UK diy (uk.d-i-y) For the discussion of all topics related to diy (do-it-yourself) in the UK. All levels of experience and proficency are welcome to join in to ask questions or offer solutions.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #121   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,910
Default Flooding

On Fri, 11 Dec 2015 07:12:47 -0000, harry wrote:

On Thursday, 10 December 2015 21:08:17 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote


I see floods all over the news.


I told you it was a soggy little island.


Yes, and especially so just now, rain almost every
day for 2 months. The tail end of three hurricanes.


It'll soon be the frigid soggy little island
I keep reminding you it has always been.


And you think nothing is happening in Oz?
http://www.climatechangeinaustralia....ralian-trends/

You really are brain dead.


You've just assumed climate change is real, YOU'RE brain dead.

--
"Boy, will I give YOU a haircut!" said Tom barbarously.
  #122   Report Post  
Posted to uk.legal,uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,910
Default Flooding

On Thu, 10 Dec 2015 21:08:10 -0000, Rod Speed wrote:

Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote


I see floods all over the news.


I told you it was a soggy little island.


Yes, and especially so just now, rain almost every
day for 2 months. The tail end of three hurricanes.


It'll soon be the frigid soggy little island
I keep reminding you it has always been.


What, no global warming? :-)

I guess somewhere like America is getting blown to bits.


Nar, they're currently blowing bits of Syria to bits, again.


Not enough of it.

Why should sensible people like me who didn't buy a house
in a flood plain have to foot the bill for those that did?


Because that's the way it works.


That doesn't answer "why".


Because that's what gets the current crew marginally
better prospects of getting elected again, stupid.


Funny how they frequently do things that annoy most of the public.

The government is paying millions to "victims" of flood.


They pay millions to those like you who were too stupid
to work out what qualifications would get you a job too.


Not getting a job is the government's fault,


Nope, the fault of those too stupid to get
qualified in an area where there are plenty of
jobs that they have to use immigrants to fill.


Stop the immigrants, then we could work there.

buying a house in the wrong place is entirely your own fault.


Not when the govt is stupid enough to allow house to be built there.


Doesn't matter, if nobody bought flood plain houses, the builders wouldn't put them there, because they'd never sell them.

Anyway, have they never heard of house insurance?


Have you never heard of getting qualified in an area where
there are jobs or moving to somewhere where there are jobs ?


Why would I want to live in a noisy congested city with a house costing 5 times as much for half the size?

--
When Mike got arrested, the police told him, "Anything you say will be held against you."
Mike smiled and simply replied, "Jessica Simpson's boobs."
  #123   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 32
Default Flooding



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 13 Dec 2015 00:07:30 -0000, Ranger wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 11 Dec 2015 16:37:27 -0000, Ranger wrote:



"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 11/12/15 11:08, Ranger wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 10/12/15 19:58, The Todal wrote:
On 10/12/2015 19:33, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Thu, 10 Dec 2015 17:39:53 -0000, The Todal

wrote:

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

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


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

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


Ah, understood. Why should I help foot the bill for extra police
security in our cities when I was firmly opposed to the Iraq war
and
to
the proposal to bomb Syria?


Why should I foot the bill for primary education when I don't have
children?

Because it's quite a bit cheaper to do that than to pay the much
higher cost of dealing with the dregs of country that dont bother
to send their kids to school when it isnt free and compulsory.

Well there you go. That's essentially the same answer to the question
"Why
should I help foot the bill for extra police security in our cities
when
I
was firmly opposed to the Iraq war and to the proposal to bomb Syria"

No that is a quite different question.

Because its cheaper than dealing with syria and the like by
recolonising
them and teaching them how to play nice?

That isn't even possible let alone morally acceptable.

Morality costs money.


Not necessarily.


Usually does.


I dont buy that.

For example keeping people alive who are hardened criminals instead of the
death penalty.


That's not morality.

Not bombing Syria or invading Iraq actually saves a lot of money.

We need to stop it.


Not even possible.


Why is it not possible to stop morality?


Because some will always want to behave morally.

All we need is a decent government that ignores the dogooders.


That wouldnt stop moral behaviour.

  #124   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 39,563
Default Flooding

On 14/12/15 00:08, Ranger wrote:

Why is it not possible to stop morality?


Because some will always want to behave morally.


because 'behaving morally' is the perfect excuse for selfish behaviour
for some value of 'morality'

All we need is a decent government that ignores the dogooders.


That wouldnt stop moral behaviour.


