In reply to wintertree:
> Sorry; I should have said "as you seem to be strongly intimating".
Actually I clearly stated more research would be needed.
> Clearly my insurance example is naive
To put it politely.
> but the cost of the moorland pales into insignificance compared to the long term costs of floods. Perhaps it's all a sinister grouse shooting cabal.
yawn. I know you dont have an argument worth a damn but you could try a bit.
> Paragraphs before you were suggesting it would be almost impossible for insurance firms to attribute reduced liability to better land management, yet you think the exact same approach can be done with increased liability from poor land management. You can't have it both ways...
Are you taking the piss or can you honestly not spot the difference? Hint one costs the insurance company and their customers lots and needs either a joint industry response or some companies having a serious competitive disadvantage whilst the others take advantage of their actions. The other results in those responsible dealing with it.
> Mire generally identifying a source of harm that is causally difficult to connect from individuals at one end to type other and fining people is a vert worrying legal precident.
lucky I didnt say that then did I. You seem to be valiantly swinging against a strawman and, rather entertaining, being beaten even by that.
To make it simple for you and to save you making random shit up and claiming its my position.
I think more research should be done into whether the landmanagement (not just grouse moors but developers and choice of farm crops) does increase the risk of flooding.
I think in those cases where it is found to be the case there should be laws passed to limit the damage and if necessary recover the costs.
I dont think that the taxpayer or insurance customer should pick up the costs of someones elses poor decisions.