Whingers.
Looking at the new where some had been hit by 3 times the normal
monthly rainfall falling in one day, I heard one victim complaining that the local council were not helping him. As if council members and their workforce were not stretched to the limit / in the same boat (so to speak.) It is the worst peacetime disaster that emergency services have had to deal with. (According to C4 news.) Heavy rains and flash floods undermine foundations. So from the ground up, there is a lot of ground to cover; to coin a phrase. |
Whingers.
In article om,
Weatherlawyer writes: Looking at the new where some had been hit by 3 times the normal monthly rainfall falling in one day, I heard one victim complaining that the local council were not helping him. As if council members and their workforce were not stretched to the limit / in the same boat (so to speak.) It is the worst peacetime disaster that emergency services have had to deal with. (According to C4 news.) I think that the North Sea storm surge of 1953 was even worse, but I agree with your point. Heavy rains and flash floods undermine foundations. So from the ground up, there is a lot of ground to cover; to coin a phrase. Yep. -- John Hall "I am not young enough to know everything." Oscar Wilde (1854-1900) |
Whingers.
On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 10:43:02 -0700, Weatherlawyer
wrote: Looking at the news where some had been hit by 3 times the normal monthly rainfall falling in one day, I heard one victim complaining that the local council were not helping him. Surely it ought to be his insurance company that should be helping him... (Not necessarily only financially). -- Frank Erskine |
Whingers.
"Weatherlawyer" wrote in message ps.com... Looking at the new where some had been hit by 3 times the normal monthly rainfall falling in one day, I heard one victim complaining that the local council were not helping him. Where theres blame..... Nobody simply accepts anything anymore. Hardship of any sort will not be tolerated. Accidents should never happen, we should have access to every drug we might ever need, there should be no crime, tax should be low and the sun should always shine, except for the rain we need for stuff to grow which should fall at such a time that we are not inconvenienced. |
Whingers.
On 2007-07-21 18:58:59 +0100, Frank Erskine
said: On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 10:43:02 -0700, Weatherlawyer wrote: Looking at the news where some had been hit by 3 times the normal monthly rainfall falling in one day, I heard one victim complaining that the local council were not helping him. Surely it ought to be his insurance company that should be helping him... (Not necessarily only financially). Precisely. Why people have the mentaility that some public sector organisation should be obliged to help them rather than their taking responsibility for themselves, never ceases to amaze me. |
Whingers.
"Andy Hall" wrote in message ... On 2007-07-21 18:58:59 +0100, Frank Erskine said: On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 10:43:02 -0700, Weatherlawyer wrote: Looking at the news where some had been hit by 3 times the normal monthly rainfall falling in one day, I heard one victim complaining that the local council were not helping him. Surely it ought to be his insurance company that should be helping him... (Not necessarily only financially). Precisely. Why people have the mentaility that some public sector organisation should be obliged to help them rather than their taking responsibility for themselves, never ceases to amaze me. Just wait until your house is on fire.. I bet you want public services then. |
Whingers.
Weatherlawyer wrote:
[snip] Heavy rains and flash floods undermine foundations. So from the ground up, there is a lot of ground to cover; to coin a phrase. I rather think that phrase was coined a very long time ago. You merely borrowed it. -- Gianna http://www.buchan-meteo.org.uk * * * * * * * |
Whingers.
On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 19:36:09 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote: Why people have the mentaility that some public sector organisation should be obliged to help them rather than their taking responsibility for themselves, never ceases to amaze me. Just wait until your house is on fire.. I bet you want public services then. Yep, that's what we pay for. What ****es me off, are the whingers who haven't bothered with insurance who then expect a 'social fund ' that is other people, to give them a hand out Andy |
Whingers.
