Editorial Comment:

In the wake of the Grenfell disaster, there was a rush to judgment. The loss of life was horrific and people wanted to know what happened and who was to blame. But justice is rarely effected instantly and every possible detail, every scrap of evidence has to be considered. The focus on building materials and regulations was to be expected given the nature of the disaster – but it might not be the whole story.

Today we report that some survivors are accusing the fire service of failing to do enough to protect those who lost their lives last June 14. They say that they were told to “stay put” in their flats for two hours, and that if they had been advised to evacuate, more lives might have been saved. Flora Neda, who lived on the top floor, tells this newspaper that her husband made a phone call that suggested if they remained in their flat, rescue was on its way. At around 2am, Ms Neda tried to escape with her son and, forcing their way through smoke, they made it outside. Her husband stayed behind to help others, before jumping out of a window, falling to his death.

The London Fire Brigade has said that it cannot respond to charges of failure ahead of the inquiry and while the police investigation is ongoing, but a spokesman says that the “stay put” advice remains in place, except for buildings in the capital with similar cladding to that used at Grenfell. We might add that the “stay put” advice was linked to deaths at a fire in south London in 2009.

We bring this evidence to light not to conclude that “stay put” certainly contributed to the Grenfell death toll, but rather that it illustrates this tragedy’s painful nuance. The case for “stay put” might be that it reduces the risk of a stampede; that it can be highly dangerous to traverse smoke; and that ordinarily the fire service would be confident of containing a fire to a single flat. Whatever the truth, the point is that there is likely to be more than one single failure at Grenfell and that families have every right to insist that every part of the scenario is examined thoroughly. Some of the attempts to develop a political narrative obfuscate these details.

This was a human disaster, the scale and intensity of which is brought home by the testimonies of those it touched. Ms Neda says that her husband, Saber, was reluctant to leave anyone behind: she describes him as “very brave.” This is indisputable. Readers will doubtless feel profound pity and admiration for the Neda family.