Has anyone been arrested following the Grenfell Tower fire?
On 14 June 2017, a deadly blaze erupted through Grenfell Tower, a 24-storey residential block in North London, which claimed the lives of 72 people and left dozens injured. Amongst those who died, 18 were children.
Shortly after the fire, then-Prime Minister Theresa May ordered an inquiry to uncover what had happened leading up to the tragedy – and seven years later, Sir Martin Moore-Bick's 1700-page report catalogued a 'decade of failure', citing issues within government, building companies and manufacturers which led to Grenfell becoming the UK's deadliest residential fire since the Blitz in World War II.
At the time of writing, there have been no arrests or criminal charges levelled against any individual in relation to the Grenfell Tower fire, with the Metropolitan Police and the Crown Prosecution Service stating it is unlikely any charges will be announced before the end of 2026 (at the earliest) due to the sheer 'scale and complexity' of the case.
It leaves those who lost loved ones in the fire with an agonising wait for justice, particularly as it looks set to take more than a decade since the incident before anyone will head to court, if indeed any criminal charges are brought.
Olaide Iqbal, the documentary maker behind Grenfell: Uncovered, knows how acutely the frustration of the community is felt. She worked closely alongside many families who lived in Grenfell during the time of the fire in order to make the new Netflix film exploring the case.
'There's still very much a community who are waiting for answers, that are waiting for justice, and their story doesn't feel resolved,' she tells Cosmopolitan UK. 'They've not had any closure, and for a number of people in the community directly affected by Grenfell, there's a resounding sense of people wanting justice, wanting answers and wanting their story to be kept alive, particularly when many feel like it's being erased.'
In 2020, Leslie Thomas, a lawyer representing the bereaved families of Grenfell, urged the inquiry to not dismiss the impact of race and class, and how it may have contributed to the deaths of Grenfell's 72 victims.
'The Grenfell fire did not happen in a vacuum,' Thomas said in a statement at the inquiry, as reported by the BBC.
'A majority of the Grenfell residents who died were people of colour. Grenfell is inextricably linked with race. It is the elephant in the room. This disaster happened in a pocket of one of the smallest yet richest boroughs in London.
"Yet the community affected was predominantly working-class. That is the stark reality that cannot be ignored.'
While Iqbal acknowledges that there is an ongoing criminal investigation which is taking place, she knows there's a similar sentiment amongst the people she spoke to as part of Grenfell: Uncovered. They feel their social standing may have impacted the path to justice.
'It's definitely a community that has felt that their class, their race, their culture has played a part in why they were treated the way they were in the lead up to Grenfell, and some believe that's why they've been treated in a particular way since the fire as well,' she says.
'But making the documentary… we saw how complicated Grenfell is. It's not like there's a single person you can go and slap handcuffs on. I think because there's just that many people involved, and when a case is so big and goes back for so many decades, it's tricky to know where to start.
'As the inquiry concluded, so many different factors, in one way or another, contributed to the fire. But I understand the frustration to the community. When you go out and see that people have gone on to do bigger and maybe better things despite their actions or inactions that led to the fire, it's definitely frustrating.
'It's why those with big platforms, and hopefully this documentary, can keep Grenfell in people's mouths and minds, as it's something everyone should care about.'
Grenfell: Uncovered is available on Netflix now
Kimberley Bond is a Multiplatform Writer for Harper's Bazaar, focusing on the arts, culture, careers and lifestyle. She previously worked as a Features Writer for Cosmopolitan UK, and has bylines at The Telegraph, The Independent and British Vogue among countless others.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
18-year-old left with ‘severe injuries' after e-bike crash in Eltham
An 18-year-old has been left with 'severe injuries' after a crash in Eltham. The Metropolitan Police were called just before 4.45pm on Friday (June 27) to report of a crash between a car and an e-bike on Bexley Road at the junction with Alderwood Road. The officers attended and found an 18-year-old man. The man was taken to hospital with severe injuries. His injuries are not believed to be live-changing. The driver of the car was spoken to at the scene, and the e-bike was seized. No arrests have been made. A spokesperson for the Metropolitan Police said: 'Police were called at 16:44hrs on Friday, 27 June to reports of a road traffic collision between an e-bike and a car on Bexley Road, SE9 at the junction with Alderwood Road. 'Officers attended and an 18-year-old man was taken to hospital with severe injuries. 'They are not believed to be life-threatening or life-changing. 'The driver of the car was spoken to at the scene. There have been no arrests. 'The e-bike has been seized.'
