Watch. Share. Why May wants #Grenfell inquiry. Call for #InquestNotInquiry

Theresa May has announced a ‘full, public, judge-led inquiry’ into the terrible events of the Grenfell Tower tragedy = and this has generally been welcomed.

But in the expert opinion of Sophie Khan, the lawyer for the victims of the 2009 Lakanal House fire that killed six people – who, as in Grenfell Tower, had been told to remain in their flats – a public inquiry is the worst way forward and amounts to the government ‘hiding in plain sight’ the real roots and responsibilities of the tragedy.

Because it keeps the power and control of what information is revealed and how in the hands of the Establishment and not in the hands of victims and families.

Ms Khan said that an inquest will allow the families to have their own legal representation, question witnesses, bring their own witnesses and the coroner remains independent of the government – whereas in an inquiry, the government retains control and, shockingly, there is no mechanism for families to participate in the process.

And when asked whether Theresa May wants a public inquiry instead of an inquest in order to avoid scrutiny, Ms Khan answered emphatically:

Yes. That is one hundred, that is correct. Because in an inquest they lost control of what a jury will do. And juries will come out with narrative verdicts which may be very difficult for the government.

This is vital. Can you imagine for one second that the Hillsborough families would have the justice and vindication they fought for and finally received if they’d had to rely on a public inquiry instead of a painstaking inquest?

Watch for yourself – and then share this with the call #InquestNotInquiry, so that the victims of Grenfell Tower and their families get the justice they deserve and need:

The SKWAWKBOX is provided free of charge but depends on the generosity of its readers to be viable. If you found this information helpful and can afford to, please do click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal. Thanks for your support so this blog can keep bringing you information the Establishment would prefer you not to know about.


  1. Thought so.

    Coroners can be just as piss-poor though. Hillsborough’s perhaps the best-known example of that. Expect to see a large bump in the commons’ Axminster – where all the detritus has been swept under it.

    Once again, we’ll see the easiest targets & lowest common denominator(s) copping for it, while the ‘cheeses’ waltz away smelling of roses… 🙁

  2. Are inquiries and inquests mutually exclusive?

    I don’t think so – Bradford and Hillsborough had both, for example.

    1. And, 28 plus years after the event, it remains the case that not one person (plod) has been ‘brought to book’ over Hillsborough…

      Fancy waiting 28+ years to see justice done for this totally avoidable disaster? I know I don’t.

      You see, I’ve lost count of the amount of times prosecutions haven’t been brought because of ‘The passage of time’ (Especially when it comes to plod & miscarriages of justice, aka ‘stitch-ups’)

      Because I expect if it’s the case that we are kept waiting for years, those in high positions will no doubt ‘develop’ alzheimers, a-la Ernest Saunders.

      Unless the CPS uses the old ‘passage of time’ excuse not to prosecute, of course.

      Someone’s to blame…

      1. The thrust of the article seems to be that an inquiry is 2nd class compared to an inquest. My point is that there is precedent for having both, whatever one’s view of the outcomes.

      2. As you’re a self-confessed tory voter, I’d have thought you’d be having a gripe about the cost, rather than giving the ok for both from the off.

        I mean, your lot denied legal aid to the tenants on the grounds that ‘legal aid costs’ …

        And It was ‘costs’ that led to RBKC saving a paltry £5k by using the cheapest materials available…

      3. I’m making a very simple point, free from political posturing, that inquests and inquiries aren’t mutually exclusive.

        Skwawkbox seems to think they are. I think he’s wrong.

      4. I’m not a legal expert, but if that solicitor who was interviewed is right – And I’ve heard/read/seen nothing to the contrary, have you…?

        As I’ve said, even coroners (Inquests) can be worse than useless. Hillsborough was proof positive.

        However, those families have EVERY RIGHT to be allowed to ask questions. Who the f*ck is she to deny them that much?

        A criminal investigation’d be my preferred option, running concurrent with either an inquiry or inquest.

        When events that are already public knowledge have led to a disaster like that, it’s patently obvious (To me, for one) that criminal negligence has occurred.

      5. There was me thinking the concerns are about the different processes involved in each.

        Don’t see what the problem is with having an inquest first, if that’s what the victims would prefer. What then, would be the need for both? No money for legal aid, but money on something the Govt have control of when they’re under the spotlight.

        But tess know best. I mean, she just spent around £130m on an unnecessary election that’s caused more problems than it’s solved.

        Great economics, combined with great policies, combined with shrewd judicial decisions….Yes folks, that’s the conservatives.

Leave a Reply