Report comment

To “Anonymous” 13/9/17 at 13:42

Regarding BMELawyers4Grenfell, you seemed to be distorting the position of BMELawyers4Grenfell when you sought to "put it another way". Their claim was not to give "unlawful preference to BME over white experts". The Guardian, on 12 September 2017, recorded the issue as follows:

"BMELawyers4Grenfell are seeking urgent permission for a judicial review over Theresa May’s alleged failure to ensure the panel reflects the backgrounds of the victims and survivors.

They are hoping to secure a declaration from a high court judge that the prime minister is in breach of an undertaking she made to the inquiry chair, Sir Martin Moore-Bick, on 15 August, relating to the composition of the panel."

There is nothing unlawful in seeking a diverse panel in the Grenfell Tower Inquiry, especially when the Prime Minister of the country specifically undertakes to provide one. The claim was not (as you have misrepresented) to prefer BME experts over white experts. Also, it is not “unlawful” to bring a Judicial Review challenge (at least not yet in the UK) against a public authority or against an inquiry when it relates to the undertakings (promises) a Prime Minister has made to those who have suffered bereavement, injury and the loss of all their possessions and their homes.

I find it a little strange that you are satisfied with the “good news” that a Prime Minister can walk away from her undertakings to vulnerable the victims and survivors of an appalling tragedy.

I am not a member of BMELawyers4Grenfell, and nor do I speak for that organisation. I am however white, though I do not see that my race is remotely relevant to my shock at your observations. However, I commend BMELawyers4Grenfell’s efforts to try and hold our Prime Minister to her word.