UKC

Somerset meh - Thames Valley all stops out.

Austerity - slash Welfare, education, Health, no Money - Thames valley Floods, money now no object.

Flood poorer Datchet to save Windsor.

Defend Eton playing fields while Datchet peoples houses Flood.

Its Like the Flipping Titanic. Lifeboats for the rich, let the peasants sink.

Tax cuts for Fossil fuel fracking Climate Changing bastas which will make it worse. Chancellors Father in law big player in fracking.

All in this together, bollox.

In reply to Choss:

That's appears to be going on here too. Save home-owners across the more valuable areas from having to give a few metres of garden for flood control or giving up their paving for grass and gravel but Merkinch is a write-off.

In reply to Choss:










This reads like a really naff Haiku

In reply to Choss:

If this is indeed true it's hardly surprising is it. Disruption around London will have a far bigger impact on the overall economy than a rural area.

In reply to GridNorth:


"All in it together" eh?

In reply to GridNorth:


Youve made my Point for me there. This country is being run by the wealthy for the wealthy. To Protect their wealth and Privilege they are Prepared to Sacrifice the poor.

keep Kidding us we are an Economy and thats whats important. But its a Lie isnt it. Trickle down economics is a sham. When the economy grows, so does the wealth of the Richest, the poor stay poor.

So, they protect their wealth and privilege at all cost. The Floods are Showing their Lie of all in this together.

In reply to Choss:




When you have to prioritise funds for flood defenses and clean up, isn't it more pragmatic to focus on areas which have the most economic importance?

I have an urban area of land which is extremely densely populated, contains a higher than average concentration of people, homes, businesses, money making establishments, infrastructre etc.

I also have rural area of land which is much less densely populated, contains much lower population levels, businesses etc.

I can only afford to protect one.

It's a no brainer, really.

In reply to ThunderCat:

So why Flood Datchet to save the economic Powerhouse that is Windsor? Why werent Etons playing fields Flooded to save peoples homes?

Its nothing to do with the greater good and all about self Interest. You let them piss down your Back While telling you its Raining if you like, but thats not for me.

In reply to Choss:

And breath...

In reply to ThunderCat:

Breath... or breathe?

;^P

In reply to Choss:



I'm underwater. Either is good.

In reply to ThunderCat:

Me Too. Drowning Under a rising tide of Benefit claimant Hatred Whipped up by the Tories and their LickSpittle Press. Crushed Under 33 Squid a fortnight bedroom tax. Pay out your benefit or be evicted. Nowhere to move you. Pay up or be homeless. The mayor said Nobody would be evicted, then BackTracked, like a lying scumbag.

Not waving but drowning!

In reply to Choss:

This should not surprise us . In a conservative governed country this rule applies : ''my wealth is reliant on the poverty of others ''
Rather than make meaningful progress towards a better life for all , they would take the un courageous path of desperately trying to protect the interests of a well off minority .

In reply to Choss:

Why can't they get a lodger?

In reply to Sarah G:


Whose they? I Assume that Means me?

what do 'they' do when their non Residential children come to stay? Either not see their Kids or temporarily evict the Lodger, not to mention that i cant Live with Other people because im Prone to Paranoid Episodes.

You Taking the piss? Or just ignorant?

In reply to Choss:




Why should the state provide you with a spare room?

In reply to Choss:

I think you may over credit some of the government with a little too much power. How did 'they' decide to flood your 'poor' people and then persuade the environment agency and local authorities to carry out their orders?

In reply to ThunderCat:

The state put me in whats called by them a one and a half bedroom house Specifically because i have a part Time resident child. Now the new Government are Spanking my and many Others because were soft targets rather than the Rich.

Those with the broadest Shoulders are Living high on the hog at the Expense of the poorest. You can see that surely?

In reply to ThunderCat:

Nearly half of my disability living allowance has to pay my bedroom tax, or i face eviction. You call that Right?

In reply to Choss:

Yawn.

You've nailed it - it's all a big conspiracy of the 'rich' against the 'poor'. 'They' control the weather you know. And the course of rivers.

Do you, honestly and truly, believe that all of the issues with flood defences being short - cut etc have arisen since the election in 2010?

In reply to Edradour:

Wake up!

Dont be dismissive. Stand up for Those at the bottom now, or there will be nobody to Stand up for you when your Time comes.

In reply to Choss:



My name's not Shirley.

I was just thinking out loud about the abolition of the 'spare bedroom subsidy' thing (often wrongly referred to as the bedroom tax)

Lets say I have an income of £xxx, and with that income I choose a dwelling I can afford with a single bedroom.

I'd ideally like another spare room to store stuff. Unfortunately if I want that, I would have to pay for it myself. No one would subsidise me. So I have to live with what I have.

Now given that I cannot afford to have a spare room, can you appreciate how it might rankle me that I'm subsidising that spare room in your house (that you only seem to be using occasionally?)

In reply to ThunderCat:

No. Thats selfish unenlightened self Interest on your Account, with no Understanding of the reality of the score for people less Fortunate than you.

You dont wanna care about us, dont be surprised when we dont care what happens to you.

In reply to Choss:



Bizarre statement

You're coming across as an extremely self pitying, petulant victim, and you're making an awful lot of assumptions about me.

In reply to Choss:



Last time I checked the UK had a pretty comprehensive welfare system, free health care and relatively decent public infrastructure.

Your whining about some massive conspiracy is misplaced and, in the context of flooding, entirely irrational. Conservative MPs don't control the weather.

Your whinging about paying the 'bedroom tax' also rankles. Nearly half my wages go on my mortgage, I would love to have somewhere bigger, a spare room for people to stay in when they visit, but I can't afford to. I have a sofa bed. I also have a lodger because, although I would prefer to live on my own, my circumstances changed and I couldn't afford to. That's life.

In reply to Choss:



My mum is a single parent, and never worked. Neither did any of my immediate family. We lived on rubbish council estates for my formative years. I believed (through the culture around me) that there were no jobs, that we were entitled to benefits. We relied on council grants for things like shoes, beds, gardening equipment (yeah, I remember us getting cash for that...?).

Despite being skint, my mum managed to smoke 20 cigs a day. Never any real motivation to strive forward, always a sense of bitterness towards anyone who had anything decent.

Always the kid at school with the pants with holes in the knees, always the kid with the hadn't me down shoes.

Realised at 16 that I wanted a much better life and set of prospects for me and mine.

But obviously I clearly have no experience of life on benefits, the welfare state, the culture of entitlement, etc etc etc.

See where silly assumptions get you?

In reply to ThunderCat:

I see you make Silly assumptions about cultures of Entitlement, just what they feed you every day.

You should have more respect for your mother, not be Judgemental.

In reply to Edradour:

I don"t normally agree with Choss, but he has a point.

People hit by this tax/ loss of subsidy don"t have the same options we do.

Get a lodger in the spare room - that's sub letting, and will get you kicked out by your landlord.

Move to a smaller property - there aren't any. The number of single people requiring housing far outstrips the number of 1 bed properties. In many cases it's not a question of choosing to have a spare room, it's the only option available.

So it's pay up or be evicted. It doesn't free up any properties, and has negligible effect on the cost to the taxpayer.

In reply to Ridge:
Thank you for understanding. Its nothing Short of punishment for being poor.

In reply to Choss:



It's hardly an assumption if I experience it first hand now, is it.

And I'm not being judgmental of my mother. I'm trying to be objective and truthful. She didn't work. That's a fact, not a judgement.

Or should I let emotion get in the way, and be slightly less critical of her because she's my relative? Wouldn't that be slightly hypocritcal of me?

In reply to ThunderCat:
Jesus Spock.

You are being Judgemental about your mother again. Dont let being human and Having emotions get in the way of logic now will you.

Your mother was a bum in your eyes. My mother was a benefit claimant who Underwent 36 doses of ECT, Lived on Drugs you couldnt imagine to cope with her Life, and i wouldnt Dream of dissing her. I Barely saw her as a child cos She was always in mental hospitals. Didnt see her From when i was 11 years old til a girlfriend got me to find her when i was 21. Shes Dead now, but i have respect.

In reply to Choss:
Thing is Choss, you're an example of what happens to a reasonable discussion when emotions get in the way.

You're aggressive, confrontational, irrational, you're not making any real sense, you resort to silly name calling, you've been abusive to posters on this thread and now we're going round in some tedious circle of nonsense.

I'm human. I have human emotions. But for the sake of discussion, I can sometimes put those emotions aside and be a bit more objective. Shall we try it, just for a second?

Lets say I was critical of a certain type of benefit claimant.
Lets say I listed out all of the things that I found morally 'wrong' with that type of claimant.

With me so far?

Now, lets say that it came to light that my mum had been that EXACT type of claimant...how long before someone came onto the thread and called me a hypocrite?

See how it works?

I love my mum and would defend her to the earth, but that doesn't detract from the fact that she made a lot of life choices that don't actually approve of, find difficult to justify and personally wouldn't do myself.

Now, if you're ready to debate without the silliness and the name calling, we'll proceed. Otherwise, I'm getting back to me 'Programming with Java' textbook (which appeals to my vulcan side)

In reply to Ridge:


That is the rub to the whole thing, personally I am in favour of the bedroom tax but it should only apply in cases where people have turned down accommodation that would suit their needs, if such accommodation is not available the charge should not be levied.

I also think that if your I social accommodation and can Offord it you should pay more, I have friends who have a combined income of 60k ish who have a council house as a legacy from when they were on hard times but on 60k it takes the mick that they pay £380 a month for a house that old be £600 on the private market.
I am not saying evict people but they should pay the local market rate once earnings go over a given threshold.

In reply to ThunderCat:

You're aggressive, confrontational, irrational, you're not making any real sense, you resort to silly name calling, you've been abusive to posters on this thread

Well thats not me so ill bow out of this thread with whatever dignity i have

In reply to Choss:


And that's very little I'm afraid.

Note for the future, asking someone if they're "taking the piss or just ignorant" #might# be considered rude, aggressive and confrontational.

But there you go mate. Every day is a school day.

In reply to Choss:

For every pound spent the environment agency want a saving of eight, poor land /property doesn't give the same returns as expensive places.

In reply to ThunderCat:

Thanks for Pointing out my Flaws. glad you dont have any youre perfect

In reply to Choss:



You do realise that this makes you seem even more petulant and childish. Don't you.

I'm going to pick up my sandwiches and move to the grown-up table.

In reply to ThunderCat:



You do Know i Value her Opinion slightly Less than an i would a Sponge?

In reply to Choss:

Choss, I'm going for grown up and mature, but you're not having any of it, are you.

If you value peoples opinion "slightly less than an i would a Sponge" (sic), then why are you posting threads and inviting discussion on a public forum?

In reply to ThunderCat:

Youre right im wrong. You can go to bed happy. It must feel good to be Superior. Your mum must be Proud.

In reply to Choss:


At the risk of repeating myself all I'm hearing is petulance and immaturity.

Now lets call it a night and get on with our lives. This Java programming textbook isn't going to read itself. I have to get to the end of it, and then somehow squeeze in dinner, shower, quality time with the missus and sleep before my train leaves Manchester Piccadilly for Essex at 6:40am in the morning,

In reply to Choss:

You hold too much confidence in the competence of a public body to orchestrate such a conspiracy.

In reply to ThunderCat:

If thats your Tomorrow, then God help you!

In reply to Choss:

So much for "ill bow out of this thread with whatever dignity i have"(sic).

In reply to atrendall:


Theres still some Game to poke with the self Righteous. Snoogans.

In reply to Sarah G:


For real? Why would you invite a stranger into your home? I think the queen has lots of spare bedrooms that we actually own. Can she put up a few homeless?

In reply to Choss:


How ironic. I'd actually popped on to apologise for being a little heavy handed, and here you are back with the petty name calling.

In reply to Choss:


Out of interest Choss, what do you do?

In reply to Choss:

...anyway, apart from all that it does make you think about just how much all this is going to cost to repair? Another chunk of the railway headed out to sea on Friday and walking along the beach at Dawlish Warren this morning some of the damage is mind boggling. The goynes (spelling?) are made of timber piles about 14inch square driven gawd knows how far into the sand...about 50% are now knocked over to 45degrees. The main sand spit, protected by gabions has retreated 20yrds in some places, leaving only a short distance before the spit is breeched (bye bye estuary mouth....Cockwood village etc?).

All this is going to take loads of time and money to sort. The poor people flooded out have a terrible time ahead of them, regardless of where they are.

In reply to ThunderCat:



Sorry mate, we've had a long discussion on that here, and people have voted in favour of name calling, supposition, personalisation, and making up things other people haven't said, over rational debate.

In reply to stroppygob:


Shame that. Sometimes it can be fruitful.

In reply to GridNorth:


Since when were the Somerset levels near London?

In reply to Sarah G:


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-16128403

In reply to Orgsm:

Datchet and Windsor that Choss was originally talking about are very near each other upstream of London on the Thames. Windsor is rich, Queenie lives there, Datchet is mostly populated by people who work around Heathrow airport. The river flooding is partly controlled by weirs and locks above Richmond and Teddington. The choice is to let all the water go down river and risk flooding central London or choose which bit of the non tidal Thames to flood. Datchet is the cheap seats compared to Windsor and Eaton, Choss is right.

In reply to ThunderCat:

What if he bricks up the door, like with the Window tax, would that make you happy that people who have an extra room can then not use it ?

