Why did it go so badly for the Conservatives?

First topic message reminder :

So the election is over and what was predicted to be an easy election just 8 weeks ago where the tories had a 20 point lead which would have resulted in a 100 seat majority has in fact turned into a horrible night for the tories where they actually LOST their majority.

So what went wrong? Was it the election debates that May appeared on? Was it May refusing to debate Corbyn 1v1? was it the dementia tax? or the U-turns? What was it that made her lose a 20 point lead in the space of 7 weeks?


Or was it just that Corbyn ran a better campaign?

dyrewolfe wrote:

Samo wrote:An extra £2 a sheet of cladding would have completely fire proofed it.  Can we atleast acknowledge that this wasnt bought because of the Tory Austerity culture we're in?

Poor people died because the rich didnt like the way their flats looked.  Its as simple as that.

Erm...nope...

Grenfell tower was built in the 1970s. Why not ask why the Labour government from 1997 - 2010 didn't look into housing regs and take action.

Nothing to do with "austerity culture".

Also nothing to do with rich people not liking the way the flats looked either. You can gentrify buildings in lots of ways, using properly spec'd materials, that won't turn them into deathtraps.

Those people died because of the original poor design of the flats, the shoddy refurbishment that was carried out and the failure of the council / building management group to address the residents' repeated concerns over fire safety.

If you want to make a political statement about it, you could say those people died because they were poor / working class and therefore ignored. I feel this is at least partially true.

Maybe it is also to do with the council ignoring warnings by the Fire service to put in sprinklers in 2016..Maybe the fact the Council is Conservative is enough reason not to rule out making political statements..

Ent wrote:

dyrewolfe wrote:

Samo wrote:An extra £2 a sheet of cladding would have completely fire proofed it.  Can we atleast acknowledge that this wasnt bought because of the Tory Austerity culture we're in?

Poor people died because the rich didnt like the way their flats looked.  Its as simple as that.

Erm...nope...

Grenfell tower was built in the 1970s. Why not ask why the Labour government from 1997 - 2010 didn't look into housing regs and take action.

Nothing to do with "austerity culture".

Also nothing to do with rich people not liking the way the flats looked either. You can gentrify buildings in lots of ways, using properly spec'd materials, that won't turn them into deathtraps.

Those people died because of the original poor design of the flats, the shoddy refurbishment that was carried out and the failure of the council / building management group to address the residents' repeated concerns over fire safety.

If you want to make a political statement about it, you could say those people died because they were poor / working class and therefore ignored. I feel this is at least partially true.

Agree with a lot of that, though hard to say they were ignored when the property management board has a majority of residents on it.

It is a tragedy in which the state (including at least 3 successive Governments) failed these people, I have little time for anyone trying to make political capital from it.

Wasn't the issue the cladding which spread the fire. The person to blame is who authorised the cladding. If the cladding was something done under the tories which I believe it was then was it due to budget cuts that a cheaper option was chosen.

The reason why May is getting the blame is because her party's ideology is all about austerity and cuts and inevitably cuts lead to corners being taken when it comes to safety.

May might nt have had any involvement in this catastrophe but the reason the residents are shouting murderer at her when she makes visits is because she agrees with the policy of austerity and budget cuts.

Not sure the issue will be as clean and dried as regards material used. Musclular-mouse. ....You can sign off on something in good faith..

However it seems the Fire service raised concerns about the Tower..

That is clean and dried.

Muscular-mouse wrote:

Ent wrote:

dyrewolfe wrote:

Samo wrote:An extra £2 a sheet of cladding would have completely fire proofed it.  Can we atleast acknowledge that this wasnt bought because of the Tory Austerity culture we're in?

Poor people died because the rich didnt like the way their flats looked.  Its as simple as that.

Erm...nope...

Grenfell tower was built in the 1970s. Why not ask why the Labour government from 1997 - 2010 didn't look into housing regs and take action.

Nothing to do with "austerity culture".

Also nothing to do with rich people not liking the way the flats looked either. You can gentrify buildings in lots of ways, using properly spec'd materials, that won't turn them into deathtraps.

Those people died because of the original poor design of the flats, the shoddy refurbishment that was carried out and the failure of the council / building management group to address the residents' repeated concerns over fire safety.

If you want to make a political statement about it, you could say those people died because they were poor / working class and therefore ignored. I feel this is at least partially true.

Agree with a lot of that, though hard to say they were ignored when the property management board has a majority of residents on it.

It is a tragedy in which the state (including at least 3 successive Governments) failed these people, I have little time for anyone trying to make political capital from it.

Wasn't the issue the cladding which spread the fire. The person to blame is who authorised the cladding. If the cladding was something done under the tories which I believe it was then was it due to budget cuts that a cheaper option was chosen.

The reason why May is getting the blame is because her party's ideology is all about austerity and cuts and inevitably cuts lead to corners being taken when it comes to safety.

May might nt have had any involvement in this catastrophe but the reason the residents are shouting murderer at her when she makes visits is because she agrees with the policy of austerity and budget cuts.

That is pretty much a baseless statement, until the enquiry we will not know the cause of the fire or all the contributing factors to the deaths.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

dyrewolfe wrote:

Samo wrote:An extra £2 a sheet of cladding would have completely fire proofed it.  Can we atleast acknowledge that this wasnt bought because of the Tory Austerity culture we're in?

