Latest news with #Arconic
Daily Mirror
4 days ago
- Daily Mirror
NICOLA METHVEN 'New Netflix disaster documentary will make your blood boil'
I defy anyone to watch the Netflix documentary about the Grenfell disaster without feeling anguished at what the victims and their families went through, followed by an even stronger emotion - fury. There won't be many viewers who get to the end of the 90 minutes without their blood boiling as the multiple injustices suffered by those living in Grenfell Tower at that time are laid bare for all to see. It's a film that should be watched by everyone, so the full extent of the many failings that led to the fire are remembered, at a time when not a single person has been prosecuted. Grenfell: Uncovered was released on Friday, and many who've watched it have been left - like me - gasping in shock at the way in which those affected by the tragedy were treated both in the run-up, the aftermath and ever since. The stand-out moment, perhaps, is the unearthing of emails which prove beyond all doubt how cladding company Arconic absolutely knew that its flammable plastic product was unsuitable for a high rise building, or indeed any building over 12metres, but they sold it for Grenell anyway. The safety tests they'd carried out told them in no uncertain terms about the lethal 'flaming droplets' that would be created in the event of a fire. They knew human life would inevitably be put in danger. But in the dogged pursuit of profit they decided to bury the outrageously bad safety results, hiding behind the fact that the sale of the cladding was at least legal in the UK at the time (it wasn't in many other countries). The emails, especially those from technical manager Claude Werhle and others from senior Arconic executive Diana Perriah, show how the company's insistence that nothing was concealed from the public or customers or officials in terms of safety testing results is categorically untrue. In fact they had fire tested the ACM cladding several times and the results were that it was so bad it was deemed upgradeable. The comment to this discovery, sent in an email, was "oops". You've got to wonder how Mr Werhle sleeps at night.. 'This product was safe to use as a building material and permissible to sell in the UK,' Arconic insists in an infuriating statement shown at the end of the film. 'AAP [the company's French subsidiary which did the deal for Grenfell] did not conceal information from or mislead any certification body, customers or the public.' It's frankly astonishing, considering the inquiry found them to have "deliberately concealed" the true extent of the fire risk while displaying "systematic dishonesty". The documentary highlights many shock moments as the survivors and the families of the victims push for justice. These include: So the next big question is over whether the failings by the cladding companies, by the fire brigade or by the building's owner, the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea, constitute criminal negligence. By next year, or perhaps 2027, this will be known, because the Met is carrying out its own investigation. That it could take a full decade for the culprits to be brought to justice - if that is indeed what happens - is yet another travesty, on top of the many that the survivors and bereaved have already endured. Anyone watching the documentary about the avoidable tragedy should prepare themselves for an extremely emotional ride. I do hope Lord Eric Pickles tunes in to see just how badly he comes across - there won't be many who witness his arrogance and aren't left staggered that he was made a life peer in 2018. And perhaps, just a thought, it's time to remove all flammable cladding from UK buildings? As fire-fighter Dave Badillo sighed in an interview with the Mirror earlier this month - 'just get it off!' - Grenfell: Uncovered is now streaming on Netflix
Daily Mirror
5 days ago
- Entertainment
- Daily Mirror
Netflix's devastating Grenfell documentary leaves viewers in tears
Viewers are re-living the 2017 inferno and the devastating aftermath in Grenfell: Uncovered as Netflix shines a light on the struggle for justice eight year on from the blaze As new Netflix documentary Grenfell: Uncovered lays bare the full horror of the tower block fire, viewers took just moments to be left completely overcome with emotion. The film delves into the lead-up to the notorious west London tower blaze on June 14, 2017, and the harrowing events of that night. Featuring interviews with survivors, experts, and a detailed look at the subsequent investigation, the programme is stirring deep emotions with justice still not served. Netflix describes Grenfell: Uncovered as: "Survivors, witnesses and experts tell the story of the tragic fire that engulfed a residential tower block in London - and the investigation that ensued." Days after its release, those who have already watched the heartbreaking opening show didn't take long to break down. In the documentary, which launched on Friday, new evidence is unearthed which suggests the president of the company that made the cladding knew it was dangerous two years before the fire that claimed 72 lives. Many have taken to X to give their reaction. One posted: "NetflixUK Grenfell uncovered is truly heartbreaking and had me in tears. The survivors are so brave telling their stories from such a traumatising event." Another took to the platform to tell their followers: "Not a comfortable watch but such an eye opener." Meanwhile, a third person gave their assessment, writing: "Powerful doco. To say I enjoyed it isn't really correct, but to dig into why it happened and how damning the evidence makes it essential viewing I hope the victims and their loved ones get the justice