On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 10:43:02 -0700, Weatherlawyer
mused: Looking at the new where some had been hit by 3 times the normal monthly rainfall falling in one day, I heard one victim complaining that the local council were not helping him. That winds me up, as does everything really, but what have the council got to do with it? Some people need to learn that things happen, no-one controls the weather, did the council ever say that they would sort him out as soon as a freak flood hits his home even though a whole town has just sunk? FFS, some people need a good kicking, ****ing whiney *******s. -- Regards, Stuart. |
Whingers.
dennis@home wrote:
"Andy Hall" wrote in message ... On 2007-07-21 18:58:59 +0100, Frank Erskine said: On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 10:43:02 -0700, Weatherlawyer wrote: Looking at the news where some had been hit by 3 times the normal monthly rainfall falling in one day, I heard one victim complaining that the local council were not helping him. Surely it ought to be his insurance company that should be helping him... (Not necessarily only financially). Precisely. Why people have the mentaility that some public sector organisation should be obliged to help them rather than their taking responsibility for themselves, never ceases to amaze me. Just wait until your house is on fire.. I bet you want public services then. Blimey, did Tony forget to privatise the fire service? |
Whingers.
On Jul 21, 7:46 pm, Gianna wrote:
Weatherlawyer wrote: Heavy rains and flash floods undermine foundations. So from the ground up, there is a lot of ground to cover; to coin a phrase. I rather think that phrase was coined a very long time ago. You merely borrowed it. You are as ever, far too astute for me. I remain, ironically, yours. Mike. |
Whingers.
dennis@home wrote:
"Andy Hall" wrote in message ... On 2007-07-21 18:58:59 +0100, Frank Erskine said: On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 10:43:02 -0700, Weatherlawyer wrote: Looking at the news where some had been hit by 3 times the normal monthly rainfall falling in one day, I heard one victim complaining that the local council were not helping him. Surely it ought to be his insurance company that should be helping him... (Not necessarily only financially). Precisely. Why people have the mentaility that some public sector organisation should be obliged to help them rather than their taking responsibility for themselves, never ceases to amaze me. Just wait until your house is on fire.. I bet you want public services then. Dennis, Only to put the flames out and rescue and patch up any trapped persons - after that, it's up to your insurance company *or you* to sort out the repair works - and that's how it should be! Brian G |
Whingers.
John Hall wrote in
: snip As if council members and their workforce were not stretched to the limit / in the same boat (so to speak.) It is the worst peacetime disaster that emergency services have had to deal with. (According to C4 news.) I think that the North Sea storm surge of 1953 was even worse, but I agree with your point. snip If memory serves, it was a representative of Hereford & Worcester Fire & Rescue Service (no longer officially "Fire Brigade" it seems, despite holding on to the traditional title longer than many) who made the "worst in peacetime" comment, speaking specifically about the Hereford & Worcs area rather than the country as a whole. -- Bewdley, Worcs. ~90m asl. |
Whingers.
On 2007-07-21 19:36:09 +0100, "dennis@home"
said: "Andy Hall" wrote in message ... On 2007-07-21 18:58:59 +0100, Frank Erskine said: On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 10:43:02 -0700, Weatherlawyer wrote: Looking at the news where some had been hit by 3 times the normal monthly rainfall falling in one day, I heard one victim complaining that the local council were not helping him. Surely it ought to be his insurance company that should be helping him... (Not necessarily only financially). Precisely. Why people have the mentaility that some public sector organisation should be obliged to help them rather than their taking responsibility for themselves, never ceases to amaze me. Just wait until your house is on fire.. I bet you want public services then. Different issue. Most of the people interviewed on the TV seem not to have any form of insurance. If they choose not to do that, then they should not expect to be bailed out (as it were) from the public purse. |
Whingers.
On Jul 21, 8:02 pm, Lurch wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 10:43:02 -0700, Weatherlawyer mused: Looking at the new where some had been hit by 3 times the normal monthly rainfall falling in one day, I heard one victim complaining that the local council were not helping him. That winds me up, as does everything really, but what have the council got to do with it? Some people need to learn that things happen, no-one controls the weather, did the council ever say that they would sort him out as soon as a freak flood hits his home even though a whole town has just sunk? I can see his point. Thinking clearly and keeping an open mind is all very well after tea, online, when there isn't much on the box (as usual.) It's a little disconcerting to have the carpet washed out from under you, to mix a metaphor. (Yes thank you Gianna, I am aware of that.) So I suppose it wouldn't hurt to cut him a little slack. As for his difficulty, I'd help him like a shot if I could. Maybe when the weather changes and relief can get through... But what can those not touched by the damage know what is needed? And how do those hurt, give from what they have lost? |
Whingers.
On 2007-07-21 19:58:20 +0100, Andy Cap said:
On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 19:36:09 +0100, "dennis@home" wrote: Why people have the mentaility that some public sector organisation should be obliged to help them rather than their taking responsibility for themselves, never ceases to amaze me. Just wait until your house is on fire.. I bet you want public services then. Yep, that's what we pay for. What ****es me off, are the whingers who haven't bothered with insurance who then expect a 'social fund ' that is other people, to give them a hand out Andy Exactly. However, there is a small upside. If there are fewer insured, there are fewer claims and by implication,less rise in premium for the insured. |
Whingers.
On 2007-07-21 20:03:59 +0100, Stuart Noble
said: dennis@home wrote: "Andy Hall" wrote in message ... On 2007-07-21 18:58:59 +0100, Frank Erskine said: On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 10:43:02 -0700, Weatherlawyer wrote: Looking at the news where some had been hit by 3 times the normal monthly rainfall falling in one day, I heard one victim complaining that the local council were not helping him. Surely it ought to be his insurance company that should be helping him... (Not necessarily only financially). Precisely. Why people have the mentaility that some public sector organisation should be obliged to help them rather than their taking responsibility for themselves, never ceases to amaze me. Just wait until your house is on fire.. I bet you want public services then. Blimey, did Tony forget to privatise the fire service? I don't think so. There's plenty of private enterprise in the fire service. Window cleaning, painting and decorating,... all for cash of course. |
Whingers.
"Andy Hall" wrote in message ... On 2007-07-21 19:36:09 +0100, "dennis@home" said: "Andy Hall" wrote in message ... On 2007-07-21 18:58:59 +0100, Frank Erskine said: On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 10:43:02 -0700, Weatherlawyer wrote: Looking at the news where some had been hit by 3 times the normal monthly rainfall falling in one day, I heard one victim complaining that the local council were not helping him. Surely it ought to be his insurance company that should be helping him... (Not necessarily only financially). Precisely. Why people have the mentaility that some public sector organisation should be obliged to help them rather than their taking responsibility for themselves, never ceases to amaze me. Just wait until your house is on fire.. I bet you want public services then. Different issue. Most of the people interviewed on the TV seem not to have any form of insurance. If they choose not to do that, then they should not expect to be bailed out (as it were) from the public purse. Most of the SE expects to be bailed out using public money.. just look at how much flood control schemes like the Thames barrier costs. |
Whingers.
R D S wrote:
"Weatherlawyer" wrote in message ps.com... Looking at the new where some had been hit by 3 times the normal monthly rainfall falling in one day, I heard one victim complaining that the local council were not helping him. Where theres blame..... Nobody simply accepts anything anymore. Hardship of any sort will not be tolerated. Accidents should never happen, we should have access to every drug we might ever need, there should be no crime, tax should be low and the sun should always shine, except for the rain we need for stuff to grow which should fall at such a time that we are not inconvenienced. I'll vote for that! |
Whingers.
"Andy Hall" wrote in message ... However, there is a small upside. If there are fewer insured, there are fewer claims and by implication,less rise in premium for the insured. It doesn't work like that.. if there are fewer insured the same percentage gets paid but the costs are higher.. bigger rise in premiums. |
Whingers.
"dennis@home" wrote in message ... .. Most of the SE expects to be bailed out using public money.. just look at how much flood control schemes like the Thames barrier costs. What an asinine argument. The Thames barrier in case you hadn't noticed is a flood *prevention* scheme, the money isn't going to 'bail out' people who have been flooded, it's intended to prevent flooding in the first place! -- Col Bolton, Lancashire 160m asl |
Whingers.
"Col" wrote in message ... "dennis@home" wrote in message ... . Most of the SE expects to be bailed out using public money.. just look at how much flood control schemes like the Thames barrier costs. What an asinine argument. The Thames barrier in case you hadn't noticed is a flood *prevention* scheme, the money isn't going to 'bail out' people who have been flooded, it's intended to prevent flooding in the first place! So you buy a house on a flood plain and then want public money to stop it flooding.. even worse than expecting a payout if it gets flooded. |
Whingers.
The message
from David Buttery contains these words: John Hall wrote in : snip As if council members and their workforce were not stretched to the limit / in the same boat (so to speak.) It is the worst peacetime disaster that emergency services have had to deal with. (According to C4 news.) I think that the North Sea storm surge of 1953 was even worse, but I agree with your point. snip If memory serves, it was a representative of Hereford & Worcester Fire & Rescue Service (no longer officially "Fire Brigade" it seems, despite holding on to the traditional title longer than many) who made the "worst in peacetime" comment, speaking specifically about the Hereford & Worcs area rather than the country as a whole. The message that this was the biggest post war disaster that the emergency services had had to deal with was abroad before the latest downpour when little more than Hull, Sheffiled and Doncaster were flooded. On the face of it they might be correct as the 1953 flood allegedly only affected 25000 homes while the prior total was already 35000. However I think that the statistics are not comparing like with like. In 1953 over 600 were drowned. The death toll in the current calamity has yet to reach double figures. -- Roger Chapman |
Whingers.
On 21 Jul, 19:09, Andy Hall wrote:
On 2007-07-21 18:58:59 +0100, Frank Erskine said: On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 10:43:02 -0700, Weatherlawyer wrote: Looking at the news where some had been hit by 3 times the normal monthly rainfall falling in one day, I heard one victim complaining that the local council were not helping him. Surely it ought to be his insurance company that should be helping him... (Not necessarily only financially). Precisely. Why people have the mentaility that some public sector organisation should be obliged to help them rather than their taking responsibility for themselves, never ceases to amaze me. What took the biscuit was the tv picture of some daft bitch begging for aid as she wasn't insured while throwing a childs bicycle into a skip because it had been in floodwater. Don't these morons know that things can be washed? |
Whingers.
"dennis@home" wrote in message ... "Col" wrote in message ... "dennis@home" wrote in message ... . Most of the SE expects to be bailed out using public money.. just look at how much flood control schemes like the Thames barrier costs. What an asinine argument. The Thames barrier in case you hadn't noticed is a flood *prevention* scheme, the money isn't going to 'bail out' people who have been flooded, it's intended to prevent flooding in the first place! So you buy a house on a flood plain and then want public money to stop it flooding.. even worse than expecting a payout if it gets flooded. The Thames barrier is intended to prevent central London from flooding. As our capital city such an occurance would be catastrophic. The Thames barrier won't protect such developments as the 'Thames Gateway' or whatever the hell it's called, and indeed was never intended to. I wholeheartedly agree thogh that building houses on flood plains is complete insanity. Also, people that get flooded who weren't adequately insured should expect no help from the Government. -- Col Steal a spaceship and head for the sun, Shoot the stars with a lemonade ray gun. |
Whingers.
On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 22:31:51 +0100, "Col"
wrote: The Thames barrier is intended to prevent central London from flooding. As our capital city such an occurance would be catastrophic. Some might say it would be a Good Thing :-) -- Frank Erskine |
Whingers.
In message , "dennis@home"
writes "Andy Hall" wrote in message ... On 2007-07-21 18:58:59 +0100, Frank Erskine said: On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 10:43:02 -0700, Weatherlawyer wrote: Looking at the news where some had been hit by 3 times the normal monthly rainfall falling in one day, I heard one victim complaining that the local council were not helping him. Surely it ought to be his insurance company that should be helping him... (Not necessarily only financially). Precisely. Why people have the mentaility that some public sector organisation should be obliged to help them rather than their taking responsibility for themselves, never ceases to amaze me. Just wait until your house is on fire.. I bet you want public services then. There's a world of difference between a house fire and an area wide catastrophe -- geoff |
Whingers.
In message , Andy Hall writes
On 2007-07-21 19:58:20 +0100, Andy Cap said: On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 19:36:09 +0100, "dennis@home" wrote: Why people have the mentaility that some public sector organisation should be obliged to help them rather than their taking responsibility for themselves, never ceases to amaze me. Just wait until your house is on fire.. I bet you want public services then. Yep, that's what we pay for. What ****es me off, are the whingers who haven't bothered with insurance who then expect a 'social fund ' that is other people, to give them a hand out Andy Exactly. However, there is a small upside. If there are fewer insured, there are fewer claims and by implication,less rise in premium for the insured. But the social fund, which is politically necessary, is paid from our taxes (and not by Sky subscriptions) -- geoff |
Whingers.
