+

I lost my cousin and her daughter at Grenfell – and I’m shocked the Hackitt review has refused to call for a ban on dangerous cladding

By Clarrie Mendy, for The Independent

It’s been almost a year since we lost my cousin, her daughter and 70 other named persons in the tragic Grenfell Tower inferno last year on 14 June 2017.

From day one bereaved family members, survivors, evacuated former residents, local residents living in the shadow of Grenfell and the local community have had to fight for their basic human rights.

The silent marches spoke volumes. The petition for extra panel members was signed by over 150,000 people. But still people had to practically beg for mercy and compassion to be heard and see action implemented.

My cousin’s death among 72 people soon became a cause to champion in the pursuit of justice. I have converted my grief and anger to creative energy, which helps me to cope and battle on. To know that tenants and people had raised concerns for three years prior to the Grenfell inferno infuriates me. Lives could have been saved.

In my opinion, human rights were abused – and all of the families in that tower were given keys to live in inadequate housing.

Last week I went to Parliament to discuss this with Theresa May with other bereaved relatives of those who died. The narrative from the government seemed to have changed, and I was glad.

Theresa May then stood up in parliament and said she would spend £400m stripping dangerous cladding similar to that on Grenfell Tower from other housing blocks. I felt this was a sign that she had listened to us.

But today we’re back here fighting again.

Dame Judith Hackitt, who has written the report into the disaster, has said the government doesn’t have to ban the flammable cladding which led to the deaths of 72 victims, including my cousin Mary Mendy and her daughter Khadija Saye.

While listening to May in parliament, after meeting with her last week, I felt proud that she’d made this call on removing the remaining cladding. She’d been reminded and she knew it was her deed. The conviction with which she stood up and said it, I thought well done Theresa – you listened to us.

But now this report says something different. Dame Judith Hackitt – the woman who is saying combustible cladding can remain legal – I don’t know what planet she comes from. She’s definitely not a humanitarian, or thinking about the next generation. She should have a meeting with the Grenfell community and then she might have an alternative view after speaking to us.

I’m absolutely disgusted and totally shocked. It’s abominable, and very conflicted considering what Theresa May has been saying. This decision might be good for industry, but it’s not good for the environment or for the people.

We know the dangers of this cladding. I’ve got children and grandchildren. I’m not going to be here forever but they don’t need to witness another Grenfell anywhere in this country. I can’t understand the logic behind it.

If the government is trying to prevent these kinds of things happening nationally, why is someone promoting this poison to harm society and the environment?

We talk about knife crime, trying to keep the numbers down, preventing it from happening. The same logic should be applied to flammable cladding. It shouldn’t be allowed. We didn’t have the resources to prevent Grenfell, and now we don’t seem to have the means to ban these toxic materials.

The people who make the cladding – and the contractors – have to be made accountable right now. We cannot let this be a normal thing.

Prevention is better than cure. It has to be banned. The government has got more say, and I hope they have woken up and realised there are human beings. This was and is a human tragedy and we don’t need any more of this nationally.

We don’t need any more crematoriums in the sky, and no generation needs to witness this again. Let’s lead by example in Britain.

By Clarrie Mendy for The Independent

    +

    The Grenfell Tower Inquiry – Blog by Yvette Williams MBE (J4G)

      So the Prime Minister has ‘agreed’ that the Grenfell Inquiry Panel will have two additional Panel Members. What does this really mean? The answer is in the detail or rather the missing detail!

      It has not been made clear if the two additional members will have equal decision-making powers to Judge Moore-Bick; how they will be selected; if there will be any community consultation or if they will be forced upon us, based on the civil servant’s perception of what they ‘think’ we want.  Let me be clear here, we need panel members who understand our lived experience and can challenge key factors that adversely impact communities like North Kensington. This means panel members will have to probe and challenge the Judge in a wider context and not accept government legislation and public policy as ‘normal’, as part of the accepted status quo. For the record it does not solely mean that both panel members have to ‘look like us’. Yes, it would give more community confidence in the Inquiry, but it is not intrinsic to having the expertise we need. To put this in plain English -It is vital that the PM and Inquiry team does not select panel members who look like us but ‘act’ like them.

      The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry Panel’s conclusion of Institutional racism was a watershed for inquiry outcomes and drive for change. Dr Richard Stone, a Jewish GP was a panel member. Richard also had extensive experience working against racism and social exclusion. He also sat on boards in the grant making charitable sector. One of the community organisations he funded and became involved with was the Mangrove, here in Notting Hill.  Richard originally came into contact with the Mangrove in his role as a GP. At a time when police brutality of black men was the ‘accepted’ the ‘norm’. Dr Stone was often the only local Doctor we could call out in the middle of the night to document the injuries inflicted by officers of the law.  Richard knew first hand the lived experience of the North Kensington Communities. His presence on the Public Inquiry paved the way for increased community confidence in the process.

      The other missing details is why are the additional panel members only going to appointed for Phase 2 of the Inquiry. The Grenfell Inquiry website states:

      ‘the focus of Phase 1 will be the events of the night of 14 June 2017 and, in particular:

      The existing fire safety and prevention measures at Grenfell Tower; where and how the fire started;

      the development of the fire and smoke; how the fire and smoke spread from its original seat to other parts of the building; the chain of events before the decision was made that there was no further savable life in the building; and the evacuation of residents.

      Phase 1 will also examine what the emergency services did by way of response, and when. The question of why they did what they did, and the adequacy of the emergency services’ response, including the appropriateness of the “stay put” policy, and the lessons to be learned, will be considered in Phase 2.’

      How on earth are the additional panel members going to be able to identify lessons to be learnt if they have not heard what happened ‘on the night’ in Phase 1?? What should become clear from phase 1 is that government legislation and policy over many years all contributed to what happened on ‘the night’ and furthermore, how this has contributed to everything that is wrong with our society today. We don’t experience the impact of this, as a ‘phase;’ this is a systemic degradation and bordering inhumane treatment of communities up and down the country. This is what needs to be assessed at phase 1 and it is vital that we have two additional panel members at phase 1, who are able to raise this. What is the reason for them only sitting on the phase 2 panel, could it be about pushing forward with the already agreed inquiry schedule, that is already very late? Could it be money? Or could it be that they think that anyone with ‘community expertise’ wouldn’t understand the ‘complex technical issues’. I’m no technical building expert, but I can glean that it wasn’t solely the building materials used for the refurbishment at Grenfell tower that alone caused the fire; but rather the swathe of government deregulation policy that ‘allowed’ it to happen.

      We cannot leave phase 1 to ‘privileged experts’ who talk solely about ‘technical issues.’ At least 72 people lost their lives in the fire at Grenfell Tower, many who survived still have no permanent home.

      As we mourn what happened at Grenfell, we don’t talk about ‘the building’, we focus on the ‘people’. It is people who form communities.  It is people that will continue to Campaign in unity to interrogate this injustice. It is ultimately what links us to communities up and down the country; we are linked by the sheer nature of our humanity.

      Yvette Williams