There is no moral behaviour because morality in absolute terms is a myth.

Morality is relative to a given culture. In a diverse multicultural
environment it has no meaning at all.

Honour killing is extremely moral behaviour, for example. For certain
cultures.



--
the biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.
  #125   Report Post  
Posted to uk.legal,uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 40,893
Default Flooding



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 10 Dec 2015 21:08:10 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:

Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote


I see floods all over the news.


I told you it was a soggy little island.


Yes, and especially so just now, rain almost every
day for 2 months. The tail end of three hurricanes.


It'll soon be the frigid soggy little island
I keep reminding you it has always been.


What, no global warming? :-)


The climate has always varied.

How much of the variation that has happened has
been due to the activity of man is much harder to say.

Very little IMO, although it is clear that major citys
do produce heat islands etc. It would be a hell of a
lot more surprising if they didn't given the immense
amount of energy that is pumped into them.

I guess somewhere like America is getting blown to bits.


Nar, they're currently blowing bits of Syria to bits, again.


Not enough of it.


It was being stupid enough to invade Iraq that produced ISIS.

Why should sensible people like me who didn't buy a house
in a flood plain have to foot the bill for those that did?


Because that's the way it works.


That doesn't answer "why".


Because that's what gets the current crew marginally
better prospects of getting elected again, stupid.


Funny how they frequently do things that annoy most of the public.


When they annoy them enough, and the alternative govt looks
like it will annoy them less, they get the bums rush at the ballot
box in the next election. That's why Labour got the bums rush.

Sometimes the voters just decide that the current crew
has been driving the bus for long enough and that its
time to see if the alternate crew can do any better.

The government is paying millions to "victims" of flood.


They pay millions to those like you who were too stupid
to work out what qualifications would get you a job too.


Not getting a job is the government's fault,


Nope, the fault of those too stupid to get
qualified in an area where there are plenty of
jobs that they have to use immigrants to fill.


Stop the immigrants, then we could work there.


You couldn't because you were too stupid to get
qualified in one of the areas where immigrants
had enough of a clue to get qualified and show
up there like with health care.

buying a house in the wrong place is entirely your own fault.


Not when the govt is stupid enough to allow house to be built there.


Doesn't matter, if nobody bought flood plain houses, the builders wouldn't
put them there, because they'd never sell them.


There will always be some that can only afford the cheaper places on the
flood plane.

Anyway, have they never heard of house insurance?


Have you never heard of getting qualified in an area where
there are jobs or moving to somewhere where there are jobs ?


Why would I want to live in a noisy congested city with a house costing 5
times as much for half the size?


You don't have to do that. You could have got qualified
as a teacher or in health care and 'live' where you do now.



  #126   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 32
Default Flooding



"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 14/12/15 00:08, Ranger wrote:

Why is it not possible to stop morality?


Because some will always want to behave morally.


because 'behaving morally' is the perfect excuse for selfish behaviour for
some value of 'morality'


There is plenty of moral behaviour that isn't selfish at all,
like not stealing or engaging in any corrupt behaviour.

All we need is a decent government that ignores the dogooders.


That wouldnt stop moral behaviour.


There is no moral behaviour because morality in absolute terms is a myth.


That's not accurate with not stealing or accepting bribes
or physically assaulting people you disagree with.

Morality is relative to a given culture.


Yes, but some things are accepted as moral behaviour
by almost everyone except criminals obviously.

In a diverse multicultural
environment it has no meaning at all.


That is radically overstated.

Honour killing is extremely moral behaviour, for example. For certain
cultures.


Yes, but there are very few that believe that stealing
from others is moral. The Thuggees did, but they are
a microscopic exception on that.

  #127   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,300
Default Flooding


"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
**** snipped

Surely there MUST be an Ozzie ng you could frequent?
Or are they also ****ed off with you?
Oh, I forgot, you have me killfiled LMFAO.
Hilarious.


  #128   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 39,563
Default Flooding

On 14/12/15 00:40, Ranger wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 14/12/15 00:08, Ranger wrote:

Why is it not possible to stop morality?

Because some will always want to behave morally.


because 'behaving morally' is the perfect excuse for selfish behaviour
for some value of 'morality'


There is plenty of moral behaviour that isn't selfish at all,
like not stealing or engaging in any corrupt behaviour.

All we need is a decent government that ignores the dogooders.

That wouldnt stop moral behaviour.


There is no moral behaviour because morality in absolute terms is a myth.


That's not accurate with not stealing or accepting bribes
or physically assaulting people you disagree with.

Morality is relative to a given culture.


Yes, but some things are accepted as moral behaviour
by almost everyone except criminals obviously.

In a diverse multicultural
environment it has no meaning at all.


That is radically overstated.

No, it is if anything understated, but then I am looking down the wrong
end of a long life.

Honour killing is extremely moral behaviour, for example. For certain
cultures.


Yes, but there are very few that believe that stealing
from others is moral. The Thuggees did, but they are
a microscopic exception on that.


Never heard of 'All property is theft' ?

I can assure you that nearly all cultures will consider stealing from
certain others entirely moral behaviour.

In fact large parts of morality consist in defining who those others
shall be. Radical Islam considers, for example, that infidels have no
rights at all, and can and should be treated anyway the devout want to.
It resembles Nazism in that respect.

Plenty of the radical Left want to steal from the 'Rich' although they
want it done by someone else on their behalf as 'taxation' - but that is
merely cowardice and lack of any fibre, moral or otherwise.

All theft is is such particular terms of ownership as a particular
culture encapsulates, being violated. If for example women cannot hold
property, then they cannot be the victims of theft.

And if they are property themselves, there is no crime in rape, since
they are either property to be dealt with at the whim of their owners,
or without any ownership at all, wandering the streets and asking for
it. Rape becomes a moral duty.


Its all relative to the culture. Which is why we have no morality today
at all, because relative to any given culture, anything goes.



--
the biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.
  #129   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 32
Default Flooding



"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 14/12/15 00:40, Ranger wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 14/12/15 00:08, Ranger wrote:

Why is it not possible to stop morality?

Because some will always want to behave morally.


because 'behaving morally' is the perfect excuse for selfish behaviour
for some value of 'morality'


There is plenty of moral behaviour that isn't selfish at all,
like not stealing or engaging in any corrupt behaviour.

All we need is a decent government that ignores the dogooders.

That wouldnt stop moral behaviour.

There is no moral behaviour because morality in absolute terms is a
myth.


That's not accurate with not stealing or accepting bribes
or physically assaulting people you disagree with.

Morality is relative to a given culture.


Yes, but some things are accepted as moral behaviour
by almost everyone except criminals obviously.

In a diverse multicultural
environment it has no meaning at all.


That is radically overstated.

No, it is if anything understated, but then I am looking down the wrong
end of a long life.


I'm actually older than you.

Honour killing is extremely moral behaviour, for example. For certain
cultures.


Yes, but there are very few that believe that stealing
from others is moral. The Thuggees did, but they are
a microscopic exception on that.


Never heard of 'All property is theft' ?


Just another very silly saying. Entire societies dont operate like that.

I can assure you that nearly all cultures will consider stealing from
certain others entirely moral behaviour.


Only if you are silly enough to claim that taxation is stealing.

In fact large parts of morality consist in defining who those others shall
be. Radical Islam considers, for example, that infidels have no rights at
all,


That's a lie. And the Koran says nothing even remotely like that.

And there is no society that is entirely radical Islam either.

and can and should be treated anyway the devout want to.
It resembles Nazism in that respect.


Plenty of the radical Left want to steal from the 'Rich'


Taxation isn't stealing. We have different words for a reason.

although they
want it done by someone else on their behalf as 'taxation' - but that is
merely cowardice and lack of any fibre, moral or otherwise.

All theft is is such particular terms of ownership as a particular culture
encapsulates, being violated. If for example women cannot hold property,
then they cannot be the victims of theft.


They always have some property, even if it is just the clothes they wear
etc.

And if they are property themselves, there is no crime in rape, since they
are either property to be dealt with at the whim of their owners,


Its still rape if its done by other than their owners.

or without any ownership at all, wandering the streets and asking for it.
Rape becomes a moral duty.


Nowhere operates like that.

Its all relative to the culture.


Only at the edges.

Which is why we have no morality today at all,


Even sillier than you usually manage.

because relative to any given culture, anything goes.





  #130   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,300
Default Flooding


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 14/12/15 00:40, Ranger wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 14/12/15 00:08, Ranger wrote:

Why is it not possible to stop morality?

Because some will always want to behave morally.


because 'behaving morally' is the perfect excuse for selfish behaviour
for some value of 'morality'


There is plenty of moral behaviour that isn't selfish at all,
like not stealing or engaging in any corrupt behaviour.

All we need is a decent government that ignores the dogooders.

That wouldn't stop moral behaviour.

There is no moral behaviour because morality in absolute terms is a
myth.


That's not accurate with not stealing or accepting bribes
or physically assaulting people you disagree with.

Morality is relative to a given culture.


Yes, but some things are accepted as moral behaviour
by almost everyone except criminals obviously.

In a diverse multicultural
environment it has no meaning at all.


That is radically overstated.

No, it is if anything understated, but then I am looking down the wrong
end of a long life.

Honour killing is extremely moral behaviour, for example. For certain
cultures.


Yes, but there are very few that believe that stealing
from others is moral. The Thuggees did, but they are
a microscopic exception on that.


Never heard of 'All property is theft' ?

I can assure you that nearly all cultures will consider stealing from
certain others entirely moral behaviour.

In fact large parts of morality consist in defining who those others shall
be. Radical Islam considers, for example, that infidels have no rights at
all, and can and should be treated anyway the devout want to. It resembles
Nazism in that respect.

Plenty of the radical Left want to steal from the 'Rich' although they
want it done by someone else on their behalf as 'taxation' - but that is
merely cowardice and lack of any fibre, moral or otherwise.

All theft is is such particular terms of ownership as a particular culture
encapsulates, being violated. If for example women cannot hold property,
then they cannot be the victims of theft.

And if they are property themselves, there is no crime in rape, since they
are either property to be dealt with at the whim of their owners, or
without any ownership at all, wandering the streets and asking for it.
Rape becomes a moral duty.


Its all relative to the culture. Which is why we have no morality today at
all, because relative to any given culture, anything goes.


You realise you are typing to silly Wodney the Ozzie ****?




  #131   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,491
Default Flooding

On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 02:02:49 +0000, bm wrote:

====snip====

You realise you are typing to silly Wodney the Ozzie ****?


It's obvious by a glance at the subject column (in Pan) that he's
replying to a kill-filed troll (it makes it look as though he's following
up on his own posts) which makes him look like *another* troll, a rather
unfortunate side effect since this isn't necessarily true despite it
oftentimes being a clue to 'troll like behaviour'.

--
Johnny B Good
  #132   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,910
Default Flooding

On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 00:08:51 -0000, Ranger wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 13 Dec 2015 00:07:30 -0000, Ranger wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Fri, 11 Dec 2015 16:37:27 -0000, Ranger wrote:



"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 11/12/15 11:08, Ranger wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 10/12/15 19:58, The Todal wrote:
On 10/12/2015 19:33, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Thu, 10 Dec 2015 17:39:53 -0000, The Todal

wrote:

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

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


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

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


Ah, understood. Why should I help foot the bill for extra police
security in our cities when I was firmly opposed to the Iraq war
and
to
the proposal to bomb Syria?


Why should I foot the bill for primary education when I don't have
children?

Because it's quite a bit cheaper to do that than to pay the much
higher cost of dealing with the dregs of country that dont bother
to send their kids to school when it isnt free and compulsory.

Well there you go. That's essentially the same answer to the question
"Why
should I help foot the bill for extra police security in our cities
when
I
was firmly opposed to the Iraq war and to the proposal to bomb Syria"

No that is a quite different question.

Because its cheaper than dealing with syria and the like by
recolonising
them and teaching them how to play nice?

That isn't even possible let alone morally acceptable.

Morality costs money.

Not necessarily.


Usually does.


I dont buy that.

For example keeping people alive who are hardened criminals instead of the
death penalty.


That's not morality.

Not bombing Syria or invading Iraq actually saves a lot of money.

We need to stop it.

Not even possible.


Why is it not possible to stop morality?


Because some will always want to behave morally.

All we need is a decent government that ignores the dogooders.


That wouldnt stop moral behaviour.


Why are you a Ranger instead of a Rod?

--
Peter is listening to "Ministry of Sound - The Sound of Dubstep 4"
  #133   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,910
Default Flooding

On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 00:08:51 -0000, Ranger wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 13 Dec 2015 00:07:30 -0000, Ranger wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Fri, 11 Dec 2015 16:37:27 -0000, Ranger wrote:



"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 11/12/15 11:08, Ranger wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 10/12/15 19:58, The Todal wrote:
On 10/12/2015 19:33, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Thu, 10 Dec 2015 17:39:53 -0000, The Todal

wrote:

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

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


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

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


Ah, understood. Why should I help foot the bill for extra police
security in our cities when I was firmly opposed to the Iraq war
and
to
the proposal to bomb Syria?


Why should I foot the bill for primary education when I don't have
children?

