|
Erudite_Eric wrote: that let the houses get built on flood plains!
Don't forget the building industry that lobbied government to tell the local councils to relax the planning regulations that let them do so. Here in Crawley, the local council allowed the new ASDA store to be built as they were offered the "sweetener" where the developer offered to build some so-called affordable housing on a disused piece of land they owned that was too small for much else. The council said yes please and the developer said thank you for the opportunity to enhance the character of the local community, the usual nonsense. 
The best use for Pickles and Smith would be to tie a rope around their feet and use them as a pull-through to unblock the sewers.
"I love the smell of poo in the morning, it smells, like victory."
If there is one thing more dangerous than getting between a bear and her cubs it's getting between my wife and her chocolate.
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, this is the kind of corrupt inept incompetence Britain is really good at.
Other countries, like France, have flood plains as non constructible land; part of my land here in France is non constructible. Cant build on it. Period. End of story. No amount of sucking up is going to change that.
|
|
|
|
|
That reminds me. The awful weather and flooding here seems to be carried on the same weather system that encroaches on Normandy and Brittany. How are they faring with it all? Are they having problems as well? We understandably hear nothing about problems elsewhere.
If there is one thing more dangerous than getting between a bear and her cubs it's getting between my wife and her chocolate.
|
|
|
|
|
They have had storms up north, not the flooding, so far as I know (I don't watch French TV  ) but down south we have had a very wet and warm winter. (Normally -10 and dry with some snow).
|
|
|
|
|
The US Govt, I'll grudgingly credit, is trying to undo some of the damage it caused almost a century ago by offering flood insurance for well below cost. They've been requiring farmhouses in the midwest to be rebuilt on mounds that raise them above the notional 500 year flood level (notional because we've engineered the Mississippi Valley so heavily over the last 150 or so years that even what a 50 year flood looks like is subject to dispute among hydrologists), and are strait up buying out people who built in narrow stream valleys. (AFAIK doing the latter by offering market value for the property instead of repair costs if they deed it over and it's rezoned as non-developable). Unfortunately they've not been willing to tackle the problem of million dollar beach houses in the disaster zones all up and down the coast (a cynic suggests it's because people who can afford million dollar homes can also afford to buy Congresssvermin to get what they want); and coastal cities are mostly a lost cause due to the cost needed for anything beyond a symbolic improvement.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
Septimus Hedgehog wrote: Don't forget the building industry that lobbied government to tell Dalak Dave on the local council to relax the planning regulations
FTFY
|
|
|
|
|
Actually it was that same environment Agency that approved the building - oh and some of those houses are over 50 years old and yet have never flooded before, could it be that previously the rivers were dredged and allowed to water to escape?
and its not like we have limited space in these areas is it? oh wait a minute we do
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start
Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
|
|
|
|
|
Courtesy of New Scientist: if the rivers in Somerset had been dredged to double their capacity, Somerset would still have flooded.
We need to slow the flow of water, not speed it up. Concreting everything and speeding the water into rivers just causes more problems downstream.
|
|
|
|
|
You see, this is just plain wrong. And I am not surprised the new scientists thinks this, so does Monbiot and other loony left wing GW alarmists.
Dredged rivers have a higher flow rate, so water cant accumulate.
And if any flooding does occur, it will recede quickly.
Its not so much the depth of the floods in Somerset, as the fact the water has been that deep for almost 2 months that's the problem. The land just hadn't got a chance to drain because the rivers and ditches are clogged up.
What is certain is that building wind turbines isn't gong to have any effect on flooding.
Oh, and Monbiot was waxing lyrical about the days when Somerset was swamp and had Flamingos living there on TV last night, you could see the passion, the light, the desire in his eyes. The LAST thing he wants is for it not to flood.
|
|
|
|
|
I hear lots of the usual right-wing whining about what's wrong - but as I hear it here, from safely across the Atlantic, this is the heaviest rains in 250 years.
If one presumes that's true - why is it that not a single writer in this thread included that in their whining?
It could be a fluke or two (or perhaps, three?), but the weather's been really elephanted-up for a while. True, one man's drought often ends up as another's deluge. A domino effect that will straighten itself out . . . or not.
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
With all the water we have for export the army won't have to piss on their mortars to cool them down when they overheat.
If there is one thing more dangerous than getting between a bear and her cubs it's getting between my wife and her chocolate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thus men have equals rights to seats.
|
|
|
|
|
Only if they are pregnant.
(I don't get out much)
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952)
Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
|
|
|
|
|
Nah, they are the weaker sex still, despite what they say. 
|
|
|
|
|
It is clear you have never been pregnant or had a partner or close friend who was pregnant.
This is about an able-bodied person giving up their seat to someone who is not so able-bodied. And yes, in such situations, being in an advanced state of pregnancy is essentially being disabled: the ever increasing weight and not having the muscles to support the ever increasing weight; an ever changing center of balance and never having the time to get used to moving around that new center of balance before it changes; the chronic exhaustion as your body diverts a lot of its oxygen and nutrition to feed the new life within.
Sorry but any able-bodied person, male or female, who fails to give up their seat to an obviously pregnant woman is a selfish piece of excrement.
|
|
|
|
|
I think your sarcasm detector is broken.
Either that or mine is.
|
|
|
|
|
I have known far too many men who actually think this way. If I have been Poe-d, my apologies.
|
|
|
|
|
Hey, you and me both.
I'm going for benefit of the doubt here.
|
|
|
|
|
Ennis Ray Lynch, Jr. wrote: Thus men have equals rights to seats.
I do believe that we all have equal rights.
but how about the rights of the child inside the woman's womb? The woman (plus the baby) does have double rights. I think that reason must explain everything.
Don't mind those people who say you're not HOT. At least you know you're COOL.
|
|
|
|
|
kArViD0tnEt wrote: how about the rights of the child inside the woman's womb? The woman (plus the baby) does have double rights.
By that logic then they should pay double fare. 
|
|
|
|
|
But we're not talking about fares. 
And, I think the concept of fares is different from rights.
Don't mind those people who say you're not HOT. At least you know you're COOL.
|
|
|
|
|
kArViD0tnEt wrote: I think the concept of fares is different from rights.
If you buy a first class ticket you have the right to a first class seat.
If you buy a cattle class ticket you have the right to a cattle class seat or maybe not.
If you buy a cattle class weekly ticket and are a pregnant cow you have the right to a first class seat.
Actually rights on a train are dependent on the fare you pay.
|
|
|
|
|
JimmyRopes wrote: Actually rights on a train are dependent on the fare you pay.
maybe yes, but not all.
different cultures, different fare system. Just how naming convention from Spain is different from our naming convention.
(and now, I'm talking about first names and surnames here.
In here, the fare depends on how many seats you will actually occupy (for buses).
Example:
If you want your 8 year old kid sit on the seat beside you, you'll pay for two.
If you want your kid to sit on your lap, that's fine. You'll pay just one.
So, on a train, you have to pay the fare of your kid unless his height doesn't reach the height of the ticket counter.
And, we have exclusive place for women, elders, woman with kids and pregnant women on the train.
Don't mind those people who say you're not HOT. At least you know you're COOL.
|
|
|
|
|
kArViD0tnEt wrote: the fare depends on how many seats you will actually occupy
She only wants one seat but it is in a class of service for which she did not pay.
If she wants to sit in first class she should buy a first class ticket.
If she wants to buy a cattle class ticket then she may or may not get a seat during peak load times.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