Poor people died because the rich didnt like the way their flats looked.  Its as simple as that.

Erm...nope...

Grenfell tower was built in the 1970s. Why not ask why the Labour government from 1997 - 2010 didn't look into housing regs and take action.

Nothing to do with "austerity culture".

Also nothing to do with rich people not liking the way the flats looked either. You can gentrify buildings in lots of ways, using properly spec'd materials, that won't turn them into deathtraps.

Those people died because of the original poor design of the flats, the shoddy refurbishment that was carried out and the failure of the council / building management group to address the residents' repeated concerns over fire safety.

If you want to make a political statement about it, you could say those people died because they were poor / working class and therefore ignored. I feel this is at least partially true.

Maybe it is also to do with the council ignoring warnings by the Fire service to put in sprinklers in 2016..Maybe the fact the Council is Conservative is enough reason not to rule out making political statements..

Link?

minsters advised to update fire guidance/legislation
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40330789

guidance/regulations on sprinklers
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-40293035

In 2005, a fire at Harrow Court in Stevenage, Hertfordshire, killed a woman and two firefighters trying to rescue her. The Hertfordshire Fire and Rescue Service report recommended the UK Fire Service should explore options for high-rise buildings, including the "provision of sprinklers".
After six people died at Lakanal House in south London in 2009, the coroner said "It is recommended that [the Department for Communities and Local Government] encourage providers of housing in high-rise residential buildings containing multiple domestic premises to consider the retrofitting of sprinkler systems."

Still only 1% of high rises with sprinklers.

People really showing their colours on here, the state in it's entirety have failed these people and recurrent failings have lead to a catastrophic loss of life.

True colors is ironic...coming from a guy who has spent the afternoon patronising women..

The fire service expressed concerns about the Tower to the Council in 2016...I don't make blanket statements it is easily validated.

Yep you definitely are the only one without an agenda on here...

It is so obvious from your output.

Ent wrote:

Muscular-mouse wrote:

Ent wrote:

dyrewolfe wrote:

Samo wrote:An extra £2 a sheet of cladding would have completely fire proofed it.  Can we atleast acknowledge that this wasnt bought because of the Tory Austerity culture we're in?

Poor people died because the rich didnt like the way their flats looked.  Its as simple as that.

Erm...nope...

Grenfell tower was built in the 1970s. Why not ask why the Labour government from 1997 - 2010 didn't look into housing regs and take action.

Nothing to do with "austerity culture".

Also nothing to do with rich people not liking the way the flats looked either. You can gentrify buildings in lots of ways, using properly spec'd materials, that won't turn them into deathtraps.

Those people died because of the original poor design of the flats, the shoddy refurbishment that was carried out and the failure of the council / building management group to address the residents' repeated concerns over fire safety.

If you want to make a political statement about it, you could say those people died because they were poor / working class and therefore ignored. I feel this is at least partially true.

Agree with a lot of that, though hard to say they were ignored when the property management board has a majority of residents on it.

It is a tragedy in which the state (including at least 3 successive Governments) failed these people, I have little time for anyone trying to make political capital from it.

Wasn't the issue the cladding which spread the fire. The person to blame is who authorised the cladding. If the cladding was something done under the tories which I believe it was then was it due to budget cuts that a cheaper option was chosen.

The reason why May is getting the blame is because her party's ideology is all about austerity and cuts and inevitably cuts lead to corners being taken when it comes to safety.

May might nt have had any involvement in this catastrophe but the reason the residents are shouting murderer at her when she makes visits is because she agrees with the policy of austerity and budget cuts.

That is pretty much a baseless statement, until the enquiry we will not know the cause of the fire or all the contributing factors to the deaths.

it is not baseless, I have seen with my own eyes the video footage of the fire spreading because of the cladding. I think everyone knows that spread the fire.

I don't think anyone knows that at all until the investigation has been completed, one train of thought has the gap between the cladding as the main issue of why it spread.

Not sure why the inquiry isn't independent, though. The situation has already become political.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:True colors is ironic...coming from a guy who has spent the afternoon patronising women..

The fire service expressed concerns about the Tower to the Council in 2016...I don't make blanket statements it is easily validated.

Yep you definitely are the only one without an agenda on here...

It is so obvious from your output.

No link then?

I've seen nothing to suggest the fire service told the council to fit sprinklers last year - happy to be corrected.

Muscular-mouse wrote:

Ent wrote:

Muscular-mouse wrote:

Ent wrote:

dyrewolfe wrote:

Samo wrote:An extra £2 a sheet of cladding would have completely fire proofed it.  Can we atleast acknowledge that this wasnt bought because of the Tory Austerity culture we're in?

Poor people died because the rich didnt like the way their flats looked.  Its as simple as that.

Erm...nope...

Grenfell tower was built in the 1970s. Why not ask why the Labour government from 1997 - 2010 didn't look into housing regs and take action.

Nothing to do with "austerity culture".

Also nothing to do with rich people not liking the way the flats looked either. You can gentrify buildings in lots of ways, using properly spec'd materials, that won't turn them into deathtraps.

Those people died because of the original poor design of the flats, the shoddy refurbishment that was carried out and the failure of the council / building management group to address the residents' repeated concerns over fire safety.

If you want to make a political statement about it, you could say those people died because they were poor / working class and therefore ignored. I feel this is at least partially true.

Agree with a lot of that, though hard to say they were ignored when the property management board has a majority of residents on it.

It is a tragedy in which the state (including at least 3 successive Governments) failed these people, I have little time for anyone trying to make political capital from it.

Wasn't the issue the cladding which spread the fire. The person to blame is who authorised the cladding. If the cladding was something done under the tories which I believe it was then was it due to budget cuts that a cheaper option was chosen.

The reason why May is getting the blame is because her party's ideology is all about austerity and cuts and inevitably cuts lead to corners being taken when it comes to safety.

May might nt have had any involvement in this catastrophe but the reason the residents are shouting murderer at her when she makes visits is because she agrees with the policy of austerity and budget cuts.

That is pretty much a baseless statement, until the enquiry we will not know the cause of the fire or all the contributing factors to the deaths.

it is not baseless, I have seen with my own eyes the video footage of the fire spreading because of the cladding. I think everyone knows that spread the fire.

It is baseless, you do not know what caused the fire to spread nor what failures contributed to so many deaths - the cladding should not have caught fire if the isolation design was effective.

If everyone knows - no need for an enquiry then?

Latest today is that Kings have been treating survivors for cyanide poisoning and the release from burning plastics in the insulation boards (not cladding) may have contributed or caused some of the deaths. But you knew it was the cladding so we shouldn't bother looking at stuff like that, or the fire regulations, or how the refurbishment was carried out etc etc

Ent wrote:

Muscular-mouse wrote:

Ent wrote:

Muscular-mouse wrote:

Ent wrote:

dyrewolfe wrote:

Samo wrote:An extra £2 a sheet of cladding would have completely fire proofed it.  Can we atleast acknowledge that this wasnt bought because of the Tory Austerity culture we're in?

Poor people died because the rich didnt like the way their flats looked.  Its as simple as that.

Erm...nope...

Grenfell tower was built in the 1970s. Why not ask why the Labour government from 1997 - 2010 didn't look into housing regs and take action.

Nothing to do with "austerity culture".

Also nothing to do with rich people not liking the way the flats looked either. You can gentrify buildings in lots of ways, using properly spec'd materials, that won't turn them into deathtraps.

Those people died because of the original poor design of the flats, the shoddy refurbishment that was carried out and the failure of the council / building management group to address the residents' repeated concerns over fire safety.

If you want to make a political statement about it, you could say those people died because they were poor / working class and therefore ignored. I feel this is at least partially true.

Agree with a lot of that, though hard to say they were ignored when the property management board has a majority of residents on it.

It is a tragedy in which the state (including at least 3 successive Governments) failed these people, I have little time for anyone trying to make political capital from it.

Wasn't the issue the cladding which spread the fire. The person to blame is who authorised the cladding. If the cladding was something done under the tories which I believe it was then was it due to budget cuts that a cheaper option was chosen.

The reason why May is getting the blame is because her party's ideology is all about austerity and cuts and inevitably cuts lead to corners being taken when it comes to safety.

May might nt have had any involvement in this catastrophe but the reason the residents are shouting murderer at her when she makes visits is because she agrees with the policy of austerity and budget cuts.

That is pretty much a baseless statement, until the enquiry we will not know the cause of the fire or all the contributing factors to the deaths.

it is not baseless, I have seen with my own eyes the video footage of the fire spreading because of the cladding. I think everyone knows that spread the fire.

It is baseless, you do not know what caused the fire to spread nor what failures contributed to so many deaths - the cladding should not have caught fire if the isolation design was effective.

If everyone knows - no need for an enquiry then?

Latest today is that Kings have been treating survivors for cyanide poisoning and the release from burning plastics in the insulation boards (not cladding) may have contributed or caused some of the deaths. But you knew it was the cladding so we shouldn't bother looking at stuff like that, or the fire regulations, or how the refurbishment was carried out etc etc

its not baseless though, it is an opinion based on what I have witnessed.

If I view a video of a man getting shot in the head, technically under your rules me saying the shot to his head killed him is baseless because I have not seen any medical evidence to confirm what I am saying is true.

It's a bit more akin to hearing the shot fire off screen. Not an unreasonable assumption, but still an assumption at this stage

Independent online.......Jon Sharman

"London fire brigade wrote to all London borough councils including Kensington asking they review the use of these panels and take APPROPRIATE ACTION to mitigate the FIRE RISK"

Kensington council would not respond to a request asking about their response to the letter..

An assumption based on no actual knowledge or understanding of what you're seeing.

Ent, you're right, to me the biggest question is not why was that particular cladding used but why did the fire spread so quickly to make it so out of control, the fire must have been pretty damn destructive before it's got to that point. It seems to be distracting people away from the fact their was something fundamentally wrong with that building on the inside.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:An assumption based on no actual knowledge or understanding of what you're seeing.

Fire service tested the cladding....and wrote to the councils..

You just make blanket statements......Back them up from time to time......

Hit and run wears thin......

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:An assumption based on no actual knowledge or understanding of what you're seeing.

Fire service tested the cladding....and wrote to the councils..