In message , "dennis@home"
writes "Andy Hall" wrote in message ... However, there is a small upside. If there are fewer insured, there are fewer claims and by implication,less rise in premium for the insured. It doesn't work like that.. if there are fewer insured the same percentage gets paid but the costs are higher.. bigger rise in premiums. Yes it does - if you can justify your claim for £25,000, you expect to get £25,000 not a percentage therof depending on how many people claim -- geoff |
Whingers.
raden wrote:
In message , "dennis@home" writes "Andy Hall" wrote in message ... On 2007-07-21 18:58:59 +0100, Frank Erskine said: On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 10:43:02 -0700, Weatherlawyer wrote: Looking at the news where some had been hit by 3 times the normal monthly rainfall falling in one day, I heard one victim complaining that the local council were not helping him. Surely it ought to be his insurance company that should be helping him... (Not necessarily only financially). Precisely. Why people have the mentaility that some public sector organisation should be obliged to help them rather than their taking responsibility for themselves, never ceases to amaze me. Just wait until your house is on fire.. I bet you want public services then. There's a world of difference between a house fire and an area wide catastrophe Try telling that to the people involved in a house fire - and no public sector should be obliged to help - other than under their legal obligations. |
Whingers.
"raden" wrote in message ... In message , "dennis@home" writes "Andy Hall" wrote in message ... However, there is a small upside. If there are fewer insured, there are fewer claims and by implication,less rise in premium for the insured. It doesn't work like that.. if there are fewer insured the same percentage gets paid but the costs are higher.. bigger rise in premiums. Yes it does - if you can justify your claim for £25,000, you expect to get £25,000 not a percentage therof depending on how many people claim Are you sober? Nothing was said about percentages of claim values. |
Whingers.
In message , Col
writes So you buy a house on a flood plain and then want public money to stop it flooding.. even worse than expecting a payout if it gets flooded. The Thames barrier is intended to prevent central London from flooding. As our capital city such an occurance would be catastrophic. The Thames barrier won't protect such developments as the 'Thames Gateway' or whatever the hell it's called, and indeed was never intended to. I wholeheartedly agree thogh that building houses on flood plains is complete insanity. Also, people that get flooded who weren't adequately insured should expect no help from the Government. But a point of information which I heard last week "we've been building on flood plains for thousands of years" it's more a matter of degree -- geoff |
Whingers.
In message . com, cynic
writes On 21 Jul, 19:09, Andy Hall wrote: On 2007-07-21 18:58:59 +0100, Frank Erskine said: On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 10:43:02 -0700, Weatherlawyer wrote: Looking at the news where some had been hit by 3 times the normal monthly rainfall falling in one day, I heard one victim complaining that the local council were not helping him. Surely it ought to be his insurance company that should be helping him... (Not necessarily only financially). Precisely. Why people have the mentaility that some public sector organisation should be obliged to help them rather than their taking responsibility for themselves, never ceases to amaze me. What took the biscuit was the tv picture of some daft bitch begging for aid as she wasn't insured while throwing a childs bicycle into a skip because it had been in floodwater. Don't these morons know that things can be washed? Interesting article they did with Trevor Baylis the other evening who has various little flood defences at his home (and some very badly painted walls) When asked if he's ever been flooded, he replied in the affirmative, and went on to say that the carpets were caked in mud, so he took them outside and hosed them down You do have to wonder exactly how much stuff is really BER and how much (washing machines, fridges, for example) just need a bit of a clean -- geoff |
Whingers.
In message , "dennis@home"
writes "raden" wrote in message ... In message , "dennis@home" writes "Andy Hall" wrote in message ... However, there is a small upside. If there are fewer insured, there are fewer claims and by implication,less rise in premium for the insured. It doesn't work like that.. if there are fewer insured the same percentage gets paid but the costs are higher.. bigger rise in premiums. Yes it does - if you can justify your claim for £25,000, you expect to get £25,000 not a percentage therof depending on how many people claim Are you sober? Yes I am Nothing was said about percentages of claim values. "The same percentage gets paid" is somewhat ambiguous -- geoff |
Whingers.
In message , Brian G
writes raden wrote: In message , "dennis@home" writes "Andy Hall" wrote in message ... On 2007-07-21 18:58:59 +0100, Frank Erskine said: On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 10:43:02 -0700, Weatherlawyer wrote: Looking at the news where some had been hit by 3 times the normal monthly rainfall falling in one day, I heard one victim complaining that the local council were not helping him. Surely it ought to be his insurance company that should be helping him... (Not necessarily only financially). Precisely. Why people have the mentaility that some public sector organisation should be obliged to help them rather than their taking responsibility for themselves, never ceases to amaze me. Just wait until your house is on fire.. I bet you want public services then. There's a world of difference between a house fire and an area wide catastrophe Try telling that to the people involved in a house fire - and no public sector should be obliged to help - other than under their legal obligations. You missed my point -- geoff |
Whingers.
"raden" wrote in message ... In message , "dennis@home" writes "raden" wrote in message ... In message , "dennis@home" writes "Andy Hall" wrote in message ... However, there is a small upside. If there are fewer insured, there are fewer claims and by implication,less rise in premium for the insured. It doesn't work like that.. if there are fewer insured the same percentage gets paid but the costs are higher.. bigger rise in premiums. Yes it does - if you can justify your claim for £25,000, you expect to get £25,000 not a percentage therof depending on how many people claim Are you sober? Yes I am Nothing was said about percentages of claim values. "The same percentage gets paid" is somewhat ambiguous Not in the context of the thread it wasn't. |
Whingers.
"Col" wrote in message ... "dennis@home" wrote in message ... "Col" wrote in message ... "dennis@home" wrote in message ... . Most of the SE expects to be bailed out using public money.. just look at how much flood control schemes like the Thames barrier costs. What an asinine argument. The Thames barrier in case you hadn't noticed is a flood *prevention* scheme, the money isn't going to 'bail out' people who have been flooded, it's intended to prevent flooding in the first place! So you buy a house on a flood plain and then want public money to stop it flooding.. even worse than expecting a payout if it gets flooded. The Thames barrier is intended to prevent central London from flooding. As our capital city such an occurance would be catastrophic. The Thames barrier won't protect such developments as the 'Thames Gateway' or whatever the hell it's called, and indeed was never intended to. I wholeheartedly agree thogh that building houses on flood plains is complete insanity. Also, people that get flooded who weren't adequately insured should expect no help from the Government. -- Col Steal a spaceship and head for the sun, Shoot the stars with a lemonade ray gun. Bear in mind that a lot of places that have been flooded so far this summer are not in flood plains. Even if people are adequetely insured we'll all end up paying for it eventually when the insurance companies raise the premiums to cover their losses. |
Whingers.
Andy Hall wrote:
Exactly. However, there is a small upside. If there are fewer insured, there are fewer claims and by implication,less rise in premium for the insured. You must be a trusting soul if you believe that! After recouping their losses by increasing everyone's premiums, the insurance companies will still declare record profits next year. They'll work out how much they need to claw back and then add a substantial extra amount on top - just like they always have done. -- Geoff Beale Extract digit to email |
Whingers.
raden wrote:
In message , Brian G writes raden wrote: In message , "dennis@home" writes "Andy Hall" wrote in message ... On 2007-07-21 18:58:59 +0100, Frank Erskine said: On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 10:43:02 -0700, Weatherlawyer wrote: Looking at the news where some had been hit by 3 times the normal monthly rainfall falling in one day, I heard one victim complaining that the local council were not helping him. Surely it ought to be his insurance company that should be helping him... (Not necessarily only financially). Precisely. Why people have the mentaility that some public sector organisation should be obliged to help them rather than their taking responsibility for themselves, never ceases to amaze me. Just wait until your house is on fire.. I bet you want public services then. There's a world of difference between a house fire and an area wide catastrophe Try telling that to the people involved in a house fire - and no public sector should be obliged to help - other than under their legal obligations. You missed my point No I didn't - a "catastrophe" is relative to the individual, whether local or area wide and irrespective of the cause. |
Whingers.
Owain wrote:
Andy Hall wrote: Why people have the mentaility that some public sector organisation should be obliged to help them rather than their taking responsibility for themselves, never ceases to amaze me. Possibly related to the fact that the public sector organisation have extorted large amounts of tax out of the people, and the poeple would like to see something back? Owain To have even more council tax extorted - but surely it's up to the individual to take the necessary precautions to insure themselves against such problems and let the public organisations do the job they are paid for - the clearing up of the infastructure and NOT individual hel/? |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:32 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter