measures drove this decision; and why the requests of residents for fire retardant cladding were ignored.

‘We are disappointed that, due to the delay to the next phase of the inquiry, the corporate and government interests complicit in the fire safety regime at Grenfell will continue to evade justice for another year.’

In the wake of the Grenfell Tower fire, you would assume that fire safety checks would have increased. However, over the last seven years, fire safety checks across England have actually plummeted by 42%.

Due to Tory cuts since 2010 when they took power, the number of fire safety inspectors has fallen by 28%. Meanwhile, nearly 50 councils have used unregistered fire risk assessors to check if their buildings are safe.

One hundred and twenty-eight councils responded to Freedom of Information requests about their fire risk assessors, with 46 saying they had used at least one unregistered assessor since 2010. Of these, 23 said that none of the assessors they had used since 2010 were registered.

And there are hundreds of council towers across the country with the same Grenfell-style flammable cladding, which still, even 19 months after the fire, have not been stripped and re-clad safely.

We can’t wait a year for the Grenfell Inquiry to resume. The criminals must be made to stand trial now. It is the Tory Kensington and Chelsea Council, and the Tenants Management Organisation who put the cladding up, Rydon the company that did the refurbishment, and the Tory government that has closed ten fire stations in London, axed 552 firefighters’ jobs and got rid of 14 fire engines in the capital that are responsible for the deaths of 72 people in the Grenfell Tower fire. This is a Tory government that boasted of a ‘bonfire of the regulations’.

Advertisements

British Thatcherite police on trial for Hillsborough football disaster


This video from England says about itself:

Liverpool fans sing anti Thatcher song at Sunderland. Sept. 15th 2012.

Liverpool fans make their feelings known in the wake of the Hillsborough “real truth” report.

By Thomas Scripps in Britain:

UK: Trial begins of police commander in 1989 Hillsborough football disaster

17 January 2019

The prosecution began its case against David Duckenfield and Graham Mackrell on Tuesday, for charges relating to the deaths of 96 Liverpool fans following the disaster at Hillsborough football stadium in Sheffield, on April 15, 1989.

Duckenfield was the South Yorkshire Police match commander in charge of policing the stadium on that day and faces 95 counts of gross negligence manslaughter. Mackrell was Sheffield Wednesday Football Club’s designated safety officer at the time and is charged with contravening the stadium’s safety certificate and a health and safety offence.

Retired police officers Donald Denton and Alan Foster, and police solicitor Peter Metcalf, are due to stand trial later in the year for acts tending and intending to pervert the course of justice.

The Hillsborough families have worked for decades to achieve justice for their loved ones. The trial of Duckenfield and Mackrell, who will now be properly cross-examined, is a welcome landmark in their campaign.

Addressing Preston Crown Court, Richard Matthews QC outlined the prosecution’s case against Duckenfield. In addition to failures to plan for the crowds beforehand, he said, “Sadly, there were also many collective and individual failures to intervene effectively once the disaster unfolded.” Duckenfield failed to declare a major incident or use emergency measures to help those in danger. “Nor did he make any attempt to even monitor what was occurring, let alone avert the tragedy.” He also failed to provide “emergency medical attention, particularly attempts at resuscitation” in a timely fashion.

Duckenfield, the court was told, had “ultimate responsibility” for the police operation. “It is the prosecution’s case that David Duckenfield’s failures to discharge this personal responsibility were extraordinarily bad and contributed substantially to the deaths of each of those 96 people who so tragically and unnecessarily lost their lives.”

Mackrell, Matthews said, “[E]ffectively shrugged off all responsibility” for arrangements for admission to the ground and the drawing-up of contingency plans—“important aspects of the role he had taken on as safety officer.” By “agreeing to, or at the very least turning a blind eye to” the fact the fact that the club had failed to agree methods of entry to the stadium with police, he is alleged to have breached the conditions of the club’s safety certificate.

More than 20 family members of those killed at Hillsborough sat in the public gallery and other relatives watched from Liverpool via a video link.