You just make blanket statements......Back them up from time to time......

Hit and run wears thin......

It's a perfectly valid statement but it doesn't fit with your agenda does it Truss.

The cladding will have exasperated the fire, it will not have caused it.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Independent online.......Jon Sharman

"London fire brigade wrote to all London borough councils including Kensington asking they review the use of these panels and take APPROPRIATE ACTION to mitigate the FIRE RISK"

Kensington council would not respond to a request asking about their response to the letter..

Can't find this story, links would be easier thanks.

Doesn't say they asked them to install sprinklers in 2016 and didn't, which you suggested earlier and blamed the council for.

Ent wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Independent online.......Jon Sharman

"London fire brigade wrote to all London borough councils including Kensington asking they review the use of these panels and take APPROPRIATE ACTION to mitigate the FIRE RISK"

Kensington council would not respond to a request asking about their response to the letter..

Can't find this story, links would be easier thanks.

Doesn't say they asked them to install sprinklers in 2016 and didn't, which you suggested earlier and blamed the council for.

Semantics...."Appropriate Action.."

Muscular-mouse wrote:

Ent wrote:

Muscular-mouse wrote:

Ent wrote:

Muscular-mouse wrote:

Ent wrote:

dyrewolfe wrote:

Samo wrote:An extra £2 a sheet of cladding would have completely fire proofed it.  Can we atleast acknowledge that this wasnt bought because of the Tory Austerity culture we're in?

Poor people died because the rich didnt like the way their flats looked.  Its as simple as that.

Erm...nope...

Grenfell tower was built in the 1970s. Why not ask why the Labour government from 1997 - 2010 didn't look into housing regs and take action.

Nothing to do with "austerity culture".

Also nothing to do with rich people not liking the way the flats looked either. You can gentrify buildings in lots of ways, using properly spec'd materials, that won't turn them into deathtraps.

Those people died because of the original poor design of the flats, the shoddy refurbishment that was carried out and the failure of the council / building management group to address the residents' repeated concerns over fire safety.

If you want to make a political statement about it, you could say those people died because they were poor / working class and therefore ignored. I feel this is at least partially true.

Agree with a lot of that, though hard to say they were ignored when the property management board has a majority of residents on it.

It is a tragedy in which the state (including at least 3 successive Governments) failed these people, I have little time for anyone trying to make political capital from it.

Wasn't the issue the cladding which spread the fire. The person to blame is who authorised the cladding. If the cladding was something done under the tories which I believe it was then was it due to budget cuts that a cheaper option was chosen.

The reason why May is getting the blame is because her party's ideology is all about austerity and cuts and inevitably cuts lead to corners being taken when it comes to safety.

May might nt have had any involvement in this catastrophe but the reason the residents are shouting murderer at her when she makes visits is because she agrees with the policy of austerity and budget cuts.

That is pretty much a baseless statement, until the enquiry we will not know the cause of the fire or all the contributing factors to the deaths.

it is not baseless, I have seen with my own eyes the video footage of the fire spreading because of the cladding. I think everyone knows that spread the fire.

It is baseless, you do not know what caused the fire to spread nor what failures contributed to so many deaths - the cladding should not have caught fire if the isolation design was effective.

If everyone knows - no need for an enquiry then?

Latest today is that Kings have been treating survivors for cyanide poisoning and the release from burning plastics in the insulation boards (not cladding) may have contributed or caused some of the deaths. But you knew it was the cladding so we shouldn't bother looking at stuff like that, or the fire regulations, or how the refurbishment was carried out etc etc

its not baseless though, it is an opinion based on what I have witnessed.

If I view a video of a man getting shot in the head, technically under your rules me saying the shot to his head killed him is baseless because I have not seen any medical evidence to confirm what I am saying is true.

It has no basis in fact, which is what a baseless opinion is. You seeing a video of an unprecedented tower block fire does not give you factual knowledge to make a statement as to causality.

Your analogy - it is more akin to you seeing a dead body with a head wound and stating confidently they had been shot and no need to wait for a post mortem.

Ultimately you are tripping over yourself to blame this tragedy on the conservative parties governing from 2010 as you have pre existing bias against them.

They may well be to blame, however we do not know what happened and that is why there will be an enquiry - there is literally new information coming out everyday as to the cause of the fire and why it lead to such catastrophic loss of life.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:An assumption based on no actual knowledge or understanding of what you're seeing.

Fire service tested the cladding....and wrote to the councils..

You just make blanket statements......Back them up from time to time......

Hit and run wears thin......

It's a perfectly valid statement but it doesn't fit with your agenda does it Truss.

The cladding will have exasperated the fire, it will not have caused it.

"You have an Agenda"...That is the phrase chucked out when someone is struggling to stay in the argument..

Common knowledge that a fridge caused the fire........Never said the cladding caused it.....trying to move the goalposts are we?

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Ent wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Independent online.......Jon Sharman

"London fire brigade wrote to all London borough councils including Kensington asking they review the use of these panels and take APPROPRIATE ACTION to mitigate the FIRE RISK"

Kensington council would not respond to a request asking about their response to the letter..

Can't find this story, links would be easier thanks.

Doesn't say they asked them to install sprinklers in 2016 and didn't, which you suggested earlier and blamed the council for.

