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.

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)

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

"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.

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.

"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.

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
* * * * * * *

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

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

"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.

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!

"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.

"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

"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 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

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?

"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.

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

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

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

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

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.

"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.

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

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

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

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

"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.

"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.

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

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.

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/?