Flood defences

[STEMO]

Yes nice one Ron, vegans fart too That would probably shock our Greta🤭😲

And? 

[Sir Tigger KC]

Just a thought, why isn't the government spending money on permanent measures.

The initial cost would be far less than the misery and clear up costs and insurance claims.

Because there are no permanent measures. The more you try to contain water, the higher it rises, just like in your bath. And, just as in your bath, once it gets high enough to top your defences, you need an overflow to take it away.....to where? Somewhere where it will flood someone else.

There's a chap near here who has a small stream running behind his house and business premises, and he used to get flooded out regularly.  As he is a builder, he dug out the stream and converted it to a wide concrete culvert, but it just backed up further downstream and filled up his culvert.  He's gradually widening the stream further down stream to where it joins the bigger river.  I drove by today and saw him out in the rain in the stream no doubt clearing a blockage or something. 

I don't think he has bothered to try and get permission or funding from the authorities or anything, just got on and done it!  Not only does his property not flood any more, but neither do the tennis courts or the cricket pitch flood, so he has done a proper service to the community! 

[Raeturbo]

Yes nice one Ron, vegans fart too That would probably shock our Greta🤭😲

And? 

.     Aye  double post  :-\trust you to notice

[Raeturbo]

Just a thought, why isn't the government spending money on permanent measures.

The initial cost would be far less than the misery and clear up costs and insurance claims.

Because there are no permanent measures. The more you try to contain water, the higher it rises, just like in your bath. And, just as in your bath, once it gets high enough to top your defences, you need an overflow to take it away.....to where? Somewhere where it will flood someone else.

There's a chap near here who has a small stream running behind his house and business premises, and he used to get flooded out regularly.  As he is a builder, he dug out the stream and converted it to a wide concrete culvert, but it just backed up further downstream and filled up his culvert.  He's gradually widening the stream further down stream to where it joins the bigger river.  I drove by today and saw him out in the rain in the stream no doubt clearing a blockage or something. 

I don't think he has bothered to try and get permission or funding from the authorities or anything, just got on and done it!  Not only does his property not flood any more, but neither do the tennis courts or the cricket pitch flood, so he has done a proper service to the community! 

.                   Good on him he should get rewarded, doubt if anyone will bother though

[Sir Tigger KC]

Just a thought, why isn't the government spending money on permanent measures.

The initial cost would be far less than the misery and clear up costs and insurance claims.

Because there are no permanent measures. The more you try to contain water, the higher it rises, just like in your bath. And, just as in your bath, once it gets high enough to top your defences, you need an overflow to take it away.....to where? Somewhere where it will flood someone else.

There's a chap near here who has a small stream running behind his house and business premises, and he used to get flooded out regularly.  As he is a builder, he dug out the stream and converted it to a wide concrete culvert, but it just backed up further downstream and filled up his culvert.  He's gradually widening the stream further down stream to where it joins the bigger river.  I drove by today and saw him out in the rain in the stream no doubt clearing a blockage or something. 

I don't think he has bothered to try and get permission or funding from the authorities or anything, just got on and done it!  Not only does his property not flood any more, but neither do the tennis courts or the cricket pitch flood, so he has done a proper service to the community! 

.                   Good on him he should get rewarded, doubt if anyone will bother though

Yes, it's more likely that he gets prosecuted by some quango or other.  Environment Agency, Natural England, etc   

[Kevin Wood]

Just a thought, why isn't the government spending money on permanent measures.

The initial cost would be far less than the misery and clear up costs and insurance claims.

Because there are no permanent measures. The more you try to contain water, the higher it rises, just like in your bath. And, just as in your bath, once it gets high enough to top your defences, you need an overflow to take it away.....to where? Somewhere where it will flood someone else.

There's a chap near here who has a small stream running behind his house and business premises, and he used to get flooded out regularly.  As he is a builder, he dug out the stream and converted it to a wide concrete culvert, but it just backed up further downstream and filled up his culvert.  He's gradually widening the stream further down stream to where it joins the bigger river.  I drove by today and saw him out in the rain in the stream no doubt clearing a blockage or something. 

I don't think he has bothered to try and get permission or funding from the authorities or anything, just got on and done it!  Not only does his property not flood any more, but neither do the tennis courts or the cricket pitch flood, so he has done a proper service to the community! 

.                   Good on him he should get rewarded, doubt if anyone will bother though

Yes, it's more likely that he gets prosecuted by some quango or other.  Environment Agency, Natural England, etc   

Yep, the hi-vis jacket types from the council will be down on him like a ton of bricks when they find out. 

[TheBoy]

Just a thought, why isn't the government spending money on permanent measures.

The initial cost would be far less than the misery and clear up costs and insurance claims.

What does a permanent measure do? Shift the problem elsewhere. So it aint a solution, just media hysteria.

Because we are grossly over populated, we have built on all the low lying flood plains, and because the planning requirements are for flood protection around these new towns, its speeded up water flow through downstream, older towns built on the river. Guess what happens.

Given the flooding caused by this utter stupidity in the 90s, last time I moved, I ensured I was on a higher area of land to the surrounding areas, because it was obvious to anyone, even the stupid kid from the local comprehensive, this was going to get worse.  Obviously, the same idiots are using the (unproven) man made climate change excuse for all this flooding.