they deserve." Viewers see how arconic executive Diana Perreiah was warned by French colleagues - who sold the product to the UK - that the type of flammable cladding chosen for cost-cutting reasons on Grenfell was not suitable over 12 metres and caused excess smoke and 'flaming droplets'. In 2015, Perreiah had asked for details of cladding types and their burn times during negotiations for the Grenfell contract but failed to stop the deal, despite the clear warning. This new information comes after the public inquiry found that Arconic had "deliberately and dishonestly" concealed 2005 test data that showed its cladding burnt in "an extremely dangerous way" and had issued safety statements which "it knew to be false'. Arconic's statement issued to the Netflix film-makers, Rogan Productions, is that the product was 'safe to use as a building material and permissible to sell in the UK'. It also insisted that Arconic's French subsidiary AAP 'did not conceal information from or mislead any certification body, customers or the public'. Grenfell Tower was 67 metres tall. Its 129 homes were covered in PE cladding towards the end of 2015 with the panels later found to be the main cause for the rapid spread of the fire that killed 72 people, including 18 children, on June 14, 2017. The documentary highlights that using the fire retardant version of the panels would have cost around £2 per square metre more, which works out at around £40 per flat, or £5,000. Grenfell survivor Eddie Daffarn, told The Sunday Times: "It is bad enough to know that they knew about the danger this product posed to tall buildings, but to learn that they specifically knew it was sold for use on Grenfell Tower and did nothing to stop it just proves what a callous and uncaring company they are, and how they simply put profit above human lives." Grenfell Uncovered is available for streaming on Netflix now.
Time Magazine
20-06-2025
- Time Magazine
The True Story Behind the 'Grenfell: Uncovered'
In the early hours of June 14, 2017, residents of Grenfell Tower were caught off guard by a deadly fire that would turn the building into an international symbol of negligence and injustice. What started as a small kitchen fire in the 24-story residential building in North Kensington, London, quickly spread uncontrollably through the exterior, ultimately resulting in the deaths of 72 people. The tragedy is revisited in the documentary Grenfell: Uncovered, which premieres on Netflix on June 20. The film gives voice to victims, reveals behind-the-scenes details of the investigation, and exposes how corporate interests and government failures contributed to the disaster. But what exactly happened that night—and what followed? How did the Grenfell Tower fire start? The fire originated in Flat 16, on the fourth floor. The resident, Behailu Kebede, was awakened by the smoke alarm and saw flames near the fridge and freezer, which had caught on fire. He immediately called the fire brigade at 12:54 a.m., and the first crews arrived at the building five minutes later. The first firefighters entered the flat at around 1:07 a.m. They conducted a quick sweep but didn't reach the kitchen until seven minutes later. According to a firefighter's account, there was a 'curtain of fire' rising to the ceiling. Thermal images captured by the team suggest that gases and flames were already escaping through the kitchen window, which was located by the fridge. From 1:09 a.m. onwards, the fire began to break through to the outside of the building—marking the start of a devastating spread. Within 30 minutes of the firefighters' arrival, the fire had climbed up the east side of the tower and reached the top floor. By 4:30 a.m., the entire building was ablaze, and more than 100 flats had been affected. Why did the fire spread so quickly? Several structural and design flaws contributed to the rapid and catastrophic spread of the flames. The most critical factor was the exterior cladding installed during a 2016 refurbishment. Grenfell Tower had been covered with aluminum composite panels (ACMs) that contained a polyethylene core—a highly flammable plastic that releases enormous amounts of heat when burned, essentially acting as fuel for the fire. Additionally, the thermal insulation installed beneath the cladding — made of polyurethane foam — was also combustible and helped the fire spread, as did other construction materials. Renovations to the windows included the use of flammable materials, which allowed the fire to pass from one floor to another through gaps in the structures. Experts featured in Grenfell: Uncovered highlight that the ACM cladding—made of aluminum composite material with a polyethylene core—had already been flagged in previous fire tests as dangerous, with rapid burn, intense heat, and heavy smoke release. These test results were kept secret by companies like Arconic, the manufacturer of the material used in Grenfell Tower. The failure of the emergency plan Like many residential buildings in the UK, Grenfell Tower followed a fire safety policy known as 'stay put'—the idea that in the event of a fire, residents should remain in their flats, trusting that the building's design would prevent the flames from spreading. But this plan failed catastrophically that night. By 1:26 a.m., less than 30 minutes after the fire brigade arrived, it was clear the situation was out of control. In desperation, some people climbed to neighbors' flats on higher floors, others jumped from the building, and many ignored the official advice and fled down the stairs in search of safety. Even so, an evacuation order was only issued at 2:47 a.m. Richard Millett QC, the lead counsel to the Grenfell Tower Inquiry, stated in a hearing on June 4, 2018, that 144 people