What the events at Preston Crown Court highlight above all is the immense scale of the state cover-up carried out over the Hillsborough events—presided over by successive Conservative and Labour governments alike. It has taken fully 30 years of tireless campaigning, at great personal cost to those involved, in the face of vicious media lies and government opposition, for the bereaved families to see anyone finally held to account for the worst sporting disaster in British history.

The government and the press initially responded to the deaths caused by actions of various institutions of the state by blaming a “tanked-up mob” of Liverpool fans and lauding the actions of “brave cops.” The first official report, carried out by Lord Justice Taylor in 1989, was forced to admit some of the truth, pointing to police mismanagement of the event and criticising South Yorkshire police for blaming Liverpool supporters instead of accepting responsibility themselves. However, no one was charged or even disciplined as a result of these findings. An inquest ruled that the 96 deaths were “accidental.”

In 1997, due to mounting pressure, the incoming Labour government ordered the scrutiny of new evidence, which had been brought to light by campaigners and documentary makers in the previous eight years. It emerged that South Yorkshire police changed 164 officers’ accounts of the disaster before sending them to the Taylor inquiry. Prime Minister Tony Blair refused to call a new public inquiry, however, writing “What is the point?” Blair’s Home Secretary Jack Straw claimed that nothing significant had been added by the new evidence.

It took more than a decade’s campaigning and protests by the families and their supporters for the Labour government to finally establish the Hillsborough Independent Panel (HIP), in 2009. The HIP published a report in 2012 which demolished the official police narrative and established that it was not the fans who were responsible for the deaths but the police and the authorities. Then Home Secretary Theresa May was forced to order a criminal inquiry. Now, six years later, and nearly 30 years after the event itself, the first trials of those involved have begun.

This is despite all the evidence and materials for a prosecution of the real criminals being available within the first days and weeks after the disaster. The tortured process leading to the first trials is entirely the result of the state’s efforts to deceive and delay the Hillsborough campaigners’ pursuit of the truth and justice—a deliberate strategy to render a proper accounting for the disaster impossible.

So long has the fight for justice taken that many individuals involved in the events that led to the deaths and their cover-up—including the filthy slander campaign against Liverpool fans which followed it—have died without ever facing investigation or being asked to testify.

Chief amongst these is former Tory Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Her government defended the officials at Hillsborough to the hilt and supported the right-wing media and Tory MPs in smearing Liverpool supporters. The leading role was played by Irvine Patnick, then MP for Sheffield Hallam, who contributed to the Sun newspaper’s disgusting lies about the behavior of Liverpool fans—published under the now infamous headline, “ The Truth.” Patnick died in 2012, still holding a knighthood.

Peter Wright, chief constable of South Yorkshire police at the time of Hillsborough, came under suspicion for diverting blame from members of the police but died in 2011. Stefan Popper, the coroner who oversaw the original and thoroughly discredited inquest into events at the stadium, died in 2016. Bernard Murray, the ground commander and Duckenfield’s immediate subordinate on the day, is also deceased.

The passing of time has also made it increasingly difficult to prosecute still-living suspects. Sir Norman Bettison, former chief constable of West Yorkshire Police, is a case in point. He was originally charged alongside the other five defendants, in his case, for lying about his part in South Yorkshire police’s response to the tragedy and about his views on the role fans played in it. But the prosecution was forced to drop proceedings against Bettison when a key witness died and the evidence of two other witnesses changed.

As it stands, just five people—aged between 68 and 80 and having since retired from their positions of responsibility—are standing or due to stand trial. Duckenfield himself is 74 years old, having been retired for almost three decades on a full index linked pension of £23,000 a year.

The lesson of these events is that the ruling class will not allow its representatives to be held to account for the crimes they inflict upon the working class and will fight tooth and nail to prevent justice from prevailing. This is especially significant considering their response to the Grenfell Tower fire, where a similar cover-up operation is underway. This is despite the ongoing struggle by local residents, who angrily denounced the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea council in the immediate aftermath of the fire and insisted that the fight for justice for the victims of social murder at Grenfell not end up going down the same path as Hillsborough.