Semantics...."Appropriate Action.."

Not semantics

Maybe it is also to do with the council ignoring warnings by the Fire service to put in sprinklers in 2016..Maybe the fact the Council is Conservative is enough reason not to rule out making political statements..

very different from "appropriate action"

- no link I see, put up or shut up.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:An assumption based on no actual knowledge or understanding of what you're seeing.

Fire service tested the cladding....and wrote to the councils..

You just make blanket statements......Back them up from time to time......

Hit and run wears thin......

It's a perfectly valid statement but it doesn't fit with your agenda does it Truss.

The cladding will have exasperated the fire, it will not have caused it.

"You have an Agenda"...That is the phrase chucked out when someone is struggling to stay in the argument..

Common knowledge that a fridge caused the fire........Never said the cladding caused it.....trying to move the goalposts are we?

No no - you said the council were advised to install sprinklers in 2016 in Grenfell tower and blamed them for not.

Now we have an unlinked story suggesting that the fire service asked for appropriate action on certain panels - distributed to all London borough councils.

Completely different yarns I'm afraid.

Ent wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Ent wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Independent online.......Jon Sharman

"London fire brigade wrote to all London borough councils including Kensington asking they review the use of these panels and take APPROPRIATE ACTION to mitigate the FIRE RISK"

Kensington council would not respond to a request asking about their response to the letter..

Can't find this story, links would be easier thanks.

Doesn't say they asked them to install sprinklers in 2016 and didn't, which you suggested earlier and blamed the council for.

Semantics...."Appropriate Action.."

Not semantics

Maybe it is also to do with the council ignoring warnings by the Fire service to put in sprinklers in 2016..Maybe the fact the Council is Conservative is enough reason not to rule out making political statements..

very different from "appropriate action"

- no link I see, put up or shut up.

Given you the article and the author.......I've named my source that is good enough.....

Semantics........Fire service would always recommend sprinklers in high rises..........It's H+S 101.....

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/grenfell-tower-fire-kensington-council-cladding-deaths-safety-regulations-london-fire-brigade-a7793941.html

Found it, no thanks to TRUSS.

Different cladding in both buildings and the fire service inspected Grenfell when the refurb was complete - as noted in November 2016s board meeting.

Shameful of you to misrepresent this article and the information contained to blame the council, to not provide a link so your lies could be exposed is appalling.

You aren't worth anyones time on here.

I'm happy with my argument...

Good night..

Ent wrote:...

Latest today is that Kings have been treating survivors for cyanide poisoning and the release from burning plastics in the insulation boards (not cladding) may have contributed or caused some of the deaths. But you knew it was the cladding so we shouldn't bother looking at stuff like that, or the fire regulations, or how the refurbishment was carried out etc etc

Just a point of clarification - the insulation was part of the cladding system and not a separate material as would be the case with (for example) a stone clad façade. The cladding panels (composite panels) consist of a metal outer skin (I understand in this case zinc), an inner skin which may be plastic or may be metal, with a layer of insulation sandwiched between. The insulation in the panels at Grenfell was a foamed resin of PIR type - that's polyisocyanurate, so could potentially be a source of cyanide gas during combustion. The non-flammable versions of the cladding include a mineral wool insulation instead.

As for being wise after the event, clearly there is now going to be a big push for sprinklers and independent fire extinguishers in each flat, as one thing this fire has shown is that current fire fighting equipment is inadequate to deal with a catastrophic fire in a high rise building. In this case though, I don't know how effective sprinklers would have been, as it appears that the main fire was on or behind the new cladding and external to the main (original concrete) building shell - I guess internal sprinklers could have bought people some time, but I think one thing that the enquiry will have to look at is whether sprinklers or other internal fire fighting equipment would have been of much use in this particular case

dummy_half wrote:

Ent wrote:...

Latest today is that Kings have been treating survivors for cyanide poisoning and the release from burning plastics in the insulation boards (not cladding) may have contributed or caused some of the deaths. But you knew it was the cladding so we shouldn't bother looking at stuff like that, or the fire regulations, or how the refurbishment was carried out etc etc

Just a point of clarification - the insulation was part of the cladding system and not a separate material as would be the case with (for example) a stone clad façade. The cladding panels (composite panels) consist of a metal outer skin (I understand in this case zinc), an inner skin which may be plastic or may be metal, with a layer of insulation sandwiched between. The insulation in the panels at Grenfell was a foamed resin of PIR type - that's polyisocyanurate, so could potentially be a source of cyanide gas during combustion. The non-flammable versions of the cladding include a mineral wool insulation instead.

As for being wise after the event, clearly there is now going to be a big push for sprinklers and independent fire extinguishers in each flat, as one thing this fire has shown is that current fire fighting equipment is inadequate to deal with a catastrophic fire in a high rise building. In this case though, I don't know how effective sprinklers would have been, as it appears that the main fire was on or behind the new cladding and external to the main (original concrete) building shell - I guess internal sprinklers could have bought people some time, but I think one thing that the enquiry will have to look at is whether sprinklers or other internal fire fighting equipment would have been of much use in this particular case

Fair enough, I took it that they were separate but in close proximity when I read it - my mistake.

The second paragraph is interesting as amid all the furore and rush to install sprinklers a few people have been quoted saying similar to you have.