One council chap on the radio the other day, said they had 4% stock that was 1 bed ( all occupied) and 28% of their tenants with 'spare' rooms.

So if council's are not able to offer a 1 bed, should the council brick up the doors to those rooms?

In reply to teflonpete:


Except he's not because he's implying that the whole thing is a conspiracy. The 'rich' or the 'Tories' did not create this situation; it was created by the weather.

Faced with a choice of containing the flood in two different areas; one which is less affluent and, therefore, cheaper to repair and one that is more affluent and, therefore, more expensive to repair, the Environment Agency chose the more sensible economic option. Only an idiot would choose the other option, especially for the sake of sating some pseudo conspiracy. Would you rather your driveway flooded or your lounge?

This does not in any way detract from how terrible it must be for the people of Datchet and other affected areas.

Taking a slightly more balanced and subjective view the government announcement that money would be no object in repairing the damage from these floods would perhaps assure those affected, from whatever socioeconomic group they belong to, that there is legitimate governmental support for this NATURAL disaster.

In reply to ThunderCat:

I should think so too. Apology Accepted.

Behave yourself and Dont do it again

In reply to Edradour:


I think most people understand that.


Interesting. You equate the homes of less affluent people with 'driveways'? FWIW I'm fairly affluent, well insured, got a few quid in the bank for contingencies. If, god forbid, I was flooded, the impact would be far less on me than it would be on a family living hand to mouth. I'd hope the decision to flood a sacrificial area was based on population and other far more objective criteria than who has the nicest carpets. I certainly don't buy into the 'evil Tories' meme, but I'm sure politicians of any colour, when faced will flooding the house of a party donor or a council estate, will pick the council estate.

Plus, as a hard working taxpayer, Datchet will be full of the underclass with subsidised spare rooms. I'll have to pick up the tab for repairs. The inhabitants of Windsor should be well insured, and if not they must be feckless. Surely for the British taxpayer flooding Windsor would be the most economical option?


They can always hose their driveway accommodation down easily in Datchet.


Let's hope so.

In reply to Edradour:


Where did he say the weather was caused by the 'Tories'? He was talking about the government's response to flooding in different areas and the choice to flood a poorer area over a richer one when the water had to go somewhere. I was pointing out to another poster the proximity of Datchet and Windsor, that other poster appeared to believe that Datchet was in the SW.


Absolutely, a fact of life I'm afraid. The fact still remains that people who are less likely to be fully insured and have the means to replace their belongings were flooded to protect a more affluent area. There was some degree of choice over where the flood water was going to go.



Does this apply to the Somerset Levels too? Just asking, as the statement was made 6 weeks after submersion of the Levels and 2 days after the Thames Valley flooding. Incidentally, I'd imagine that there are a fair few Tory voting farmers caught up in the Somerset flooding so I don't think it's necessarily a case of Tories looking after their own, more a case of it being a wake up call closer to London.

In reply to ThunderCat:
>

But houses had been under water for a month in Somerset before anything happened in the Thames valley. It wasn't prioritised even when there wasn't any other priority.

In reply to Choss:


Are you talking about the fictional portrayal of the Titanic's sinking in the film "Titanic" or the reality, where passengers were not discriminated against by class when it came to allocation of lifeboat spaces.

I think you will find that the so called class segregation of effort with regard to the floods is more an story spun by the press rather than reality. In flood defence, there will always be winners and losers, but can you really imagine people like you and me (who actually do the work of the environment agency) sitting around a table and discriminating against the poor in terms of flood defences?

In reply to Choss:

Are you sure that Dachet was sacrificed to save Windsor based on the wealth of the respective inhabitants?

I am no water engineer but I suspect that the (belated) flood defence decisions were based on practical rather than political criteria.
You can't stop all of it, so concentrate on those areas where you at least have a hope, in engineering terms, of reducing the impact.

The proof of the pudding will show when we see how evenhandedly the victims are compensated.

And for the record I am not a Tory, but a Labour supporter.

In reply to Trangia:

Are the victims those who bought a house on a flood plain, or those who didn't whose insurance premiums are going to go up and whose tax revenues are going to be raided?

I am all for compensation where a decision is made to breech defences in area A to save area B, but it's about time people learnt to look at a map before moving in to a house, and if they decide to go ahead anyway they can flood proof their house. The rest of us don't get subsidies to live in stupid locations... Likewise any rented or social housing on a flood plain should be required to be flood proof.

In reply to Orgsm:


Where did I say that? I was commenting on a post that contrasted the alleged response around London to that in a rural area, Somerset.