had evacuated the building before 1:38 a.m. After that point—when the 'stay put' advice was finally abandoned—only 36 more people managed to escape. The role of the government in the tragedy While corporate negligence was a key factor in the fire, government oversight—or lack thereof—also played a central role. The cladding material used in Grenfell Tower had already been banned in countries like the United States due to its flammability. Yet, in the UK, it remained legal, largely due to years of deregulating the construction industry. Policies implemented encouraged the loosening of safety standards in favor of cost-cutting and efficiency measures, creating a regulatory vacuum in which unsafe materials could be approved and used. Furthermore, internal documents later revealed that the local authorities responsible for Grenfell—the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC) and the Kensington & Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation (KCTMO)—were aware of the potential risks. Cost-cutting decisions during the tower's refurbishment led them to choose the cheaper, more dangerous cladding, instead of safer alternatives like zinc. Residents had long raised safety concerns. Six months before the fire, a local tenant group had warned about fire risks in an open letter. Their pleas were ignored. The fire at Lakanal House in 2009, which killed six people and also involved flammable cladding, should have served as a wake-up call. But once again, authorities failed to act. The investigation and the pursuit of justice After the fire, an extensive public investigation was launched. The Grenfell Tower Inquiry, established to determine causes, was divided into two phases. The first began in September 2017 and concluded in October 2019, focusing on the events of the night itself through witness testimony. The second phase, which began in January 2020, examined broader structural issues—including decisions made during the building's refurbishment and the involvement of companies that supplied flammable materials. Following years of extensive hearings, the final report was published on September 4, 2024. It attributed the disaster to failures by the government, the construction industry, and especially the companies responsible for installing flammable cladding on the building's exterior. The report found that the cladding did not meet fire safety regulations and was the primary reason for the rapid spread of the fire. It also criticized the London Fire Brigade's delayed shift from 'stay put' advice to a full evacuation order, which significantly compromised rescue efforts. A total of 58 recommendations were made, including updates to building regulations. With the official inquiry concluded, it is now up to the police to identify potential criminal cases and refer them to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), which will decide whether to bring formal charges. Due to the complexity of the material gathered, authorities have stated that any criminal charges are unlikely to be filed before the end of 2026.
Time Out
20-06-2025
- Entertainment
- Time Out
‘Grenfell: Uncovered' interview: ‘This community lost so much and got so little back'
The biggest residential fire since the Blitz broke out in Grenfell tower on June 14, 2017. Few Londoners can have shaken off the memory of the North Kensington high-rise blazing through the night as firefighters worked desperately – and fruitlessly – to subdue it. 'I was on holiday in Thailand at the time,' remembers Grenfell: Uncovered director Olaide Sadiq. 'The news [chyron] had 'fire in London' on it, but I didn't think it was real. I didn't understand how it was even possible that this had happened.' When she got back to the UK, the filmmaker discovered that she knew one of the victims of the fire – 'Her face was popping up in group chats as missing' – which added a personal dimension to the disaster. Eight years on, her documentary about the fire is both poignant and enraging. None of the responsible parties is let off the hook – cladding manufacturers like Arconic, bureaucrats like Hammersmith and Fulham Council, and politicians alike – but the deeper story is one of resilience and misplaced trust. 'This was the biggest residential fire in Britain since the Blitz,' says Sadiq. 'You expect this kind of devastation at war, but you don't expect it in the middle of the night when people are sleeping.' You speak to a lot of traumatised people in the film. How did you approach those interviews? With respect and care. A lot of the Grenfell community have been poked and prodded for a long time, and there's a lot of trauma in everyone that's been affected by the story. We had to make it as safe a space as possible. The interviews were still the hardest I've ever done. You interrogate the companies behind the cladding products. How challenging was that aspect of the film? Yeah, the corporate side of things was complicated and eye-opening. A lot of people didn't want to speak to us, and understandably so, but everyone was given an opportunity to respond. But I'm very aware there's an ongoing criminal investigation, so I wasn't expecting anyone to welcome us with open arms. Are you concerned that a fire like this could happen again? Yeah, I think I am. We've had cladding fires since Grenfell: there was a fatal cladding fire in Valencia last year, and another one in Dagenham, where luckily there were no fatalities. I have to think that it's possible that it will happen again. Hopefully, the response will be different. The Prime Minister at the time, Theresa May, famously failed to meet Grenfell survivors. How did you get her to talk in the film? The decision to talk to us was quick; the decision to be on camera was