An unprecedented tower block fire, lives lost that didn't need to be - need this enquiry/inquest to get to the bottom of it. If what you are saying is correct the main issue may have been the design/building work done during the refurbishment may be to blame - you clearly have more insight/knowledge into this than me though.

Ent wrote:

dummy_half wrote:

Ent wrote:...

Latest today is that Kings have been treating survivors for cyanide poisoning and the release from burning plastics in the insulation boards (not cladding) may have contributed or caused some of the deaths. But you knew it was the cladding so we shouldn't bother looking at stuff like that, or the fire regulations, or how the refurbishment was carried out etc etc

Just a point of clarification - the insulation was part of the cladding system and not a separate material as would be the case with (for example) a stone clad façade. The cladding panels (composite panels) consist of a metal outer skin (I understand in this case zinc), an inner skin which may be plastic or may be metal, with a layer of insulation sandwiched between. The insulation in the panels at Grenfell was a foamed resin of PIR type - that's polyisocyanurate, so could potentially be a source of cyanide gas during combustion. The non-flammable versions of the cladding include a mineral wool insulation instead.

As for being wise after the event, clearly there is now going to be a big push for sprinklers and independent fire extinguishers in each flat, as one thing this fire has shown is that current fire fighting equipment is inadequate to deal with a catastrophic fire in a high rise building. In this case though, I don't know how effective sprinklers would have been, as it appears that the main fire was on or behind the new cladding and external to the main (original concrete) building shell - I guess internal sprinklers could have bought people some time, but I think one thing that the enquiry will have to look at is whether sprinklers or other internal fire fighting equipment would have been of much use in this particular case

Fair enough, I took it that they were separate but in close proximity when I read it - my mistake.

The second paragraph is interesting as amid all the furore and rush to install sprinklers a few people have been quoted saying similar to you have.

An unprecedented tower block fire, lives lost that didn't need to be - need this enquiry/inquest to get to the bottom of it. If what you are saying is correct the main issue may have been the design/building work done during the refurbishment may be to blame - you clearly have more insight/knowledge into this than me though.

Good point about the unprecedented nature of the fire (at least in UK terms) - this is why we should be careful in rushing to judgement before the enquiry is carried out. I certainly wouldn't be surprised to find that there were design flaws either in the original building, or more likely in the refurbishment works. The design concept for fire proofing this type of building has always been to contain the fire in a small area and then extinguish it there, and clearly this hasn't occurred this time. My understanding is that the fire started with a fridge malfunction in one flat, and that the fire crews dealing with this thought they had it contained and extinguished, only to find it had taken hold within or behind the cladding (i.e. external to the building shell). The questions therefore are how did the fire get beyond the confines of the individual flat, and then why was it able to spread so rapidly - at present it looks like the answer to the second of these relates to the flammability of the cladding and to the presence of a cavity (as always with such systems between the structural elements of the building and the cladding), but in some ways the first question is the more important.

Ent wrote:

dummy_half wrote:

Ent wrote:...

Latest today is that Kings have been treating survivors for cyanide poisoning and the release from burning plastics in the insulation boards (not cladding) may have contributed or caused some of the deaths. But you knew it was the cladding so we shouldn't bother looking at stuff like that, or the fire regulations, or how the refurbishment was carried out etc etc

Just a point of clarification - the insulation was part of the cladding system and not a separate material as would be the case with (for example) a stone clad façade. The cladding panels (composite panels) consist of a metal outer skin (I understand in this case zinc), an inner skin which may be plastic or may be metal, with a layer of insulation sandwiched between. The insulation in the panels at Grenfell was a foamed resin of PIR type - that's polyisocyanurate, so could potentially be a source of cyanide gas during combustion. The non-flammable versions of the cladding include a mineral wool insulation instead.

As for being wise after the event, clearly there is now going to be a big push for sprinklers and independent fire extinguishers in each flat, as one thing this fire has shown is that current fire fighting equipment is inadequate to deal with a catastrophic fire in a high rise building. In this case though, I don't know how effective sprinklers would have been, as it appears that the main fire was on or behind the new cladding and external to the main (original concrete) building shell - I guess internal sprinklers could have bought people some time, but I think one thing that the enquiry will have to look at is whether sprinklers or other internal fire fighting equipment would have been of much use in this particular case

Fair enough, I took it that they were separate but in close proximity when I read it - my mistake.

The second paragraph is interesting as amid all the furore and rush to install sprinklers a few people have been quoted saying similar to you have.

An unprecedented tower block fire, lives lost that didn't need to be - need this enquiry/inquest to get to the bottom of it. If what you are saying is correct the main issue may have been the design/building work done during the refurbishment may be to blame - you clearly have more insight/knowledge into this than me though.

lol so now you agree the cladding has a part to blame

The deaths of 79 people is such a funny matter and definitely one to points score on.

Yougov..Who would make the best PM ???

Corbyn 35
May 34...

The same pollster in April had her 39 points ahead.

Largely irrelevant Truss as she won't be contesting another general election.

South Gloucestershire by election seat last night..

Con won 48 percent
Labour 34 percent..

Last time..

Con won 46 percent
Labour 15 percent.......

Don't expect a GE anytime soon.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Boris Johnson would offer a very different proposition and one that wouldn't back down from a debate in fact he'd relish it. I felt all the way through the campaign that he needed to be left off the leash and he has an ability to get people to vote for him.

The guy that scraped past a discredited and maligned Ken Livingstone in 2012...51.5 to 48.5 percent....

He has just had his majority slashed dramatically in his parliamentary seat..

Think you over estimate his appeal...You certainly underestimated Labour's..

You are nothing if not consistent Hammer..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:True colors is ironic...coming from a guy who has spent the afternoon patronising women..

The fire service expressed concerns about the Tower to the Council in 2016...I don't make blanket statements it is easily validated.

Yep you definitely are the only one without an agenda on here...

It is so obvious from your output.

WHEN in 2016 did they tell the Council this? Is it reasonable to expect a sprinkler system installation in a 26-storey building by June 2017 as a result?

Muscular-mouse wrote:

Ent wrote:

Muscular-mouse wrote:

Ent wrote:

dyrewolfe wrote:

Samo wrote:An extra £2 a sheet of cladding would have completely fire proofed it.  Can we atleast acknowledge that this wasnt bought because of the Tory Austerity culture we're in?

Poor people died because the rich didnt like the way their flats looked.  Its as simple as that.

Erm...nope...

Grenfell tower was built in the 1970s. Why not ask why the Labour government from 1997 - 2010 didn't look into housing regs and take action.

Nothing to do with "austerity culture".

Also nothing to do with rich people not liking the way the flats looked either. You can gentrify buildings in lots of ways, using properly spec'd materials, that won't turn them into deathtraps.

Those people died because of the original poor design of the flats, the shoddy refurbishment that was carried out and the failure of the council / building management group to address the residents' repeated concerns over fire safety.

If you want to make a political statement about it, you could say those people died because they were poor / working class and therefore ignored. I feel this is at least partially true.

Agree with a lot of that, though hard to say they were ignored when the property management board has a majority of residents on it.

It is a tragedy in which the state (including at least 3 successive Governments) failed these people, I have little time for anyone trying to make political capital from it.

Wasn't the issue the cladding which spread the fire. The person to blame is who authorised the cladding. If the cladding was something done under the tories which I believe it was then was it due to budget cuts that a cheaper option was chosen.

The reason why May is getting the blame is because her party's ideology is all about austerity and cuts and inevitably cuts lead to corners being taken when it comes to safety.

May might nt have had any involvement in this catastrophe but the reason the residents are shouting murderer at her when she makes visits is because she agrees with the policy of austerity and budget cuts.

That is pretty much a baseless statement, until the enquiry we will not know the cause of the fire or all the contributing factors to the deaths.

it is not baseless, I have seen with my own eyes the video footage of the fire spreading because of the cladding. I think everyone knows that spread the fire.

Very scientific. I think I'll wait to see what the Fire Service say was the prime cause...

Muscular-mouse wrote:

Ent wrote:

Muscular-mouse wrote:

Ent wrote:

Muscular-mouse wrote:

Ent wrote:

dyrewolfe wrote:

Samo wrote:An extra £2 a sheet of cladding would have completely fire proofed it.  Can we atleast acknowledge that this wasnt bought because of the Tory Austerity culture we're in?

Poor people died because the rich didnt like the way their flats looked.  Its as simple as that.

Erm...nope...

Grenfell tower was built in the 1970s. Why not ask why the Labour government from 1997 - 2010 didn't look into housing regs and take action.

Nothing to do with "austerity culture".

Also nothing to do with rich people not liking the way the flats looked either. You can gentrify buildings in lots of ways, using properly spec'd materials, that won't turn them into deathtraps.

Those people died because of the original poor design of the flats, the shoddy refurbishment that was carried out and the failure of the council / building management group to address the residents' repeated concerns over fire safety.

If you want to make a political statement about it, you could say those people died because they were poor / working class and therefore ignored. I feel this is at least partially true.

Agree with a lot of that, though hard to say they were ignored when the property management board has a majority of residents on it.

It is a tragedy in which the state (including at least 3 successive Governments) failed these people, I have little time for anyone trying to make political capital from it.

Wasn't the issue the cladding which spread the fire. The person to blame is who authorised the cladding. If the cladding was something done under the tories which I believe it was then was it due to budget cuts that a cheaper option was chosen.

The reason why May is getting the blame is because her party's ideology is all about austerity and cuts and inevitably cuts lead to corners being taken when it comes to safety.

May might nt have had any involvement in this catastrophe but the reason the residents are shouting murderer at her when she makes visits is because she agrees with the policy of austerity and budget cuts.

That is pretty much a baseless statement, until the enquiry we will not know the cause of the fire or all the contributing factors to the deaths.

it is not baseless, I have seen with my own eyes the video footage of the fire spreading because of the cladding. I think everyone knows that spread the fire.

It is baseless, you do not know what caused the fire to spread nor what failures contributed to so many deaths - the cladding should not have caught fire if the isolation design was effective.

If everyone knows - no need for an enquiry then?

Latest today is that Kings have been treating survivors for cyanide poisoning and the release from burning plastics in the insulation boards (not cladding) may have contributed or caused some of the deaths. But you knew it was the cladding so we shouldn't bother looking at stuff like that, or the fire regulations, or how the refurbishment was carried out etc etc

its not baseless though, it is an opinion based on what I have witnessed.

