Conspiracy theories round Grenfell Tower have snowballed on both sides – the inquiry has to address them

The opening today of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry’s commemoration hearings will provide a welcome chance for bereaved families (those able to attend, at least) to make sure that those who died in the tragedy are placed front and centre of the investigation.

Nearly a year on from the fire, which led to the deaths of 72 people, its horror remains fresh in the mind. For those directly affected by the disaster, the continuing pain is difficult to imagine. For them, the desire to know the truth of how such a blaze could have taken hold is not some sort of academic exercise, but a vital part of a grieving process that needs answers to gain anything approaching closure.

Already the inquiry has proved controversial. The appointment last year of Sir Martin Moore-Bick, a retired judge, to lead the process was met with scepticism – in part because of his involvement in previous, contentious housing cases; but also because of a feeling among some residents that there should have been consultation with survivor groups before he was given the job. Some would have preferred a lawyer specialising in criminal work, for instance.

Indeed, there can be little doubt that Sir Martin has a considerable challenge ahead of him. The first phase of his inquiry is set to last until the end of October – assuming things run to plan. This will seek to establish the facts of what happened on 14 June, examining how and where the fire started, how it spread so quickly and how the rescue operation played out.

A second phase will begin in December and is due to consider questions about modifications made to Grenfell Tower in the months preceding the fire, as well the relationship between those organisations that shared responsibility for the building’s management – and the safety of its residents. This is likely to prove the most divisive part of the inquiry, since it will reach conclusions about who – if anyone – should be held to account for what happened.

In response to survivors’ concerns, the prime minister has agreed to appoint two experts to sit alongside Sir Martin during phase two, in order to ensure that there is a more representative panel considering the evidence. Plainly, ensuring that survivors are confident in this process is imperative.

Nevertheless, with so much at stake it seems inevitable that some further flashpoints will emerge. After all, some 562 individuals and organisations have been granted core participant status for the inquiry and many of them will have different objectives or particular interests. Even if all fundamentally want to see justice done, that will – as it always does – mean different things to different people.

What’s more, the Grenfell fire has already attracted more than its fair share of conspiracy theories. Almost before the smoke had cleared, claims were circulating that the government had enforced a media blackout by issuing a D-notice to journalists – which not only wasn’t true but couldn’t be the case (that’s not how D-notices work).

In the weeks that followed, it was repeatedly suggested that the authorities were deliberately suppressing the number of fatalities at the block. Perhaps this was a consequence of the police not wanting to confirm numbers prematurely, but again it highlighted the willingness to believe that there was a whitewash afoot.

On the flip side, there have been vicious accusations from some right-wing voices that residents had been living in the block illegally and in overcrowded conditions and were somehow therefore at fault themselves. At every turn, accusatory fingers of blame have been pointed in multiple directions, irrespective of the evidence.

Community relations have undoubtedly felt the strain, with Kensington having never felt as divided as it has done in the past 12 months. And certainly the disaster has highlighted the stark inequality in modern-day Britain: the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, with its millionaire homes sitting cheek by jowl with Grenfell’s burnt-out shell, has become an emblem of the economic and social disparity between this country’s haves and have-nots. Indeed, it is this inequality which has driven much of the anger in the wake of the tragedy.

It is against such a backdrop that Sir Martin Moore-Bick and his inquiry team must undertake their monumental investigation. They must never lose sight of the loss, the grief and the anger that the disaster has left in its wake – not just during the commemoration hearings over the coming fortnight, but throughout the inquiry. Equally, of course, it is vital that they remain objective in pursuit of the truth, transparent in their work and independent of any and all interested parties.

The ruins of Grenfell Tower are slowly disappearing under a shroud of scaffolding and tarpaulin. Sir Martin must ensure by the end of his inquiry that there is no longer any credence to the notion that the fire which killed so many Grenfell residents has also been the subject of a cover-up.