Because it's quite a bit cheaper to do that than to pay the much
higher cost of dealing with the dregs of country that dont bother
to send their kids to school when it isnt free and compulsory.

Well there you go. That's essentially the same answer to the question
"Why
should I help foot the bill for extra police security in our cities
when
I
was firmly opposed to the Iraq war and to the proposal to bomb Syria"

No that is a quite different question.

Because its cheaper than dealing with syria and the like by
recolonising
them and teaching them how to play nice?

That isn't even possible let alone morally acceptable.

Morality costs money.

Not necessarily.


Usually does.


I dont buy that.

For example keeping people alive who are hardened criminals instead of the
death penalty.


That's not morality.


There's plenty examples if you think about it. All the stuff people do because omitting it might upset someone.

Not bombing Syria or invading Iraq actually saves a lot of money.


Pussy footing about wastes money. Destroying the whole country would stop the nonsense.

We need to stop it.

Not even possible.


Why is it not possible to stop morality?


Because some will always want to behave morally.


Some isn't a reason.

All we need is a decent government that ignores the dogooders.


That wouldnt stop moral behaviour.


It would stop it being a legal requirement.

--
If you own a £3,000 machine gun and a £5,000 rocket launcher, but you can't afford shoes, you may be a Muslim.
  #134   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 40,893
Default Flooding



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 00:08:51 -0000, Ranger wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 13 Dec 2015 00:07:30 -0000, Ranger wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Fri, 11 Dec 2015 16:37:27 -0000, Ranger wrote:



"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 11/12/15 11:08, Ranger wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 10/12/15 19:58, The Todal wrote:
On 10/12/2015 19:33, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Thu, 10 Dec 2015 17:39:53 -0000, The Todal

wrote:

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

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


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

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


Ah, understood. Why should I help foot the bill for extra police
security in our cities when I was firmly opposed to the Iraq war
and
to
the proposal to bomb Syria?


Why should I foot the bill for primary education when I don't have
children?

Because it's quite a bit cheaper to do that than to pay the much
higher cost of dealing with the dregs of country that dont bother
to send their kids to school when it isnt free and compulsory.

Well there you go. That's essentially the same answer to the
question
"Why
should I help foot the bill for extra police security in our cities
when
I
was firmly opposed to the Iraq war and to the proposal to bomb
Syria"

No that is a quite different question.

Because its cheaper than dealing with syria and the like by
recolonising
them and teaching them how to play nice?

That isn't even possible let alone morally acceptable.

Morality costs money.

Not necessarily.


Usually does.


I dont buy that.

For example keeping people alive who are hardened criminals instead of
the
death penalty.


That's not morality.


There's plenty examples if you think about it. All the stuff people do
because omitting it might upset someone.


That isn't really morality, more being polite.

Not bombing Syria or invading Iraq actually saves a lot of money.


Pussy footing about wastes money.


Ignoring countrys that can't manage even the most
basic rule of law doesnt waste any money at all.

Destroying the whole country would stop the nonsense.


Not even possible. Even Genghis Khan never managed that.

We need to stop it.

Not even possible.

Why is it not possible to stop morality?


Because some will always want to behave morally.


Some isn't a reason.


That is the reason its not possible to stop morality.

All we need is a decent government that ignores the dogooders.


That wouldnt stop moral behaviour.


It would stop it being a legal requirement.


Still wouldnt stop moral behaviour.

Plenty chose to not get divorced even when that was legal.

  #135   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,910
Default Flooding

On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 18:44:27 -0000, Rod Speed wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 00:08:51 -0000, Ranger wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Sun, 13 Dec 2015 00:07:30 -0000, Ranger wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Fri, 11 Dec 2015 16:37:27 -0000, Ranger wrote:



"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 11/12/15 11:08, Ranger wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 10/12/15 19:58, The Todal wrote:
On 10/12/2015 19:33, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Thu, 10 Dec 2015 17:39:53 -0000, The Todal

wrote:

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

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


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

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


Ah, understood. Why should I help foot the bill for extra police
security in our cities when I was firmly opposed to the Iraq war
and
to
the proposal to bomb Syria?


Why should I foot the bill for primary education when I don't have
children?

Because it's quite a bit cheaper to do that than to pay the much
higher cost of dealing with the dregs of country that dont bother
to send their kids to school when it isnt free and compulsory.

Well there you go. That's essentially the same answer to the
question
"Why
should I help foot the bill for extra police security in our cities
when
I
was firmly opposed to the Iraq war and to the proposal to bomb
Syria"

No that is a quite different question.

Because its cheaper than dealing with syria and the like by
recolonising
them and teaching them how to play nice?

That isn't even possible let alone morally acceptable.

Morality costs money.

Not necessarily.

Usually does.

I dont buy that.

For example keeping people alive who are hardened criminals instead of
the
death penalty.

That's not morality.


There's plenty examples if you think about it. All the stuff people do
because omitting it might upset someone.


That isn't really morality, more being polite.


There are plenty more serious examples where we have laws to stop you doing things to upset folk. Like having to have disabled ramps and parking spaces when none of your employees are disabled.

Not bombing Syria or invading Iraq actually saves a lot of money.


Pussy footing about wastes money.


Ignoring countrys that can't manage even the most
basic rule of law doesnt waste any money at all.


If we ignore them, they could take over. If we kill them, we can use their land for us civilised folk.

Destroying the whole country would stop the nonsense.


Not even possible. Even Genghis Khan never managed that.


We have much more money and weapons.

We need to stop it.

Not even possible.

Why is it not possible to stop morality?

Because some will always want to behave morally.


Some isn't a reason.


That is the reason its not possible to stop morality.


If it's a minority, we can ignore them. Like those who think everyone should go to church.

All we need is a decent government that ignores the dogooders.

That wouldnt stop moral behaviour.


It would stop it being a legal requirement.


Still wouldnt stop moral behaviour.

Plenty chose to not get divorced even when that was legal.


But we can now ignore the weird ones, and most of us can get on with a divorce without a problem.

--
If you're cross-eyed and have dyslexia, can you read all right?


  #136   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 40,893
Default Flooding



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 18:44:27 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 00:08:51 -0000, Ranger wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Sun, 13 Dec 2015 00:07:30 -0000, Ranger wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Fri, 11 Dec 2015 16:37:27 -0000, Ranger wrote:



"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 11/12/15 11:08, Ranger wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 10/12/15 19:58, The Todal wrote:
On 10/12/2015 19:33, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Thu, 10 Dec 2015 17:39:53 -0000, The Todal

wrote:

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

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


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

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


Ah, understood. Why should I help foot the bill for extra
police
security in our cities when I was firmly opposed to the Iraq
war
and
to
the proposal to bomb Syria?


Why should I foot the bill for primary education when I don't
have
children?

Because it's quite a bit cheaper to do that than to pay the much
higher cost of dealing with the dregs of country that dont
bother
to send their kids to school when it isnt free and compulsory.

Well there you go. That's essentially the same answer to the
question
"Why
should I help foot the bill for extra police security in our
cities
when
I
was firmly opposed to the Iraq war and to the proposal to bomb
Syria"

No that is a quite different question.

Because its cheaper than dealing with syria and the like by
recolonising
them and teaching them how to play nice?

That isn't even possible let alone morally acceptable.

Morality costs money.

Not necessarily.

Usually does.

I dont buy that.

For example keeping people alive who are hardened criminals instead of
the
death penalty.

That's not morality.

There's plenty examples if you think about it. All the stuff people do
because omitting it might upset someone.


That isn't really morality, more being polite.


There are plenty more serious examples where we have laws to stop you
doing things to upset folk.


Sure, but that isn't morality either.

Like having to have disabled ramps and parking spaces when none of your
employees are disabled.


But its impossible to ensure that none of the customers
or visitors ever are, and it makes it harder for the disabled
to get employed there when the place has to consider the
substantial cost of the changes needed for them to get in.

Not bombing Syria or invading Iraq actually saves a lot of money.


Pussy footing about wastes money.


Ignoring countrys that can't manage even the most
basic rule of law doesnt waste any money at all.


If we ignore them, they could take over.


Assad can't even manage to rule the roost in his own pathetic
excuse for a country, let alone take over anyone else.

Yes, Saddam did invade Kuwait, and it made sense
to **** him over when he tried to do that. But it made
no sense what so ever to invade Iraq post 9/11 when
he was completely irrelevant to 9/11, at vast expense,
and produced ISIS is the process.

The most completely stupid thing the west did apart from Vietnam.

If we kill them, we can use their land for us civilised folk.


Have fun listing even a single place where the west
still uses the land they got after killing some of them.

Britain got kicked out of all of them, even Ireland.

Destroying the whole country would stop the nonsense.


Not even possible. Even Genghis Khan never managed that.


We have much more money and weapons.


And have never managed anything like that anywhere.

We need to stop it.


Not even possible.


Why is it not possible to stop morality?