If I view a video of a man getting shot in the head, technically under your rules me saying the shot to his head killed him is baseless because I have not seen any medical evidence to confirm what I am saying is true.

An expert in multi-storey building fires then?

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Boris Johnson would offer a very different proposition and one that wouldn't back down from a debate in fact he'd relish it. I felt all the way through the campaign that he needed to be left off the leash and he has an ability to get people to vote for him.

The guy that scraped past a discredited and maligned Ken Livingstone in 2012...51.5 to 48.5 percent....

He has just had his majority slashed dramatically in his parliamentary seat..

Think you over estimate his appeal...You certainly underestimated Labour's..

You are nothing if not consistent Hammer..

You massively underestimate his appeal but I'm not surprised, you constantly post misleading quotes and statistics, considering that the Tories were getting about 26% of the vote in London during elections around that time he did pretty well.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:An assumption based on no actual knowledge or understanding of what you're seeing.

Fire service tested the cladding....and wrote to the councils..

You just make blanket statements......Back them up from time to time......

Hit and run wears thin......

It's a perfectly valid statement but it doesn't fit with your agenda does it Truss.

The cladding will have exasperated the fire, it will not have caused it.

"You have an Agenda"...That is the phrase chucked out when someone is struggling to stay in the argument..

Common knowledge that a fridge caused the fire........Never said the cladding caused it.....trying to move the goalposts are we?

You're a card aren't you? Until this is corroborated by relevant experts, this is also just conjecture.

You go through my prior posts just to make a silly pop like that.

Rest assured I won't be bothering looking through yours...

dummy_half wrote:

Ent wrote:...

Latest today is that Kings have been treating survivors for cyanide poisoning and the release from burning plastics in the insulation boards (not cladding) may have contributed or caused some of the deaths. But you knew it was the cladding so we shouldn't bother looking at stuff like that, or the fire regulations, or how the refurbishment was carried out etc etc

Just a point of clarification - the insulation was part of the cladding system and not a separate material as would be the case with (for example) a stone clad façade. The cladding panels (composite panels) consist of a metal outer skin (I understand in this case zinc), an inner skin which may be plastic or may be metal, with a layer of insulation sandwiched between. The insulation in the panels at Grenfell was a foamed resin of PIR type - that's polyisocyanurate, so could potentially be a source of cyanide gas during combustion. The non-flammable versions of the cladding include a mineral wool insulation instead.

As for being wise after the event, clearly there is now going to be a big push for sprinklers and independent fire extinguishers in each flat, as one thing this fire has shown is that current fire fighting equipment is inadequate to deal with a catastrophic fire in a high rise building. In this case though, I don't know how effective sprinklers would have been, as it appears that the main fire was on or behind the new cladding and external to the main (original concrete) building shell - I guess internal sprinklers could have bought people some time, but I think one thing that the enquiry will have to look at is whether sprinklers or other internal fire fighting equipment would have been of much use in this particular case

Who in their right mind uses zinc when there might be fires to deal with????? FFS, it gives off hydrogen when wet and burns at ~500°C. Are you sure they had sheets of zinc all over this building?

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:You go through my prior posts just to make a silly pop like that.

Rest assured I won't be bothering looking through yours...

Yet you went back two weeks to quote one of mine?

Complete clown.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:You go through my prior posts just to make a silly pop like that.

Rest assured I won't be bothering looking through yours...

Pathetic. I read everything over the last few days and simply felt that particular post of yours should be challenged - why don't you see it in the context of my comments to MM's similarly non-evidence-based posts? Didn't think you'd be able to think that broadly.
You post a lot of sense much of the time, but when called on anything, at all, produce responses as puerile as the above.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:You go through my prior posts just to make a silly pop like that.

Rest assured I won't be bothering looking through yours...

Yet you went back two weeks to quote one of mine?

Complete clown.

I thought you were a worthy debater..

Guess I have to agree with Pr4wn and Samo now..

Time to move on....

navyblueshorts wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:You go through my prior posts just to make a silly pop like that.

Rest assured I won't be bothering looking through yours...

Pathetic. I read everything over the last few days and simply felt that particular post of yours should be challenged - why don't you see it in the context of my comments to MM's similarly non-evidence-based posts? Didn't think you'd be able to think that broadly.
You post a lot of sense much of the time, but when called on anything, at all, produce responses as puerile as the above.

Well there you go..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:You go through my prior posts just to make a silly pop like that.

Rest assured I won't be bothering looking through yours...

Pathetic. I read everything over the last few days and simply felt that particular post of yours should be challenged - why don't you see it in the context of my comments to MM's similarly non-evidence-based posts? Didn't think you'd be able to think that broadly.
You post a lot of sense much of the time, but when called on anything, at all, produce responses as puerile as the above.

Well there you go..

Likewise:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40380584

Happy to go with the fridge/freezer cause now .

All good fun...

See the Blairite group Progress have lost its biggest sponsor...

Maybe Blair telling voters it was okay not to vote Labour has had consequences....

Another sign perhaps that the inevitable leftist takeover is becoming imminent..

Any more insults and the hammer is coming out.

What's the safe word Pr4wn