False-flag Grenfell account trying to discredit genuine survivors

The eight months since the terrible tragedy of the Grenfell Tower fire have been marked by a number of troubling aspects to the Establishment’s handling of the fire and its aftermath.


Long before ‘Gold command’ was brought in to manage the effort to help survivors and others affected by the blaze, Gold command personnel were on the scene – almost immediately after the fire – posing as ordinary volunteers without identifying themselves.

Some of the media attempted to demonise survivors and supporters as a mob when they expressed their frustration at broken promises – promises still unkept, as only a fraction of the survivors have been rehomed eight months after the fire, when Theresa May promised all would have new homes within three weeks.

Requests by Grenfell groups for a diverse panel alongside the judge leading the public inquiry were denied – and remain denied, leading to a petition signed by, so far, almost 150,000 people calling on Theresa May to act.

And the existence of the public inquiry – instead of the inquest that families wanted – has led Kensington MP Emma Dent Coad to describe the inquiry as ‘pre-determined’.

The mystery

But one troubling aspect of the aftermath of the tragedy has, so far, remained unmarked by the media – the existence of a Grenfell group that appears to have nothing to do with Grenfell survivors or the surrounding community and whose behaviour has genuine campaigners worried that it exists to undermine and discredit them.

Grenfell Tower UK – or, as it called itself at first, Grenfell Tower Global.

The account has raised red flags since its inception – for example, it claims to have been ‘first on the scene’ – but bizarrely combines that hashtag with ‘#SaturdayMorning’:

gtuk sat am.jpg

The fire took place on a Wednesday.

So strange has the conduct of the account – and of others seemingly run by the same people – that the main challenge in writing this article has been choosing from the mass of bizarre evidence the best images to illustrate it, because including all of it would be virtually unreadable.

The changing nature of ‘who we are’

The account originally presented itself as a bona fide local group that had lost friends in the fire:

gtuk survivor lost friends.jpg

But when this was challenged, it claimed to represent sympathetic people from ‘greater London’ – while making an almost unintelligible excuse for why it couldn’t/wouldn’t demonstrate any connections with people local to the Tower:

gtuk greateer london.png

‘All volunteers of the UK’ – except for the ‘New York Team’?

The account has claimed that all the people behind it are ‘UK volunteers’:

gtuk all uk volunteers

However, the account also claimed to have a ‘New York team – while blustering bizarrely to try to deter any challenge to its authenticity:

gtuk voluntary ny team.jpg

gtuk disavow.jpg

Grenfell Tower Global/UK had a website – grenfelltower.org.uk – that has gone offline. But its initial registration appeared suspicious:


The reference to ‘Harrow Club’ was a slip by Joe Delaney – in fact, the site was originally registered to ‘Rugby Portobello Trust‘, but later changed to ‘Grenfell Tower’

The question it won’t answer

The person or people behind the account seem desperate to avoid answering any questions about their supposed connections to local people. As well as the ‘undisclosed sources’ comment above, many messages and tweets react defensively to any attempt to establish further information – including a response to an enquiry by BBC personnel:

gtuk bbc 2.jpg

The abuse

But when challenged, they switch quickly to abuse:

gtuk fo dm

The appeals to Twitter

Yet it makes strange appeals to Twitter support to ‘protect’ it:

gtuk dear twittergtuk dear twitter 2

The ‘black hole’ emails

The account has published the website address and several email addresses – but the website, currently offline, had next to no content and emails sent by the SKWAWKBOX remain unanswered:

gtuk richi ict.jpg

The Wikipedia ‘hijack’

The people behind the account have tried to insert themselves into Grenfell Tower’s Wikipedia entry to gain legitimacy- but appear to be naive about how Wikipedia works and how the attempt can be traced by to them:

gtuk wiki hijackashley bob wikigtuk ashleygtuk ashley black

The browbeating

The account tried to enhance its appearance of legitimacy via bizarre browbeating of genuine Grenfell figures:

gtuk anas declare

gtuk wallace try block

gtuk wik

and has made responses to seemingly random tweets on unconnected topics by, for example, Labour politicians to demand their support.

Back in action – at a convenient time

After a short period of silence, the account has become active again in the last few days – coinciding with the surge of renewed public interest caused by grime artist Stormzy’s Grenfell-related rap at the Brit awards and his appeal for people to sign the Grenfell petition mentioned at the top of this article – and still abusing genuine survivors and campaigners:

gtuk new 2gtuk new 1gtuk new 4


But why are they doing all this? It’s hard to be sure. There may be some plan for financial gain by association with the globally-known tragedy, as a tweet about marketing collaborators may suggest:

gtuk marketing

But Grenfell survivors and their fellow campaigners are convinced that the account has been set up to divert attention and resources from the genuine group – and probably to discredit genuine Grenfell campaigners by bizarre behaviour and trolling.

With the surge of re-awakened interest in the Grenfell Tower tragedy and survivors created by Stormzy’s shows of support and his challenges to the Establishment to step up and provide the help Theresa May promised, it’s essential that awareness of what may be a damaging ‘trojan horse’ becomes widespread.

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

If you wish to reblog this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.


  1. Seems to me that the accounts are in pompous English and not spontaneous as would be if they were written by real people.

  2. To me they read as if they were written by scammers phishing for suckers.
    I understand there’s software that can identify single entities with multiple accounts?

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: