On 10/12/2015 19:58, The Todal wrote:
On 10/12/2015 19:33, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Thu, 10 Dec 2015 17:39:53 -0000, The Todal
wrote:

On 10/12/2015 16:51, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:

I see floods all over the news. Why should sensible people like me who
didn't buy a house in a flood plain have to foot the bill for those
that
did? The government is paying millions to "victims" of flood.


Don't worry, you won't be asked to foot the bill. Now you don't need to
worry about spending all that money on Christmas presents.

All taxpayers foot the bill, even though they don't get flooded.


Ah, understood. 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?

I suppose you're saying that it was stupid of people to live in
Carlisle. It's a big city and a lot of people live there, and the flood
risk is rather unpredictable from year to year. But ideally, everyone
would buy a house on a hill, wherever they happen to live.

Most people are insured. But there is a large cost to be borne in
repairing public areas. Perhaps in Victorian times a rich mill owner
would step up to the plate and pay for it, or there would be a
charitable foundation and you'd have to make a decision when the
collector came to your front door.

I agree with Tough Guy. Avoiding flood plains is only common sense when
buying a house. I checked before moving home.
Moving into a flood area is not very sensible.

--
Bod

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus