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.

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

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.

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 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.

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 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.

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

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.

"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.

On Jul 21, 9:11 pm, Andy Hall wrote:
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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

But they're going to be, helped by the Conservatives who
propose just that. How does that grab you? They're not exactly the
party of bleeding hearts. From that alone one could deduce that the
proposal has some merit. But to the vast majority of people it does
anyway. Fortunately not everybody is as petty and mean-minded as most
on this thread, which contains a suspiciously large number of names
who do not post to this group regularly, or at all. Go away, you
dismal little creeps.

Tudor Hughes.

"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.

My house contents insurance cost less than a TV licence. I consider the
insurance essential even though I am not in a flood plain. There are other
disasters available so I pay for cover for those as well.
The reason non insured people are interviewed on TV is to make the story
more interesting.

Adam

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

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.

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?

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

Frank Erskine wrote:
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).

I don't know about you folks in England, but here in N. Ireland the
insurer asks "has there been a history of flooding within X distance
from your house". I have never had to answer "yes" to that, but
would/could they refuse to insure me if I did ?

On 2007-07-22 01:09:15 +0100, "Geronimo W. Christ Esq"
said:

Frank Erskine wrote:
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).

I don't know about you folks in England, but here in N. Ireland the
insurer asks "has there been a history of flooding within X distance
from your house". I have never had to answer "yes" to that, but
would/could they refuse to insure me if I did ?

They are not *required* to offer you insurance at all.

If they do, they can choose the price.

If others do, it creates competition and that exacts some level of
control over the price.

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2007-07-22 01:09:15 +0100, "Geronimo W. Christ Esq"
said:

Frank Erskine wrote:
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).

I don't know about you folks in England, but here in N. Ireland the
insurer asks "has there been a history of flooding within X distance
from your house". I have never had to answer "yes" to that, but
would/could they refuse to insure me if I did ?

They are not *required* to offer you insurance at all.

If they do, they can choose the price.

If others do, it creates competition and that exacts some level of
control over the price.



So those most vulnerable can't afford the premium. Sounds like a "let
them eat cake" kind of an argument

On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 08:47:18 GMT, Stuart Noble
wrote:



If others do, it creates competition and that exacts some level of
control over the price.



So those most vulnerable can't afford the premium. Sounds like a "let
them eat cake" kind of an argument

Most vulnerable?

You mean those who decide that buying expensive tvs is more important
than having insurance?
--
http://www.orderonlinepickupinstore.co.uk
Ah fetch it yourself if you can't wait for delivery
http://www.freedeliveryuk.co.uk
Or get it delivered for free

"Stuart Noble" wrote in message
...




So those most vulnerable can't afford the premium. Sounds like a "let them
eat cake" kind of an argument

They seem to be able to afford to buy all those things that
they are now complaining they were uninsured for.
--
Col

Bolton, Lancashire
160m asl

On 2007-07-22 09:47:18 +0100, Stuart Noble
said:

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2007-07-22 01:09:15 +0100, "Geronimo W. Christ Esq"
said:

Frank Erskine wrote:
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).

I don't know about you folks in England, but here in N. Ireland the
insurer asks "has there been a history of flooding within X distance
from your house". I have never had to answer "yes" to that, but
would/could they refuse to insure me if I did ?

They are not *required* to offer you insurance at all.

If they do, they can choose the price.

If others do, it creates competition and that exacts some level of
control over the price.



So those most vulnerable can't afford the premium. Sounds like a "let
them eat cake" kind of an argument

The issue here is the one of *expectation* that there should be a
handout of cash and services, and it is that which is unacceptable.

There are two main parts to the issue of what happens after flooding of
a wide area.

- Removal of the water from the area. Clearly that is beyond the
householder's immediate control and has to be handled by the various
authorities responsible for it.

- Cleaning up and reinstatement of the property. Without any doubt,
the responsibility for that is with the householder.

That does not mean that there should not be some form of financial
assistance in cases of genuine need. What it does mean is that there
should be a very detailed check of the financial affairs of any
applicants for such financial assistance. Expenditure that goes
beyond the basics of provision of roof over head, food, energy, normal
water services and a few other necessities is largely discretionary.
If somebody has chosen to spend discretionary money on other things
rather than insuring themselves (which should be coming out of the
roof-over-head allocation anyway) then there is no justification for
their receiving public funds at all.

Stuart Noble wrote:

So those most vulnerable can't afford the premium. Sounds like a "let
them eat cake" kind of an argument

That's what I thought. The insurance premium on my house is around £100
per year, so it's foolish not to pay it. But if it were £1000 I can see
how people on lower incomes would simply not be able to do it.

If the government is going to provide funding though, there would have
to be some kind of means testing. There was flooding in Belfast back in
June, in areas with no recent history of flooding. People were
interviewed on the TV news in their living rooms, saying that they
couldn't afford the insurance premium. Large LCD/plasma TV screens,
Xboxes and Playstations were visible in the background ...

On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 08:47:18 GMT, Stuart Noble
wrote:


They are not *required* to offer you insurance at all.

If they do, they can choose the price.

If others do, it creates competition and that exacts some level of
control over the price.



So those most vulnerable can't afford the premium.

Building insurance is just one part of the cost of living in a house.
Their predicament is a consequence of choices they have made.
They have had the same options in their lives as everybody else.

Sounds like a "let them eat cake" kind of an argument

Not at all, everybody has to eat. Everybody does not have to buy a
house, and if they do they have lots of choices, some wioser than
others, as to how they manage their ownership of it.

They have their priorities mine are probably different. I make no
criticism of them for excercising the choices that they have had their
own way. If they want to live without insurance I wish them luck.

DG

Stuart Noble wrote:
Andy Hall wrote:
On 2007-07-22 01:09:15 +0100, "Geronimo W. Christ Esq"
said:

Frank Erskine wrote:
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).

I don't know about you folks in England, but here in N. Ireland the
insurer asks "has there been a history of flooding within X distance
from your house". I have never had to answer "yes" to that, but
would/could they refuse to insure me if I did ?

They are not *required* to offer you insurance at all.

If they do, they can choose the price.

If others do, it creates competition and that exacts some level of
control over the price.



So those most vulnerable can't afford the premium. Sounds like a "let
them eat cake" kind of an argument

Good way to create cheap housing. Uninsurable crap on flood plains.

Then let the occupants drown.

Hey. Its more politically acceptable than death camps. Thats how they do
things in Louisiana!

The message
from "Geronimo W. Christ Esq" contains
these words:

I don't know about you folks in England, but here in N. Ireland the
insurer asks "has there been a history of flooding within X distance
from your house". I have never had to answer "yes" to that, but
would/could they refuse to insure me if I did ?

Probably the same here. It is certainly the case that if you or a near
neighbour have suffered subsidence you are unlikely to get new cover on
that aspect on terms that you can actually afford.

One can have a certain amount of sympathy for companies that are
reluctant to insure against flooding where flooding is a regular feature
as is the case in places like Shrewsbury and York. Bookmakers won't take
bets on dead certs so why should their cousins in insurance take on
business that is absolutely bound to be loss making for ever more.

It is only prudent to insure, if one can afford to, to cover losses that
one cannot afford to replace oneself so I was more than a little
surprised that the BBC news chose to highlight a Yorkshire woman who
apparently didn't have insurance to cover her new £15000 kitchen. Anyone
with sufficient funds to waste that amount on a kitchen should have
ample left over to insure everything up to the hilt.

--
Roger Chapman

"Roger" wrote in message
k...

It is only prudent to insure, if one can afford to, to cover losses that
one cannot afford to replace oneself so I was more than a little
surprised that the BBC news chose to highlight a Yorkshire woman who
apparently didn't have insurance to cover her new £15000 kitchen. Anyone
with sufficient funds to waste that amount on a kitchen should have
ample left over to insure everything up to the hilt.

She will be in more of a mess than the kitchen.. they are normally covered
by buildings insurance aren't they?
No buildings insurance will make the £15k for the kitchen look cheap once
they start ripping the floors and walls.

The message
from "dennis@home" contains these words:

It is only prudent to insure, if one can afford to, to cover losses that
one cannot afford to replace oneself so I was more than a little
surprised that the BBC news chose to highlight a Yorkshire woman who
apparently didn't have insurance to cover her new £15000 kitchen. Anyone
with sufficient funds to waste that amount on a kitchen should have
ample left over to insure everything up to the hilt.

She will be in more of a mess than the kitchen.. they are normally covered
by buildings insurance aren't they?
No buildings insurance will make the £15k for the kitchen look cheap once
they start ripping the floors and walls.

If she was insured why was she used as a bleeding heart?

If she wasn't (which was the implication in the news story) then she has
only herself (or possibly her non evident other half) to blame for her
present predicament.

--
Roger Chapman

In message , Roger
writes
The message
from "Geronimo W. Christ Esq" contains
these words:

I don't know about you folks in England, but here in N. Ireland the
insurer asks "has there been a history of flooding within X distance
from your house". I have never had to answer "yes" to that, but
would/could they refuse to insure me if I did ?

Probably the same here. It is certainly the case that if you or a near
neighbour have suffered subsidence you are unlikely to get new cover on
that aspect on terms that you can actually afford.

One can have a certain amount of sympathy for companies that are
reluctant to insure against flooding where flooding is a regular feature
as is the case in places like Shrewsbury

Much less of a problem since the weir was built


--
geoff

"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.

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!

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)

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.

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

Roger wrote:
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.



We don't drown these days, we lose money.

The message
from Anne Jackson contains these words:

In 1953 over 600 were drowned. The death toll in the current
calamity has yet to reach double figures.

Apropos the 1953 floods, it depends on whether you are quoting figures
for those killed in the UK, or not. Officially, 1,835 people were killed
in the Netherlands, 307 were killed in the United Kingdom, in the counties
of Lincolnshire, Norfolk, Suffolk and Essex. 28 were killed in Belgium.

I intended to quote the figures for the UK but my memory let me down.
IIRC we had 8 drowned in my town alone. Our class was the last to return
to our proper school (for some obsure reason I can't now recall) some 6
months after the flood. Some of the householders were out even longer.

ISTR that the UK total was near doubled by the loss of a ferry in the
Irish Sea. A quick google picked up the figure of 130. I can't be sure
whether that is included in the 307 but I rather think it was.

--
Roger Chapman

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 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.

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.