In reply to wintertree:


Agreed

In reply to Choss:

In reply to wintertree:


There was a chap on the news last week who said he had lived in part of the flood plain for about 15 years and hadn't been affected by the floods previously, but this year his house was flooded.

He complained that the EA / Army were only giving out 10 sandbags per house as that's all they had.

Now personally, if I had lived on a flood plain for 15 years without flooding, I've have made bloody sure I had stocked up a garage full of sandbags just in case.

Preparation and all that....

In reply to Choss:

Ironically I agree with much of Choss's sentiment, but wonder if he might be wrong about how the general 'screw the poor' policy has affected flood planning and response.

The EA weigh a few different factors in deciding how to mount flood defences (bear in mind that this covers both long term infrastructure/maintenance work and responses to flood situations).

They are required to prioritise lives over property. Then buildings over land. Then homes over businesses. Then more deprived over less deprived areas. This last is a legal requirement - other things being equal (which is pretty much never the case), a poorer area should be protected over a richer one. The EA also has to meet the 1:8 ROI rule as well.

That said, I find it hard to believe that wealthy citizens aren't occasionally better able to make their influence felt when it came to a last minute decision about where to flood. But this is only relevant where you have two densely populated areas right next to each other vying for protection.

In the case of the Somerset Levels, very few areas would quality for more than minimal protection if you look at the criteria above. I can't imagine how awful it must be for some of those affected, but it's no surprise either economically or geographically that they're in a lot of bother.

In reply to Choss:

I am not sure your theory stacks up. Last major flooding as in 2007 there were 50,000 homes or so damaged. Alot were housing association properties. This time there have been a couple of thousand overall, mainly high value.. Where I live there has been a £27 million flood defence improvement scheme ( literally completed a few weeks before this lot started- it has been impressive. All protecting a vast area of social/council housing.

In reply to Choss:

Bumping back to page 1:

http://dailyhawk.co.uk/2014/02/14/african-union-we-cannot-ignore-the-plight...

In reply to Choss:

I'm not sure why you're surprised ... every government has always acted this way and in all likelihood always will. There's very little we can legally and practically do about this. The system is like a vice.

The only thing that surprises me is how many people mistakenly think that governments exist to serve the people of this country.

In reply to ThunderCat:
Is this true? The UK seems to be able to afford the Olympics, dubious foreign policy objectives and questionable defence spending.
Is it? Surely a decision to perpetuate business as usual (i.e. economic growth trumps everything) simply serves to hasten environmental decline and therefore more of this type of event and the resulting huge public expenditure and personal distress?

Deeply flawed and pathetically short-term.

In reply to ksjs:


....which takes money out of a finite pot, so other things get prioritised


Well that certainly seems to be the system we have.
Welcome to the world


Welcome to the world (part 2)

In reply to Choss:

What's with all the extremely random capitalisation?

In reply to Kid Spatula:


I think it's a hardware thing. But it's mildly annoying. I tend to read his posts and emphasis the capitalised words in my head. So I think I interpret them as a little bit shouty...

In reply to Kid Spatula:

Its art. Im a Colourful character so i am.

In reply to Choss:

It's INcreDibly AnnOyiNG to READ and makes you look like a mental who can't use sentences.

In reply to Kid Spatula:

I'll second that.

In reply to atrendall and Kid spatula:

The more you complain, the more ill do it.

Its Like the WaltzeRs. Just scream if you wanna go faster :-D

In reply to ThunderCat:

Thus we have a choice.

Which we choose.

As we have constructed it.

Deeply flawed and pathetically short-term does not seem especially aspirational. We are capable of so much more, if only we could dare a bit.

In reply to ksjs:



Google HS2 and see what happens if we dare even a tiny little bit...

In reply to GrahamD:

I'm unclear on the link / parallel?

When I talk about 'dare' I refer to recognising that our systems seem incapable of addressing, in a serious way, the global challenges we and all nations face.

In reply to GrahamD:


Spunking huge sums on a vanity project is daring?

In reply to Choss:

I'll add that you come across as drunk and a twot.

In reply to Ridge:


Spending money on infrastructure on this scale is daring, yes, because there will always be a bunch of luddites snapping at your heals trying to stop the country being dragged into the late 20th century.

In reply to GrahamD:


If they'd made a halfway coherent case that it would provide any noticeable improvement to the country's infrastructure I'd be right behind it. As it stands a couple of minutes saved by a 'late 20th century' line connecting 19th century infrastructure that can't be improved because all the moneys gone on saving 10 minutes in the middle.