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Exclusive: Joe Exotic Shares Updates on Prison Life and Deported Husband
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Joe Exotic, star of the Netflix documentary Tiger King that garnered him global attention during the COVID pandemic, told Newsweek in an exclusive new interview that he has "lost everything." Exotic, whose real name is Joseph Allen Maldonado, became a household name five years ago when Netflix aired a documentary centered on him, his affection for tigers, and a zany cast of characters working at his tiger sanctuary in Wynnewood, Oklahoma, from 1999 to 2018. Prior to the documentary's release, he was convicted of two counts of murder-for-hire against Carole Baskin—an adversary in Tiger King—and eventually sentenced to 21 years in prison. This November marks eight years that he's behind bars. Exotic claims to have never reaped any rewards for being the centerpiece. In fact, he said he hadn't even seen Tiger King until about five months ago because he's currently weighing his legal options in a battle with the streaming giant. The 62-year-old spoke at length with Newsweek via phone from inside the Federal Medical Center in Fort Worth, Texas, about his health issues, how he reacted and is dealing with his husband's deportation to Mexico, and how he has sought pardons or a commuted sentence from numerous politicians and celebrities, including President Donald Trump. Health Issues Exotic has prostate cancer and cancer in his left lung. The day prior to the interview, he went to the doctor and was directed to take another PET scan because it's believed the cancer from his prostate has spread to his ribs. Even while held inside a medical facility to do his time, he called the medical care within "pathetic." "My earliest out date right now is October 1, 2030," he said. "With the medical care I get in here, I probably won't even make it five more years." "Tiger King" star Joe Exotic spoke with Newsweek about his prison experience, health issues, fighting back against Netflix, and how he's dealt with the deportation of his husband. "Tiger King" star Joe Exotic spoke with Newsweek about his prison experience, health issues, fighting back against Netflix, and how he's dealt with the deportation of his husband. Newsweek Illustration/Canva/Getty/AP Newsroom Deported Husband In May, his 33-year-old husband Jorge Marquez Flores was deported to Mexico for illegal entry to the United States, after completing a federal prison sentence. Exotic has attempted different forms of pleas and outreach to reunite and live with Flores someday in the U.S., including offering to give the government half his earnings in exchange for a post-prison—in addition to saying he would purchase one of Trump's "gold cards" floated as a broader method to grant U.S. residency to those who invest $5 million in the country. Exotic speaks with Flores, who he last saw in person on May 16, two to three times a day. "He is in Mexico at his aunt's house, praying to God and making videos, asking President Trump for forgiveness and to let [him] come home," Exotic said. "Our plan is, I'm gonna go to Mexico. I really want to go live in Cozumel." He added: "I will work to do whatever I got to do, to either buy a Trump gold card for him, or to go through the asylum process to get him back into America the right way because he shouldn't have come in the wrong way. He knows that; I know that. We don't hold him being deported against anybody because that's the law." Pleas for Pardons In April 2019, a federal jury found him guilty on two counts of hiring someone to murder Baskin, founder of Big Cat Rescue in Florida, eight counts of violating the Lacey Act by falsifying wildlife records, and nine counts of violating the Endangered Species Act by killing five tigers and selling tigers across state lines. Regarding Baskin, he said the documentary portrayed her as close to who she actually is. "To this day you'll never convince me she didn't kill her husband because I investigated it for almost 10 years, and I have her original diary," Exotic said. "I interviewed all of her staff and all of her past staff. She killed him." Baskin has denied that she had any involvement in her husband's disappearance or death. Exotic also takes umbrage with the Endangered Species Act charges. "That's my ultimate goal, to prove that generic tigers that are branded in captivity in the United States do not belong on the United States endangered species list because the endangered species list of 1973 was written to protect the native species and the habitats of our lands," he said. "Tigers, elephants, chimpanzees, orangutans, none of that belongs on our endangered species [list]. We are spending billions of dollars regulating something in America that is protected." Exotic continues to try to talk to anybody who will listen in hope he can get a pardon, or at least an early release. Representative Lauren Boebert, a Colorado Republican, said last week that her office received an inquiry from Exotic for help. He's made additional reach outs to lawmakers and celebrities including Secretary of State Marco Rubio (when he was a senator), former GOP Florida Representative Matt Gaetz, Joe Rogan, Andrew Tate, Dana White, Hulk Hogan, and President Trump. "I've got a lot of big names out there asking President Trump to make this right," Exotic said. "Why he won't is beyond all of us. You know, he would be so popular and so praised if he would just let me go home." He added: "I don't even need a pardon because I would take just a commuted sentence to time served