Flooding

[The Natural Philosopher]

I have, in spades..;-0)

[Bod]

Sorry, *spades* is not a recognised currency ;-)

[Brian-Gaff]

Well, to me the main culprits are not the house occupiers who no doubt did all the right checks about this sort of thing, its the planners and the companies who develop sites. Sadly the floods affect others, not the people who built on the plains as the extra drainage and collating of water courses merely moves the water downstream to the next place where little mitigation has been needed before.

The idea of storage areas for excess water so it can be drained more gradually is used in other countries, but not very much here, which seems odd. I guess that is because you cannot make money on such constructions Brian

[Fredxxx]

Given the long term nature of housing and short term nature of some building companies, I would say much of the onus goes on the local authority for allowing house building on known flood planes rather than alternative, even green field, sites.

We should assume builders and architects will build wherever they can to make a profit.

[Ranger]

Because it's quite a bit cheaper to do that than to pay the much higher cost of dealing with the dregs of country that don?t bother to send their kids to school when it isnt free and compulsory.

[Jonno]

Fredxxx scribbled

There is one group with the clout that could stop house building on flood plains - the insurance companies. They are backing a campaign, but I've no idea if they have achieved any success.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Well there you go. That's essentially the same answer to the question "Why should I help foot the bill for extra police security in our cities when I was firmly opposed to the Iraq war and to the proposal to bomb Syria"

Because its cheaper than dealing with syria and the like by recolonising them and teaching them how to play nice?

[The Natural Philosopher]

It is trivial, if not totally cheap, to place new builds either in bunded locations, or indeed above flood levels by simply giving them 'non habitable' ground floors (garages and the like).

But there is no code of practice to make this happen.

[charles]

Most of these flood plains are green field sites which is why developers like them.

[charles]

In Carlisle there were "bunds" but they turned out no to be high enough.

[News]

So reintroduce the slave trade ...

[Jonno]

The Natural Philosopher scribbled

Make 'em live in toadstools eh?

[Jonno]

The Natural Philosopher scribbled

There's a relief.

[Bod]

[peterturtill]

That is what is happening in Ipswich. The government wants more houses built so the Environment Agency builds flood barriers around the open space so it can be built on and everybody makes a lot of money until there is a downfall when an unprotected area gets floodeded and more flood barriers are required. They are spending about £50 million here just to enable the off shore Associated British Ports can build even more flats. I have been fighting this for years, unsuccessfully I might add.

[Ranger]

No that is a quite different question.

That isn't even possible let alone morally acceptable.

That worked REAL well with Iraq.

It is however perfectly possible to provide free school education paid for by almost everyone, even those who don?t have any kids. Almost everyone because clearly those whose entire income is benefits aren't paying for that.

[Ranger]

Still a problem with the cost of the damage to the cars etc.

Because no one world wide has ever been silly enough to go that route.

What does work is the way the Dutch have done it, at immense cost.

[The Natural Philosopher]

It's perfectly possible and morality is not an absolute thing. One man's morality is another man's sacrilege.

No, it was never attempted in Iraq.

[Ranger]

Have fun listing anywhere where that has actually been done successfully.

and morality is not an absolute thing. One man's

Tell that to the slaves.

It was attempted in plenty of the colonies and didn?t work in even a single one.

A few of the worst excesses like sati were stamped out, but that's about it.

[Tough Guy no. 1265]

No, the GOVERNMENT is paying for damages, not just insurance companies.