Because some will always want to behave morally.


Some isn't a reason.


That is the reason its not possible to stop morality.


If it's a minority, we can ignore them.


They will still behave morally.

Like those who think everyone should go to church.


That's not morality.

All we need is a decent government that ignores the dogooders.


That wouldnt stop moral behaviour.


It would stop it being a legal requirement.


Still wouldnt stop moral behaviour.


Plenty chose to not get divorced even when that was legal.


But we can now ignore the weird ones, and most of us can get on with a
divorce without a problem.


And plenty more aren't actually stupid enough
to bother with marriage in the first place.

  #137   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,910
Default Flooding

On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 20:16:58 -0000, Rod Speed wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 18:44:27 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 00:08:51 -0000, Ranger wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Sun, 13 Dec 2015 00:07:30 -0000, Ranger wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Fri, 11 Dec 2015 16:37:27 -0000, Ranger wrote:



"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 11/12/15 11:08, Ranger wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 10/12/15 19:58, The Todal wrote:
On 10/12/2015 19:33, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Thu, 10 Dec 2015 17:39:53 -0000, The Todal

wrote:

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

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


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

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


Ah, understood. Why should I help foot the bill for extra
police
security in our cities when I was firmly opposed to the Iraq
war
and
to
the proposal to bomb Syria?


Why should I foot the bill for primary education when I don't
have
children?

Because it's quite a bit cheaper to do that than to pay the much
higher cost of dealing with the dregs of country that dont
bother
to send their kids to school when it isnt free and compulsory.

Well there you go. That's essentially the same answer to the
question
"Why
should I help foot the bill for extra police security in our
cities
when
I
was firmly opposed to the Iraq war and to the proposal to bomb
Syria"

No that is a quite different question.

Because its cheaper than dealing with syria and the like by
recolonising
them and teaching them how to play nice?

That isn't even possible let alone morally acceptable.

Morality costs money.

Not necessarily.

Usually does.

I dont buy that.

For example keeping people alive who are hardened criminals instead of
the
death penalty.

That's not morality.

There's plenty examples if you think about it. All the stuff people do
because omitting it might upset someone.

That isn't really morality, more being polite.


There are plenty more serious examples where we have laws to stop you
doing things to upset folk.


Sure, but that isn't morality either.


Don't interrupt.

Like having to have disabled ramps and parking spaces when none of your
employees are disabled.


But its impossible to ensure that none of the customers
or visitors ever are, and it makes it harder for the disabled
to get employed there when the place has to consider the
substantial cost of the changes needed for them to get in.


There are not that many disabled folk about, it's stupid to have every place of employment equipped for them.

Not bombing Syria or invading Iraq actually saves a lot of money.

Pussy footing about wastes money.

Ignoring countrys that can't manage even the most
basic rule of law doesnt waste any money at all.


If we ignore them, they could take over.


Assad can't even manage to rule the roost in his own pathetic
excuse for a country, let alone take over anyone else.


Best not to take chances. Kill them all.

Yes, Saddam did invade Kuwait, and it made sense
to **** him over when he tried to do that. But it made
no sense what so ever to invade Iraq post 9/11 when
he was completely irrelevant to 9/11, at vast expense,
and produced ISIS is the process.


If we'd killed every last one, there would be no ISIS. That's the problem with morality, all this "don't kill civilians" ****. They're the enemy, kill all of them.

The most completely stupid thing the west did apart from Vietnam.


I agree on Vietnam, what danger did they pose?

If we kill them, we can use their land for us civilised folk.


Have fun listing even a single place where the west
still uses the land they got after killing some of them.

Britain got kicked out of all of them, even Ireland.


Because we didn't do it properly.

Destroying the whole country would stop the nonsense.


Not even possible. Even Genghis Khan never managed that.


We have much more money and weapons.


And have never managed anything like that anywhere.


Because of morality.

We need to stop it.


Not even possible.


Why is it not possible to stop morality?


Because some will always want to behave morally.


Some isn't a reason.


That is the reason its not possible to stop morality.


If it's a minority, we can ignore them.


They will still behave morally.


But not force the rest of us to.

Like those who think everyone should go to church.


That's not morality.


It is in their minds.

All we need is a decent government that ignores the dogooders.


That wouldnt stop moral behaviour.


It would stop it being a legal requirement.


Still wouldnt stop moral behaviour.


Plenty chose to not get divorced even when that was legal.


But we can now ignore the weird ones, and most of us can get on with a
divorce without a problem.