However, the fact is that the Grenfell public inquiry being held under Sir Martin Moore-Bick is designed to be a whitewash. From day one, it was specifically barred from discussing issues of a “social, economic and political nature” and “limited to the cause [of the fire], how it spread, and preventing a future blaze.” The first phase of the inquiry took nearly 18 months to complete. The next phase has been delayed until at least 2020. This was confirmed by Moore-Bick at the very end of the first phase of the inquiry in December, at the same time as the Metropolitan Police confirmed its investigation is expected to “take years” to complete.

The author recommends:

Criminal prosecutions finally brought 28 years after 96 Liverpool fans killed at Hillsborough stadium
[30 June 2017]

Second phase of Grenfell inquiry delayed for a year
[14 December 2018]

Grenfell disaster lethal cladding corporation Arconic sued


This 24 June 2017 video is called Arconic knowingly supplied flammable panels for use in Grenfell Tower London.

By Paul Bond in Britain:

Grenfell Tower: Class action lawsuit in US against flammable cladding manufacturer

16 January 2019

A class action lawsuit in the United States against Grenfell Tower cladding manufacturer Arconic underscores how culpability for the fire that killed 72 is an open secret. It also reveals the extent to which the institutions of the British ruling class are going in order to prevent any pursuit of the guilty.

The case starkly reveals capitalism’s priority of profits over lives.

The suit, first filed one month after the fire of June 14, 2017 by shareholder Michael Brave, accuses Arconic of defrauding shareholders over its supply of cladding panels at Grenfell Tower. Brave is seeking to recoup “significant” shareholder losses stemming from the company’s failure to disclose its use of “highly flammable” Reynobond PE cladding panels prior to the fire.

Between June 14 and June 27, 2017—when the company finally announced it would stop selling the panels for use in high-rise blocks—Arconic’s share price fell 21 percent, reducing its market value by more than $2.5 billion. Prices rallied after the company’s announcement.

US shareholders commonly sue companies over unexpected stock price falls they believe could have been avoided. The suit alleges that the “precipitous decline” in share price after the fire cost them money.

Arconic was created in 2016 through a division of Alcoa Inc. into two independent companies. It makes vast profits manufacturing cladding panels, including ones that are highly combustible—showing revenues of $13 billion (£10.3 billion) in 2017, the year of the fire. The suit encompasses the decisions and actions of parent and offspring companies—one of the claims is that an inaccurate prospectus was provided for a $1.3 billion share issue in 2014—and alleges that there is some continuity in their boards.

Brave argued that shareholders had been deceived by inadequate disclosures over the panels. The suit’s starting point was that use of the panels significantly increased the risk of property damage, injury or death in buildings containing them. Brave described Arconic’s public statements as “materially false and misleading at all relevant times.”

Brave named as defendants Arconic’s former Chief Executive Klaus Kleinfeld and its current Chief Financial Officer, Kenneth Giacobbe, insisting they should be held liable for the content of public statements.

The suit’s scope has since expanded considerably and now includes banks alleged to have misled investors in underwriting the share issue, including the US arm of the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS), Morgan Stanley, Credit Suisse, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs and others.

More board members have been named, including Alcoa director Ratan Tata, head of trusts holding a 66 percent stake in the multinational Tata group’s holding company; Ernesto Zedillo, who as Mexican president presided over privatisations and austerity measures and has since served on the boards of multinationals like Citigroup; Stanley O’Neal, former chairman of investment bank Merrill Lynch; and Sir Martin Sorrell, former head of WPP, one of advertising’s global “big four” companies.

Sorrell was Britain’s highest paid FTSE 100 CEO in 2016, when he earned £48 million from WPP, and he was a non-executive director of Alcoa/Arconic from 2012 until March 2017. He told the press he was “greatly saddened by the horrific events at Grenfell. However, I left the board of the company in March 2017 and I cannot comment on the legal actions.”

The lawsuit’s implications are that the company’s actions before the fire did make it culpable.

