Grenfell campaigners say they have been told by the deputy prime minister that the tower block will be demolished, accusing her of “ignoring the voices of bereaved”.

In a statement, Grenfell United claimed Angela Rayner had not given a reason behind her decision and refused to say how many of the victims’ families and survivors had been consulted.

Confirming a meeting with the housing secretary on Wednesday, it said: “Angela Rayner could not give a reason for her decision to demolish the tower.

“She refused to confirm how many bereaved and survivors had been spoken to in the recent, short four-week consultation.

“But judging from the room alone – the vast majority of whom were bereaved – no one supported her decision.

“But she claims her decision is based on our views.

“Today’s meeting showed just how upset bereaved and survivors are about not having their views heard or considered in this decision.

“Ignoring the voices of bereaved on the future of our loved ones’ gravesite is disgraceful and unforgivable.”

The government has previously said there will be no changes to the site before the eighth anniversary of the fire disaster, which claimed 72 lives on 14 June 2017.

It is expected more details will be set out by ministers by the end of the week.

A spokesperson for Grenfell Next of Kin, a separate group representing some bereaved families, earlier told the PA news agency that the decision around the tower’s future was “obviously a very sensitive and difficult” one.

They added: “For the next of kin of the deceased, that building is a shrine and the death place of their immediate families, their brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, husbands, wives and children – but they understand the hard facts around safety.”

Engineering experts have said that while the tower remains stable, and it is safe for people to live, work and study near by, its condition will worsen over time and there is no realistic prospect of bringing it back into use.

The latest advice issued to the government in September was that the building, or the part of it that was significantly damaged, should be taken down.

What is left of the tower has stood in place since the tragedy, with a covering on the building featuring a large green heart accompanied by the words “forever in our hearts”.

Views have varied on what should happen to the site.

Some of the bereaved and survivors feel the tower should remain in place until there are criminal prosecutions over the failings which led to the disaster.

The final report of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry, published in September, concluded the fire was the result of “decades of failure” by government and the construction industry to act on the dangers of flammable materials on high-rise buildings.

The west London 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.

He said the “simple truth” is that all the deaths were avoidable and that those who lived in the tower were “badly failed” by authorities “in most cases through incompetence but, in some cases, through dishonesty and greed”.

However, the Metropolitan Police said last year that decisions on criminal charges for the Grenfell Tower blaze are not expected until the end of 2026.

It would mean a near 10-year wait for justice if anyone is ultimately charged – a length described by families as “unbearable”.

The disaster was Britain’s deadliest residential fire since the second world war and began a national reckoning over the safety and conditions of social housing and tower blocks.

Separately, the Grenfell Tower Memorial Commission has been consulting on plans for a permanent memorial in the area of the tower.

A shortlist of five potential design teams was announced last month, with a winner expected to be selected this summer to enable a planning application to be submitted in late 2026.

A government spokesperson said: “The priority for the deputy prime minister is to meet with and write to the bereaved, survivors and the immediate community to let them know her decision on the future of the Grenfell Tower.

“This is a deeply personal matter for all those affected, and the deputy prime minister is committed to keeping their voice at the heart of this.”

The families of the victims of the Nottingham attacks have said the killer should face a retrial on a murder charge.

Findings from a new independent review published on Wednesday mean Valdo Calocane should be retried on the more serious charge, the families told Sarah-Jane Mee.

Valdo Calocane, who had been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, was sentenced to an indefinite hospital order after killing 19-year-old students Barnaby Webber and Grace O’Malley-Kumar, and 65-year-old caretaker Ian Coates, before attempting to kill three other people in June 2023.

The report detailing his mental health treatment before his killing spree has found failings in his NHS care – including that he was allowed to avoid taking long-lasting antipsychotic medication because he did not like needles.

Prosecutors accepted a plea of manslaughter after experts agreed his schizophrenia meant he was not fully responsible for his actions.

But on Wednesday, the father of Grace, Dr Sanjoy Kumar, told The UK Tonight with Sarah-Jane Mee: “The basis of the trial was that Calocane had treatment resistant paranoid schizophrenia and that’s why he was convicted in the way he was.

“We have now got three agencies – the Care Quality Commission has said he did not have treatment resistant paranoid schizophrenia. The mental health trust has said emphatically he did not have treatment resistant paranoid schizophrenia. And now the trust report has confirmed he didn’t have treatment resistant paranoid schizophrenia.

