Grenfell Report Phase 1 Seeks to Blame the Firefighters

Craig Murray questions the methodology of producing an initial report on the events of the night, and a second on the “historical background,” when the “historical background” actually contains the fundamental causes of the tragedy.

Wall of tribute to the victims of the Grenfell Tower fire in nearby Granfell Road. (ChiralJon, CC BY 2.0, Wikimedia Commons)

By Craig Murray

One simple fact cannot be hidden. The firefighters did not cause the fire. Phase 1 of Judge Sir Martin Moore-Bick’s report has been released. According to The Guardian’s story, it concentrates blame on the firefighters in charge of tackling the blaze. This is an entirely predictable Establishment ploy; blame the little people. 

I do not doubt mistakes were made by the firefighters; there will always be well-intentioned errors by those trying to cope with such a terrible crisis. Moore-Bick may be correct in his identification of them. Adherence to the established “stay in your flat” doctrine was disastrously wrong in these circumstances. But the firefighters were not the reason the fire started and spread so quickly. The primary reason was inadequate regulation of the burgeoning fashion for cladding old buildings, and inadequate enforcement of such regulation as was in place. 

Top floors of Grenfell Tower after the fire, showing the burned insulation, with portions of the original structure revealed underneath. The cladding had melted. (ChiralJon, CC BY 2.0, Wikimedia Commons)

Moore-Bick may, a couple of years from now, ultimately produce a most damning report of government failings that caused the Grenfell Disaster. But these issues will only be dealt with as Phase 2 of the report, by which time public emotion and recollection will have faded further. I question the methodology of producing an initial report on the events of the night, and a second on the “historical background”, when the “historical background” actually contains the fundamental causes of the tragedy. The second report, when it eventually arrives, will have far less media coverage. The abiding message in the eyes of the duped public will be that the fault lay with the fire brigade.

>>Please Donate to Consortium News’ Fall Fund Drive<<

So, let us recall now what really happened.


Deregulation is fundamental to Tory ideology. Speaking specifically on multi-occupation buildings, Fire Minister Bob Neill stated on 16 June 2011:

Over the years, regulations – and the inspections and bureaucracy that go
with them – have piled up and up. This has hurt business, imposing real
burdens and doing real damage to our economy. Reducing the number
of rules and regulations is therefore absolutely central to the Coalition
Government’s vision for Britain, removing barriers to economic growth and
increasing individual freedoms. We have given a clear commitment that where
regulation cannot be justified, we will remove it.

That is one of many examples of vital context given in an excellent pamphlet by the Fire Brigades Union. It is the background to the government’s continued failure over years to address the need for new regulation of developments in cladding.

After six people died due to combustible cladding in the Lakamal House fire of 2009, Tory Minister Eric Pickles’s instinct was to use this disaster to reduce regulation; “My department is committed to a programme of simplification of building regulations.” In the seven years between that statement and the Grenfell fire, the coalition government had still done precisely nothing on cladding regulation.

Meantime, Boris Johnson as mayor of London was taking an axe to the London Fire Service, closing 12 fire stations. Firemen involved in regulation and inspection were particularly cut. Johnson effectively reduced the number of firemen involved in operational regulation enforcement by half. Total fire brigade staff were reduced by a quarter.

This is the essential background to any criticism of the operational performance of the fire brigade. 

Finally, the owners of the building, Kensington and Chelsea Borough Council – arguably the U.K.’s wealthiest council – bear ultimate responsibility for repeated failures to address fire safety concerns and for putting flammable cladding on the building in order to improve its appearance for the benefit of wealthy neighbors in the surrounding streets. A council planning document made plain that it was clad for the neighbors’ benefit, not that of the residents, “to accord with the development plan by ensuring that the character and appearance of the area are preserved and living conditions of those living near the development suitably protected.” The aim of the cladding was to disguise the existence of accommodation perceived as for poor people.

I have not previously blogged much about Grenfell because I have a distaste for disaster journalism. But if public perception grows that the disaster was the fault of the firefighters, that would be an outrage.

Craig Murray is an author, broadcaster and human rights activist. He was British ambassador to Uzbekistan from August 2002 to October 2004 and rector of the University of Dundee from 2007 to 2010.

This article is from

Before commenting please read Robert Parry’s Comment Policy. Allegations unsupported by facts, gross or misleading factual errors and ad hominem attacks, and abusive or rude language toward other commenters or our writers will be removed. If your comment does not immediately appear, please be patient as it is manually reviewed. For security reasons, please refrain from inserting links in your comments.

 >>Please Donate to Consortium News’ Fall Fund Drive<<

5 comments for “Grenfell Report Phase 1 Seeks to Blame the Firefighters

  1. robert e williamson jr
    November 2, 2019 at 13:29

    The bottom line here is that when materials that burn like gasoline once they are ignited are used on building like this multi-story high rise the threat to the building and it’s occupants and it sure as hell wasn’t any secret. This act was criminal .

    It is the same old story write off the poor living on the margins by using the cheapest, quickest, fixes and forget it.

    Then something like this happens and the cowards who facilitated such a stupid move blame the hero’s who selfishly fight the resulting fire.

    They need to lock Boris up maybe.

    Anyway it’s just another example of really poor priorities being set by government. Where is the hell was any risk assessment for the mitigation of using such dangerous materials?

    The fire service needs a “say so” in the matter this stuff just isn’t rocket science.

  2. Eddie S
    November 1, 2019 at 23:32

    Too many people here in the US and Britain bought-into this ‘de-regulation’ crapola of the right-wing conservatives because they portrayed it as ONLY doing away with minor petty bureaucratic minutiae, then it turns out it was a stalking horse to try to do away with virtually any regulations that cost the owners significant $$ and they find themselves on a 737 Max in a nose-dive.

  3. Ghost Ship
    November 1, 2019 at 14:45

    t was one way for Kensington and Chelsea Borough Council to advance its policy of reducing the number of poor people living in the borough.
    As for the “stay in your flat” policy, that is/was the best policy for properly built flats, particularly tower blocks like Genfell when it was first built but changing your policy in the middle of a disaster is not a good idea. Has anybody modeled what would have happened if the fire brigade had.

  4. Jeff Harrison
    November 1, 2019 at 11:46

    It is a true statement of fact that regulations can become burdensome and unnecessarily so. This does not mean that all regulation must go. It merely means that you need professionals and not politicians deciding which regulations are necessary and which aren’t.

  5. caseyf5
    November 1, 2019 at 10:30

    Hello Craig Murray and Everyone,
    It’s way past the time to permanently assign the blame to the right wing and their GOD DEREGULATION! The whole of the right wing philosophy is to “destroy the many for the benefit of the few”. This philosophy has been beneficial for the wealthy and powerful to get almost everything. They really want whatever we have so we have nothing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Comments are closed.