families as they would allow the families to participate and ask questions. She said the coroner was independent but a public inquiry was government-led and she wondered what information the Prime Minister knew that she wanted to hide. Another solicitor, Louise Christian, who also acted for families in relation to Lakanal House, wrote in The Guardian that a public inquiry was the best approach. She wrote about a promised public inquiry for Lakanal House being "downgraded to an inquest" and that inquests would be delayed by a criminal investigation. She acknowledged that victims' interests are often sidelined in a public inquiry but wrote that the scope of a public inquiry is wider and that a rapid inquiry would put the government under more pressure to implement its findings immediately. Appointment of Martin Moore-Bick On 29 June, May announced that Sir Martin Moore-Bick, a retired judge, would lead the inquiry. She stated that "Before the Inquiry starts Sir Martin will consult all those with an interest, including survivors and victims’ families, about the terms of reference." Moore-Bick met some survivors of the fire that day, and cautioned against giving the inquiry too much scope. The appointment was met with some criticism from survivors, as well as Emma Dent Coad, the MP for Kensington. The chief criticisms were towards Moore-Bick's background in commercial law, his different social background to the survivors and his previous ruling in a Westminster City Council case, in which he had allowed a local resident to be rehoused 50 miles away. This decision had been overturned on appeal by the Supreme Court. Dent Coad said "We need somebody who can do the detail but we need somebody who can actually understand human beings as well." During two public meetings held by the Inquiry before the finalisation of the terms of reference, various residents criticised the lack of diversity of the Inquiry panel, saying that it did not represent the community. An anonymous legal columnist in the New Statesman wrote that "The bulk of this objection, it appears, arises out of a rapidly cultivated image of Sir Martin as an establishment Mr Whitewash." The columnist argued that Moore-Bick's background as a "fact finder" in commercial law made him far better suited to the role than a criminal judge, and that getting the inquiry to empathise with the survivors "can be achieved without sacking the chair and starting again." Lord