The suit claims the Alcoa Inc./Arconic board “made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose” and that “Arconic knowingly or recklessly supplied its highly flammable Reynobond polyethylene (PE) cladding panels for use in high-rise buildings.”

The suit cites a Reuters report, published in June 2017, which revealed emails between Arconic and Harley Facades and Rydon, the contractors responsible for the refurbishment of Grenfell Tower. Between May and July 2014 Deborah French, Arconic’s UK sales manager, handled inquiries on the availability of samples of different types of Reynobond aluminium-covered (ACM) panels.

Arconic manufactures Reynobond panels in three types: one with a non-combustible core (A2), one with a fire-retardant core (FR), and one with a polyethylene core (PE). In their brochures Arconic described PE panels as suitable for buildings up to 10 metres high, and FR panels as suitable for buildings up to 30 metres. Above that height A2 panels should be used.

All five types of panel discussed in the emails were only available in combustible PE and FR versions. Grenfell Tower was over 60 metres high.

Arconic told Reuters it had known the panels were for Grenfell Tower, but said it was not the company’s role to decide on whether they were compliant with local building regulations or not.

Rydon and Harley had claimed their work complied with regulations.

Arconic’s own brochure warned of flammability. “[I]t is crucial to choose the adapted products in order to avoid the fire to spread to the whole building. Especially when it comes to facades and roofs, the fire can spread extremely rapidly.”

In a statement that should damn all those responsible, it noted, “As soon as the building is higher than the fire fighters’ ladders, it has to be conceived with an incombustible material.”

Arconic declined to tell Reuters if they knew how tall the tower was. The emails do not discuss the building’s height, but do refer to “Grenfell Tower” and mention other high-rise projects. Reuters pointed out that Arconic knew how many panels were being supplied, so were aware of the total coverage of the building.

A source from one company told Reuters that Arconic had “full involvement” throughout the contract bidding. Omnis Exteriors, which cut the tiles to shape for the cladding contractor, said it had “fulfilled the order as directed by the design and build team.”

German and US regulators have banned some forms of plastic-filled cladding, like the Reynobond PE, on high buildings because of the fire risks.

The US “rules-based” approach to regulation requires specific legislation for each example. Advocates of the UK’s “principles-based” approach argue that by placing responsibility on companies to operate safely, based on common understanding of risks, it avoids the emergence of loopholes by requiring companies to take account of new information immediately.

What Grenfell demonstrates is that both systems are implemented on behalf of corporations. When challenged on the emails, Arconic issued its “sympathies” and pledged to “fully support the authorities as they investigate.”

The official inquiry has repaid their confidence. It was deliberately not intended to bring the guilty to justice. The 2005 Inquiries Act, under which it was called, states categorically, “An inquiry panel is not to rule on, and has no power to determine, any person’s civil or criminal liability.” It separated discussion of the events of that night from broader national or political issues.

Having limited the list of issues to be covered, the inquiry then deferred the bulk of the substantial material relating to the actions of companies involved in Grenfell’s refurbishment to its second phase. It has now been announced that this phase will not begin until late 2019 at the earliest.

The corporations have run rings around the inquiry to the extent that Arconic felt able to make a bullishly hostile closing statement. Their counsel told the final day of Phase One of the inquiry that the spread of the fire was not due to the flammable cladding, but to the combination of materials used in the refurbishment, including the window frames and insulation.

He further claimed it was “impossible to argue that ACM PE was non-compliant” with building regulations. Arconic asserted at the beginning of the inquiry that the panels were “at most, a contributing factor.”

As we noted at the closure of Phase One, “The fact that Arconic felt emboldened enough to deliver such a self-serving and unremorseful denial of responsibility for the spread of the fire, indicates that it feels safe in the knowledge that the inquiry will do nothing to bring those who are guilty to justice.”

The shareholders’ lawsuit demonstrates that capitalism takes more seriously the threat to investors’ finance than the lives of the working class. All those responsible for the decisions that cost 72 lives must be arrested and charged, not allowed to hide behind who bears the lion’s share of responsibility for social murder at Grenfell Tower.

The author also recommends:

Second phase of Grenfell inquiry delayed for a year
[14 December 2018]

UK: Investigation into Grenfell fire will “take years, not months,” police say
[29 December 2018]

‘Grenfell’ fire danger in British military barracks


This 15 July 2017 video from Britain says about itself:

Grenfell Tower fire survivors describe horrors trying to escape: Part 1

Residents who lived in the London public housing tower say they fought through smoke, tried to save neighbors, but many never made it out.

By Phil Miller in Britain:

Wednesday, January 9, 2019

Grenfell-style fire risk at barracks branded a “shocking failure”

DEFENCE Secretary Gavin Williamson is under attack by a parliamentary committee that is “extremely concerned” that an inferno at shoddy military quarters could kill British soldiers in their sleep.

Commons defence committee chair Julian Lewis, a Tory, has sent a scathing letter to the minister about the “shocking failure” of fire safety at barracks across Britain.

The Ministry of Defence (MoD) houses unmarried soldiers in a range of accommodation, including a central London tower block called Hyde Park Barracks that is taller than Grenfell Tower, raising the prospect of another tragedy.

Fire safety at the barracks is outsourced to Capita, a company with an “appalling” track record on MoD contracts, according to Mr Lewis.

He questioned the MoD’s decision to “assign such important safety responsibilities to a company with such a poor record of service delivery.”

Mr Lewis is concerned that a “range of serious deficiencies” in fire safety has now “contributed to a serious risk to life.”

He made the comments after reading reports by official watchdog the Defence Safety Authority (DSA).

There were two “notable fires” at barracks that triggered a special investigation by the DSA into fire safety, with inspectors visiting 16 barracks in Britain, Ireland and the Falkland Islands.

They found “an unacceptable degradation of safety management” and blamed senior officials for a failure to follow legislation.

In a chilling echo of the Grenfell tragedy, inspectors were especially concerned by “a failure to recognise and report faulty fire doors that could result in fires and smoke spreading from the room of fire origin into escape routes.”

They warned that this placed “all the occupants at risk when a fire occurs.”

The Fire Brigades Union (FBU) told the Morning Star that it was “deeply concerned” at this “shocking failure to protect military personnel.”

National officer Dave Green condemned “complacency at the heart of this government regarding fire safety” and warned ministers to urgently address the fire risk on military sites. …

Capita did not respond to a request for comment.

London Grenfell fire disaster, slow police investigation


This 16 June 2017 video from London, England says about itself:

Grenfell Tower Fire. Justice for Grenfell. Walk This Way

Grenfell Tower Fire. Unnecessary Deaths. Protest: Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Town Hall Demonstration. Notting Hill Police. Walk This Way.

By Barry Mason and Robert Stevens in England:

UK: Investigation into Grenfell fire will “take years, not months,” police say

29 December 2018

London Metropolitan Police Commissioner Cressida Dick reiterated that it will be years before the “criminal investigation” into the Grenfell Tower fire is concluded.

In a December 19 briefing, Dick stated, “I am sure at various stages there will be consultation with the Crown Prosecution Service as to whether any criminal offences are made out and whether they could be proven. But it’s going to be a very long job. I’ve always said that from the beginning. We have been very clear this will take years, not months.”

Dick said the Met had 200 officers who were carrying out some “incredibly complex and thorough investigations.” These involved them speaking with “lots and lots” of people, some under caution.

Dick’s comments follow chairman Sir Martin Moore-Bick’s announcement at the conclusion of the first phase of the government’s Grenfell inquiry that the second phase is not likely to begin till autumn 2019 at the earliest. He too cited the “complexity” of the issues involved, including 200,000 documents that “need to be reviewed, redacted and digested” and then disclosed to core participants before phase two can even begin.

This confirms the insistence of the Socialist Equality Party and Grenfell Fire Forum that the inquiry and police investigation are not seeking to bring to justice those responsible for the deaths of 72 people but are integral elements of an orchestrated state cover-up.

The comments of Moore-Bick and Dick come 18 months after the terrible events of June 14, 2017 with not a single person responsible yet arrested, let alone charged. The destroyed shell of Grenfell Tower was designated a crime scene by the police since the fire until August 2. It then took over a year to complete a forensic examination of the building.

It was only in July this year that the Met acknowledged having interviewed anyone under caution with no further details provided, despite Dick’s soporifics about speaking to “lots and lots” of people. An Independent article dated July 18, referring to the interviews, noted only that “Scotland Yard is considering whether offences including corporate manslaughter, gross negligence manslaughter and breaches of the Health and Safety Act have been committed.”

In this context, Dick’s statement that the Met will establish with the Crown Prosecution Service “as to whether any criminal offences are made out and whether they could be proven” is only suggestive of continued inaction.

The delayed second phase of the inquiry will focus on the circumstances and critical decisions allowing the fire to spread so quickly, leading to the disastrous outcome. But the extremely narrow frames of reference of the inquiry rule out any examination of the “social, economic and political nature” issues that were central to everything that took place. Instead, again in Moore-Bick’s words, the inquiry will be “limited to the cause, how it spread, and preventing a future blaze.”

With the police now speaking about their investigation taking years to complete, there is plenty of scope for the criminals responsible for Grenfell to kick things even further into the long grass.

The new timeframe for the inquiry means it will be at least two-and-a-half years since the fire before the second phase even begins. According to the 2005 Inquires Act under which Moore-Bick is working, public inquiries cannot determine civil or criminal liability. But given that it is underway, any conclusion of criminal cases could be delayed for years due to the need to await its findings because of their relevance to any prosecution.

No one should accept that everything must be delayed for months and even years because things are “massively complicated.” The police have the resources necessary to mount and complete a criminal investigation, after which it is up to the legal teams appointed to make the case for establishing guilt or innocence in a court of law.

The senior figures in the political and corporate establishment involved in the fire should have been arrested, charged and placed on trial. The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea council and its Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation carried out a “refurbishment” of the Grenfell Tower in 2015-16. The entire tower was encased in highly flammable and toxic smoke producing cladding, which turned the building into a death trap. Evidence given at the inquiry has already proved this.

The inside of the building was just as dangerous and had only one exit stairwell that was rapidly engulfed with toxic smoke as the fire took hold. There was no central fire alarm system and no sprinklers in the building and fire doors did not work. Flammable material was installed in new windows, which quickly escalated the inferno.

This happened because key individuals and committees took minuted decisions with the aim of saving a few thousand pounds. Rydon, the main contractor, and Celotex, the company that manufactured the flammable insulation, have been allowed to maintain silence—withdrawing plans to make a closing submission at phase one of the inquiry—while Arconic was free to assert without challenge that the spread of the devastating inferno was not the result of the flammable panels it manufactured but the combination of materials used in the refurbishment, including plastic window frames and the insulation.

The SEP and Grenfell Fire Forum have insisted those guilty of social murder at Grenfell Tower must be arrested and charged, including former London Mayor Boris Johnson, Prime Minister Theresa May and her predecessors, David Cameron, Gordon Brown and Tony Blair.

Those instrumental in the decision to add the cladding to Grenfell must also be arrested and charged, including former Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea council leader Nicholas Paget-Brown; his then-deputy, Rock Feilding-Mellen, and the former head of the council’s housing management organisation, Robert Black. The CEO of Rydon, Robert Bond, the managing director of Harley Facades, Ray Bailey, and other relevant figures must be asked to account for involvement of their respective companies.

  • Justice for Grenfell means no cover-up and no inquiry whitewash!
  • Arrest the political and corporate criminals responsible!
  • Quality public housing is a social right!

The Grenfell Fire Forum will be discussing these issues at its next meeting on Saturday, January 26, at the Maxilla Social Club in North Kensington, London. All are welcome to attend.

Grenfell Fire Forum meeting

Saturday, January 26, 4 p.m.
Maxilla Social Club, 2 Maxilla Walk
London, W10 6SW (nearest tube: Latimer Road)
For further details visit facebook.com/Grenfellforum