because I don't need to carry a gun and I don't do drugs. I just need to be able to travel to work because I can become a millionaire with this platform and do good with my charity work as a felon." He said he "looks up" to Trump, who he acknowledged to also be a felon "persecuted by the very same government that persecuted me." Prisoners 'Drooling' From Drug Use "I would never believe it if I didn't live it," Exotic says about his days in prison, which he says is akin more to a college dormitory than doors and bars you would see in TV or movies. He gets up around 7 or 8 a.m., takes a shower, and then watches his fellow inmates in the low-security facility. "Drugs in here is crazy," he said. "You would never believe how many drugs are inside a federal prison. And that's why when I was running for president, I was like, you are so wasting your time on drugs against the war on the border when you can't keep them out of a fenced-in federal is nothing but a college for wannabe drug addicts." He said he spends days watching half the prison population "act like 2-year-olds drooling because they're so high on synthetic marijuana." Fame But Being Alone "It is it overwhelming and gratifying that the entire world knows who I am," he admitted. "I absolutely am upset that they made me out to be a meth head and some crazy fool." Exotic said he gets along with everyone in prison because he honors his words and minds his own business. His life outside is emptier. Both his parents died, one in 2019 and the other in 2020. His husband is in a foreign country and may not be able to return. His three siblings have maintained no contact with him since 1997, which he says is because he's a homosexual. "There is light at the end of the tunnel," he said. "But what keeps me going—I've never even had a speeding ticket. I have no criminal history, period. I know who I am, and my parents raised me to do right." He continued: "And even though I've lost everything I've ever worked for, I am so looking forward to walking out these gates—whether it's with President Trump's blessing or not, and making my life or what I have left of it 10 times better than the life that I had. And I had a pretty good life."
Boston Globe
17 hours ago
- Boston Globe
With Supreme Court ruling, another check on Trump's power fades
Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up The ability of district courts to swiftly block Trump administration actions from being enforced in the first place has acted as a rare effective check on his second-term presidency. But generally, the pace of the judicial process is slow and has struggled to keep up. Actions that took place by the time a court rules them illegal, like shutting down an agency or sending migrants to a foreign prison without due process, can be difficult to unwind. Advertisement Presidential power historically goes through ebbs and flows, with fundamental implications for the functioning of the system of checks and balances that defines American-style democracy. Advertisement But it has generally been on an upward path since the middle of the 20th century. The growth of the administrative state inside the executive branch, and the large standing armies left in place as World War II segued into the Cold War, inaugurated what historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. coined the 'imperial presidency.' Presidential power waned in the 1970s, in the period encompassing the Watergate scandal and the end of the Vietnam War. Courts proved willing to rule against the presidency, as when the Supreme Court forced President Richard Nixon to turn over his Oval Office tapes. Members of both parties worked together to enact laws imposing new or restored limits on the exercise of executive power. But the present era is very different. Presidential power began to grow again in the Reagan era and after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. And now Trump, rejecting norms of self-restraint, has pushed to eliminate checks on his authority and stamp out pockets of independence within the government while only rarely encountering resistance from a Supreme Court he reshaped and a Congress controlled by a party in his thrall. The decision by the Supreme Court's conservative majority comes as other constraints on Trump's power have also eroded. The administration has steamrolled internal executive branch checks, including firing inspectors general and sidelining the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, which traditionally set guardrails for proposed policies and executive orders. And Congress, under the control of Trump's fellow Republicans, has done little to defend its constitutional role against his encroachments. This includes unilaterally dismantling agencies Congress had said shall exist as a matter of law, firing civil servants in defiance of statutory limits, and refusing to spend funds that lawmakers had authorized and appropriated. Advertisement Last week, when Trump unilaterally bombed Iranian nuclear sites without getting prior authorization from Congress or making any claim of an imminent threat, one Republican, Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, stepped forward to call the move unconstitutional since Congress has the power to declare war. Trump reacted ferociously, declaring that he would back a primary challenger to end Massie's political career, a clear warning shot to any other Republican considering objecting to his actions. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, recently told her constituents that 'we are all afraid' of Trump. While the immediate beneficiary of the Supreme Court's ruling is Trump, the decision also promises to free his successors from what has been a growing trend of district court intervention into presidential policymaking. In the citizenship case, the justices stripped district court judges of the authority to issue so-called universal injunctions, a tool that lower courts have used to block government actions they deem most likely illegal from taking effect nationwide as legal challenges to them play out. The frequency of such orders has sharply increased in recent years, bedeviling presidents of both parties. Going forward, the justices said, lower courts may only grant injunctive relief to the specific plaintiffs who have filed lawsuits. That means the Trump administration may start enforcing the president's birthright citizenship order in the 28 states that have not challenged it, unless individual parents have the wherewithal and gumption to bring their own lawsuits. The full scope of the ruling remains to be seen given that it will not take effect for 30 days. It is possible that plaintiffs and lower-court judges will expand the use of class-action lawsuits as a different path to orders with a nationwide effect. Such an option, Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote in the majority opinion, would be proper so long as they obey procedural limits for class-action cases. Advertisement Still, in concurring opinions, two other key members of the conservative bloc, Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, warned lower-court judges not to lower standards for using alternative means to issue sweeping orders in an effort to circumvent the ruling. Alito wrote that 'district courts should not view today's decision as an invitation to certify nationwide classes without scrupulous adherence to the rigors' of legal rules. Thomas added that if judges do not 'carefully heed this court's guidance' and act within limits, 'this court will continue to be 'duty bound' to intervene.' In a rare move that signaled unusually intense opposition, Justice Sonia Sotomayor read aloud a summary of her dissenting opinion from the bench Friday. Calling the ruling a grave attack on the American system of law, she said it endangered constitutional rights for everyone who is not a party to lawsuits defending them. 'Today, the threat is to birthright citizenship,' she wrote. 'Tomorrow, a different administration may try to seize firearms from law-abiding citizens or prevent people of certain faiths from gathering to worship. The majority holds that, absent cumbersome class-action litigation, courts cannot completely enjoin even such plainly unlawful policies unless doing so is necessary to afford the formal parties complete relief.' Sotomayor also said the administration did not ask to entirely halt the multiple injunctions against its order because it knew the directive was patently illegal, and accused the majority of playing along with that open gamesmanship. She, like the other two justices who joined her dissent, is a Democratic appointee. Advertisement All six of the justices who voted to end universal injunctions were Republican appointees, including three Trump installed on the bench in his first term. The same supermajority has ruled in ways that have enhanced his power in other avenues. Last year, the bloc granted Trump presumptive immunity from criminal prosecution for his official acts as president. The ruling, by Chief Justice John Roberts, asserted that presidents have absolute immunity for anything they do with the Justice Department and their supervision of federal law enforcement power. Emboldened, Trump this year has built on his approach from his first term, when he informally pressured prosecutors to investigate his political foes. He has issued formal orders to scrutinize specific people he does not like, shattering the post-Watergate norm of a Justice Department case independent from White House political control. The supermajority also has blessed Trump's gambit in firing Democratic members of independent agency commissions before their terms were up. The conservative justices have made clear that they are prepared to overturn a long-standing precedent allowing Congress to establish specialized agencies to be run by panels whose members cannot be arbitrarily fired by presidents. In a separate concurrence, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson offered a realpolitik take. The majority's exegesis of what powers Congress understood itself to be granting lower courts when it created them in 1789 was a smokescreen of mind-numbing 'legalese,' she wrote, obscuring the question of whether a court can order the executive branch to follow the law. 'In a constitutional republic such as ours, a federal court has the power to order the executive to follow the law — and it must,' she wrote before striking a cautionary note. Advertisement 'Everyone, from the president on down, is bound by law,' she added. 'By duty and nature, federal courts say what the law is (if there is a genuine dispute), and require those who are subject to the law to conform their behavior to what the law requires. This is the essence of the rule of law.' But Barrett accused her of forgetting that courts, too, must obey legal limits. 'Justice Jackson decries an imperial executive while embracing an imperial judiciary,' Barrett wrote. 'No one disputes that the executive has a duty to follow the law. But the judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation — in fact, sometimes the law prohibits the judiciary from doing so.' This article originally appeared in