“So if that was the basis of what the sentences were passed on, then if that basis is wrong, as families we can’t understand why that basis wouldn’t be challenged and even looked at by someone like [sentencing judge] Mr Justice Turner, who ultimately passed that sentence, because that sentence to us is not right.”

James Coates, the son of Ian Coates, said Calocane’s defence team portrayed him as an “upstanding citizen” in court.

He said he had been contacted by several people from Nottingham on social media “that are going through similar things that we are – they have a child in mental healthcare because of issues they are going through and they are refusing to take medication and they are refusing to get help”.

“If they then learn the same doctor that signed off my father’s killer into the streets is the one looking after their child, or friend, or partner – how are they supposed to deal with that?”

Emma Webber, Barnaby’s mother, said: “I have been engaging with a lady who messaged me to say… ‘Emma, my son’s going to be the next Valdo Calocane. Can you help?’

“This isn’t peculiar to just Nottingham, this is an entirely different part of the country.”

Asked if they would be willing to take on the challenge of seeking a murder retrial, Ms Webber said: “Yes, of course I am, because it is such a grievous wrong. Once the truth is fully uncovered, then we will cross that bridge. Absolutely, yes.”

Earlier, she told a news conference held by the families in London that the indefinite hospital order handed to Calocane represented an “enormous miscarriage of justice”

“He knew what he was doing,” she said. “He serves no punishment for his crimes.”

She said the evidence of failures in dealing with her son’s killer would have been “brushed under the carpet” had it not been for the campaigning by the victims’ families.

Talking about her son’s killer, she said: “He got away with murder, didn’t he? This has to be addressed. So enough is enough. It’s shameful we’ve had to fight so hard against the public agencies and institutions that should be there to protect us.”

She added: “Barnaby, Ian and Grace would be here today if those concerned across these agencies had just done their job properly.”

You can watch the full interview on The UK Tonight with Sarah-Jane Mee at 8pm

Southport killer Axel Rudakubana’s anti-terror case should have been kept open, a review into his attacks has found.

Following the killings in Southport last summer, a rapid review was launched into Rudakubana’s contact with Prevent – a government strategy aimed at stopping people from becoming terrorists.

Speaking in the House of Commons, Home Office minister Dan Jarvis repeated that Rudakubana was in contact three times before his attacks at a Taylor Swift dance class where three young girls were murdered.

Politics latest: Local elections delayed

He added that the report found Rudakubana should have been referred to Channel, another anti-terror scheme.

Mr Jarvis said: “The review concluded that too much focus was placed on the absence of a distinct ideology, to the detriment of considering the perpetrator’s susceptibility, grievances, and complex needs.

“There was an under-exploration of the significance of his repeat referrals and the cumulative risk, including his history of violence.

“There were potentially incomplete lines of inquiry, that at the time the perpetrator could have fallen into a mixed, unclear or unstable category for Channel due to his potential interest in mass violence.

“Indeed, the overall conclusion of the review is that he should have been case-managed through the Channel multi-agency process, rather than closed to Prevent.”

He said the review found Rudakubana’s referral to Prevent was “closed prematurely”, and there was “sufficient concern to keep the case active while further information was collected”.

The review noted Rudakubana was referred to Prevent on three occasions: first in December 2019 when he was 13, again in February 2021 when he was 14, and finally in April 2021.

The first report was due to concerns he was carrying a knife and searching for school shootings online.

The second was for online activity relating to Libya and Colonel Gaddafi, and the third for searching for London bombings, the IRA and the Israel-Palestine conflict.

“On each of these occasions, the decision at the time was that the perpetrator should not progress to the Channel multi-agency process,” Mr Jarvis said.

👉 Listen to Sky News Daily on your podcast app 👈

The report highlighted that in the second referral, Rudakubana’s name was spelt differently from the first.

It then says a Prevent supervisor was unable to find the previous referral and “this may have caused the case to be closed quickly on minimal information”.

Read more:
Rudakubana’s family moved to secret location
Murderer refuses to leave cell for court hearing

As part of the review, 14 recommendations were made on how to improve Prevent, which Mr Jarvis said they had accepted and would be implementing.

Mr Jarvis said the government is working to set up an inquiry into what happened as soon as possible, although confirmed it would not initially be on a statutory footing.