Connect with us

Published

on

Grenfell campaigners have reacted to the “deeply sensitive decision” by the deputy prime minister to demolish the tower block.

Victims’ families and survivors were given the news in a meeting attended by Angela Rayner on Wednesday night.

Grenfell Next of Kin, which represents some of the bereaved families, described it as a “deeply sensitive decision… after a thorough engagement process in person” following an “uncomfortable conversation with uncomfortable truths”.

In a statement on X the group said: “The lack of closure, the continuous discussions and consultations, the retraumatisation of a divisive and painful debate brings nothing to the table except pain and further division.

“We want a discussion about what will go in the Tower’s place so it can be seen and remembered forever. We need to re-imagine a future and rebuild our broken shattered lives and our families.”

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.

More on Grenfell Tower

Engineering experts have said that while the tower remains stable, and it is safe for people to live, work and study nearby, 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.

Grenfell Tower pictured days after the devastating fire. Pic: AP
Image:
Grenfell Tower pictured days after the devastating fire. Pic: AP

Meanwhile, another campaign group, Grenfell United, claimed Ms Rayner had not given a reason behind her decision during the meeting and refused to say how many of the victims’ families and survivors had been consulted.

In a statement, it said: “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.

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

Members of a support group for the next of kin and families of some the 72 people killed in the Grenfell Tower Fire in 2017 ahead of a press conference.
Pic: PA
Image:
Members of a support group for the next of kin and families of some the 72 people killed in the Grenfell Tower fire. Pic: PA

Grenfell Next of Kin expressed a different opinion, suggesting the decision by Ms Rayner “must have been difficult” and adding that “all the previous Secretaries of State [for Housing, Communities and Local Government] avoided making a decision despite the harm it did to us and the community.”

Local Labour MP Joe Powell also defended Ms Rayner posting on X that following “intensive engagement with our community… the decision to start planning for the Tower to come down has not been taken lightly”.

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.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Key takeaways from the Grenfell Inquiry

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.

Read more from Sky News:
Met crackdown on phone thieves
Trump ban on trans women athletes
Orebro survivor who escaped shooting

It would mean a near 10-year wait for justice if anyone is ultimately charged – a period of time 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.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

September 2024: Grenfell community ‘brave and hopeful’

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.”

Continue Reading

Politics

Crypto’s path to legitimacy runs through the CARF regulation

Published

on

By

Crypto’s path to legitimacy runs through the CARF regulation

Crypto’s path to legitimacy runs through the CARF regulation

The CARF regulation, which brings crypto under global tax reporting standards akin to traditional finance, marks a crucial turning point.

Continue Reading

Politics

Tokenized equity still in regulatory grey zone — Attorneys

Published

on

By

Tokenized equity still in regulatory grey zone — Attorneys

Tokenized equity still in regulatory grey zone — Attorneys

The nascent real-world tokenized assets track prices but do not provide investors the same legal rights as holding the underlying instruments.

Continue Reading

Politics

Rachel Reeves hints at tax rises in autumn budget after welfare bill U-turn

Published

on

By

Rachel Reeves hints at tax rises in autumn budget after welfare bill U-turn

Rachel Reeves has hinted that taxes are likely to be raised this autumn after a major U-turn on the government’s controversial welfare bill.

Sir Keir Starmer’s Universal Credit and Personal Independent Payment Bill passed through the House of Commons on Tuesday after multiple concessions and threats of a major rebellion.

MPs ended up voting for only one part of the plan: a cut to universal credit (UC) sickness benefits for new claimants from £97 a week to £50 from 2026/7.

Initially aimed at saving £5.5bn, it now leaves the government with an estimated £5.5bn black hole – close to breaching Ms Reeves’s fiscal rules set out last year.

Read more:
Yet another fiscal ‘black hole’? Here’s why this one matters

Success or failure: One year of Keir in nine charts

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Rachel Reeves’s fiscal dilemma

In an interview with The Guardian, the chancellor did not rule out tax rises later in the year, saying there were “costs” to watering down the welfare bill.

“I’m not going to [rule out tax rises], because it would be irresponsible for a chancellor to do that,” Ms Reeves told the outlet.

More on Rachel Reeves

“We took the decisions last year to draw a line under unfunded commitments and economic mismanagement.

“So we’ll never have to do something like that again. But there are costs to what happened.”

Meanwhile, The Times reported that, ahead of the Commons vote on the welfare bill, Ms Reeves told cabinet ministers the decision to offer concessions would mean taxes would have to be raised.

The outlet reported that the chancellor said the tax rises would be smaller than those announced in the 2024 budget, but that she is expected to have to raise tens of billions more.

It comes after Ms Reeves said she was “totally” up to continuing as chancellor after appearing tearful at Prime Minister’s Questions.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Why was the chancellor crying at PMQs?

Criticising Sir Keir for the U-turns on benefit reform during PMQs, Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch said the chancellor looked “absolutely miserable”, and questioned whether she would remain in post until the next election.

Sir Keir did not explicitly say that she would, and Ms Badenoch interjected to say: “How awful for the chancellor that he couldn’t confirm that she would stay in place.”

In her first comments after the incident, Ms Reeves said she was having a “tough day” before adding: “People saw I was upset, but that was yesterday.

“Today’s a new day and I’m just cracking on with the job.”

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Reeves is ‘totally’ up for the job

Sir Keir also told Sky News’ political editor Beth Rigby on Thursday that he “didn’t appreciate” that Ms Reeves was crying in the Commons.

“In PMQs, it is bang, bang, bang,” he said. “That’s what it was yesterday.

“And therefore, I was probably the last to appreciate anything else going on in the chamber, and that’s just a straightforward human explanation, common sense explanation.”

Continue Reading

Trending