slower. Regardless of people's political affiliations and opinions, I think it was quite brave [of her]. She wanted to own what she did and didn't do. She was happy to own that on camera, and we gave her the opportunity to do that. I respected that. What does this story say about the country that we live in? Great question. That we place a lot of trust in those that are meant to look after us. It showed me that this country is sometimes hesitant to change, but hopefully this film will spark real conversations about change. It's what the people affected by Grenfell want. Accountability, as well. You must have had two audiences in mind: the Grenfell survivors groups and those who were less familiar with the story? The story is not finished for [the Grenfell groups]. They are still waiting for what the Met Police decides to do. They're hoping [the film] brings more awareness to their story. We want it to ignite real conversation about what happened and what people want to happen next. There's still a lot of buildings with flammable cladding on them. What did you learn about Londoners making this film? I felt a sense of closeness within the community, but a sadness to it. I've always felt relatively safe living in London. What working on this showed me is that there's times it isn't safe – but in a way that you're not expecting. If you go down a dark alley in the middle of the night, you might expect something bad to happen to you, but they went to bed and woke up in the middle of night with their building on fire. That's the biggest violation of safety most people could experience. What binds the survivors together? Resilience. We spoke to very young people, we spoke to grandparents, and across the board there was a sense of resilience that I was astounded by. I was breaking down just reading the witness statements – it was harrowing. I couldn't imagine how people could get up and go after that. There was such resilience and strength in the community that lost so much and got so little back. The community lost so much and got so little back How do you cope with watching this harrowing footage, day after day? It was very difficult. It was really hard to watch some of the footage – some of it was too harrowing to use. I went for walks and listened to cheesy music, but there were people there to support us as well. I had to make sure I wasn't always sitting with the images.
Telegraph
20-06-2025
- Entertainment
- Telegraph
Grenfell Uncovered: Netflix should be commended for such sober, vital journalism
The only fault in Grenfell Uncovered, Netflix's feature-length documentary about the 2017 Grenfell Tower disaster, is that it doesn't uncover that much. Although director Olaide Sadiq has worked meticulously through the litany of failures that led to the fire that killed 72 people – and although it is absolutely worth reiterating how the warnings were ignored, how private companies put profit before public safety and how the then-government put a crazed disdain for what it called 'red tape' ahead of its citizens' protection – all of this was covered off in gruesome, shocking detail in the Grenfell Inquiry's 1,700-page final report. This was published in September last year and was widely summarised and reported. Still, in an era of global streamers with disparate, global audiences, part of the challenge for documentary-makers is second guessing what their viewers will know already. In this, Grenfell Uncovered has gone for the only available option, which is the full, grim picture. It is not, it hardly needs saying, an easy watch. In many ways, the documentary's trump card is its editing. That sounds very boring, but for the viewer it means a linear narrative, starting from the first 999 call, that then spread its tentacles down timelines of personal stories and historic corporate malfeasance. The dexterous splicing means that in spite of all this context, the film retains an agonising momentum. As portrayed here, Arconic, Celotex and all the other stupidly named multinationals got busy with their 'systematic dishonesty' years ago while in the foreground Grenfell burned. Personal testimony from the families who lost love ones is contrasted with staggering bureaucratic indifference and what the inquiry called 'a merry-go-round of buck-passing'. It'll make you angry, which is precisely what this kind of sober, important journalism should do. This, as you'll have gathered, is an excellent documentary, and credit should be given to Netflix for commissioning it. It is well known in telly circles that these are dire times for documentary film-makers. Big streamers, the line goes, want to steer clear of politics, instead opting for big, user-friendly series, ideally involving gruesome historical crimes about which we can speculate to our hearts' content. Grenfell Uncovered is not that. Not only is it a one-off film, foregoing the subscription catnip of a series for a more powerful one-shot format, but it also goes for the jugular. The Cameron government that loosened regulations are lambasted, along with Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, the London Fire Brigade and every individual who could be proved to have shirked their responsibilities. The then-prime minister Theresa May even appears in an interview in which she addresses both her actions and, more importantly, her inactions. Like much of the film, this is not quite the coup it has been presented as – May has said she regrets her response (not going to meet survivors of the blaze when she first visited the site) before. But her inertia was presented in the film as part of a more general theme – of powerful people and corporations having the chance to take action, and choosing not to. Carelessness, yet again, costs lives.