Solution? As always, reduce the need for housing. That needs to start this generation.  I'm all for the cull, but lets start softer with a forced sterilisation after the first brat is born, and then revisit in 3 or 4 generations when the population is a more sustainable 25m

[Lizzie Zoom]

Just a thought, why isn't the government spending money on permanent measures.

The initial cost would be far less than the misery and clear up costs and insurance claims.

What does a permanent measure do? Shift the problem elsewhere. So it aint a solution, just media hysteria.

Because we are grossly over populated, we have built on all the low lying flood plains, and because the planning requirements are for flood protection around these new towns, its speeded up water flow through downstream, older towns built on the river. Guess what happens.

Given the flooding caused by this utter stupidity in the 90s, last time I moved, I ensured I was on a higher area of land to the surrounding areas, because it was obvious to anyone, even the stupid kid from the local comprehensive, this was going to get worse.  Obviously, the same idiots are using the (unproven) man made climate change excuse for all this flooding.


Solution? As always, reduce the need for housing. That needs to start this generation.  I'm all for the cull, but lets start softer with a forced sterilisation after the first brat is born, and then revisit in 3 or 4 generations when the population is a more sustainable 25m

Yawohl, Mein Fuhrer!

[TheBoy]

Nah, the Nazi Party are too leftie and liberal.  They started out as a bunch of commies.

Call me what you like, we all know the country is overpopulated and cannot support itself on its own natural resources.  To appease the brain dead what-about-the-poor-children-idiots, I suggested a solution of a hard limit of one child per couple. Personally, I think the North Korean idea is better, line up those to be culled in front of an anti aircraft gun and let rip.

[STEMO]

Just a thought, why isn't the government spending money on permanent measures.

The initial cost would be far less than the misery and clear up costs and insurance claims.

What does a permanent measure do? Shift the problem elsewhere. So it aint a solution, just media hysteria.

Because we are grossly over populated, we have built on all the low lying flood plains, and because the planning requirements are for flood protection around these new towns, its speeded up water flow through downstream, older towns built on the river. Guess what happens.

Given the flooding caused by this utter stupidity in the 90s, last time I moved, I ensured I was on a higher area of land to the surrounding areas, because it was obvious to anyone, even the stupid kid from the local comprehensive, this was going to get worse.  Obviously, the same idiots are using the (unproven) man made climate change excuse for all this flooding.


Solution? As always, reduce the need for housing. That needs to start this generation.  I'm all for the cull, but lets start softer with a forced sterilisation after the first brat is born, and then revisit in 3 or 4 generations when the population is a more sustainable 25m

You'd have been quicker just quoting my post. 

[Sir Tigger KC]

Solution? As always, reduce the need for housing. That needs to start this generation.  I'm all for the cull, but lets start softer with a forced sterilisation after the first brat is born, and then revisit in 3 or 4 generations when the population is a more sustainable 25m

You might have missed it, but the cull has already started by biological means. 

[Lizzie Zoom]

Solution? As always, reduce the need for housing. That needs to start this generation.  I'm all for the cull, but lets start softer with a forced sterilisation after the first brat is born, and then revisit in 3 or 4 generations when the population is a more sustainable 25m

You might have missed it, but the cull has already started by biological means. 

Yep, and that might be fine to some people, but if it involves your loved ones including the babies you have worked hard, and painfully, to give birth to we all will have then a different view point to it all.

[Doctor Gollum]

Solution? As always, reduce the need for housing. That needs to start this generation.  I'm all for the cull, but lets start softer with a forced sterilisation after the first brat is born, and then revisit in 3 or 4 generations when the population is a more sustainable 25m

You might have missed it, but the cull has already started by biological means. 

Gesundheit 

[biggriffin]

Just a thought, why isn't the government spending money on permanent measures.

The initial cost would be far less than the misery and clear up costs and insurance claims.

Because there are no permanent measures. The more you try to contain water, the higher it rises, just like in your bath. And, just as in your bath, once it gets high enough to top your defences, you need an overflow to take it away.....to where? Somewhere where it will flood someone else.

There's a chap near here who has a small stream running behind his house and business premises, and he used to get flooded out regularly.  As he is a builder, he dug out the stream and converted it to a wide concrete culvert, but it just backed up further downstream and filled up his culvert.  He's gradually widening the stream further down stream to where it joins the bigger river.  I drove by today and saw him out in the rain in the stream no doubt clearing a blockage or something. 

I don't think he has bothered to try and get permission or funding from the authorities or anything, just got on and done it!  Not only does his property not flood any more, but neither do the tennis courts or the cricket pitch flood, so he has done a proper service to the community! 

.


This is what needs to be done,, EnvA don't dredge or clear owt nowdays,It isn't environmentally responsible... Rivers and dykes use to be cleared regularly, the spoil put on top of the banks.  Basically pint glass holds a pint, put half pint of sand in won't hold a pint, it's got to go somewhere,..

[Varche]

Government says it is going to spend nearly 5 billion in next six years on flood  measures in England.  I think Dominic is reading OOF.

Lets hope he gets the Spanish in the frame for a bidding war to build HS2.