And plenty more aren't actually stupid enough
to bother with marriage in the first place.


Sensible people just get a certificate at a registry office. Same idea, just no religious bull****.

--
Archeologists are excited about the discovery of fossils at an excavation in Kenya that indicate man's early ancestors were walking erect over 4 million years ago.
They base this conclusion on small traces of Viagra found at the dig site.
  #138   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18
Default Flooding

Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 20:16:58 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:


"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 18:44:27 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 00:08:51 -0000, Ranger
wrote:


"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Sun, 13 Dec 2015 00:07:30 -0000, Ranger
wrote:


"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Fri, 11 Dec 2015 16:37:27 -0000, Ranger
wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in
message ...
On 11/12/15 11:08, Ranger wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in
message ...
On 10/12/15 19:58, The Todal wrote:
On 10/12/2015 19:33, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Thu, 10 Dec 2015 17:39:53 -0000, The Todal

wrote:

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

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


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

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


Ah, understood. Why should I help foot the bill for
extra police
security in our cities when I was firmly opposed to the
Iraq war
and
to
the proposal to bomb Syria?


Why should I foot the bill for primary education when I
don't have
children?

Because it's quite a bit cheaper to do that than to pay
the much higher cost of dealing with the dregs of country
that don't bother
to send their kids to school when it isnt free and
compulsory.

Well there you go. That's essentially the same answer to the
question
"Why
should I help foot the bill for extra police security in our
cities
when
I
was firmly opposed to the Iraq war and to the proposal to
bomb Syria"

No that is a quite different question.

Because its cheaper than dealing with syria and the like by
recolonising
them and teaching them how to play nice?

That isn't even possible let alone morally acceptable.

Morality costs money.

Not necessarily.

Usually does.

I don't buy that.

For example keeping people alive who are hardened criminals
instead of the
death penalty.

That's not morality.

There's plenty examples if you think about it. All the stuff
people do because omitting it might upset someone.

That isn't really morality, more being polite.

There are plenty more serious examples where we have laws to stop
you doing things to upset folk.


Sure, but that isn't morality either.


Don't interrupt.

Like having to have disabled ramps and parking spaces when none of
your employees are disabled.


But its impossible to ensure that none of the customers
or visitors ever are, and it makes it harder for the disabled
to get employed there when the place has to consider the
substantial cost of the changes needed for them to get in.


There are not that many disabled folk about, it's stupid to have
every place of employment equipped for them.
Not bombing Syria or invading Iraq actually saves a lot of money.

Pussy footing about wastes money.

Ignoring countrys that can't manage even the most
basic rule of law doesn't waste any money at all.


If we ignore them, they could take over.


Assad can't even manage to rule the roost in his own pathetic
excuse for a country, let alone take over anyone else.


Best not to take chances. Kill them all.

Yes, Saddam did invade Kuwait, and it made sense
to **** him over when he tried to do that. But it made
no sense what so ever to invade Iraq post 9/11 when
he was completely irrelevant to 9/11, at vast expense,
and produced ISIS is the process.


If we'd killed every last one, there would be no ISIS. That's the
problem with morality, all this "don't kill civilians" ****. They're
the enemy, kill all of them.
The most completely stupid thing the west did apart from Vietnam.


I agree on Vietnam, what danger did they pose?

If we kill them, we can use their land for us civilised folk.


Have fun listing even a single place where the west
still uses the land they got after killing some of them.

Britain got kicked out of all of them, even Ireland.


Because we didn't do it properly.

Destroying the whole country would stop the nonsense.


Not even possible. Even Genghis Khan never managed that.


We have much more money and weapons.


And have never managed anything like that anywhere.


Because of morality.

We need to stop it.


Not even possible.


Why is it not possible to stop morality?


Because some will always want to behave morally.


Some isn't a reason.


That is the reason its not possible to stop morality.


If it's a minority, we can ignore them.


They will still behave morally.


But not force the rest of us to.

Like those who think everyone should go to church.


That's not morality.


It is in their minds.

All we need is a decent government that ignores the dogooders.


That wouldn't stop moral behaviour.


It would stop it being a legal requirement.


Still wouldn't stop moral behaviour.


Plenty chose to not get divorced even when that was legal.


But we can now ignore the weird ones, and most of us can get on
with a divorce without a problem.


And plenty more aren't actually stupid enough
to bother with marriage in the first place.


Sensible people just get a certificate at a registry office. Same
idea, just no religious bull****.



1) A person needs to find a person to marry.
2) You can't because no woman will entertain a poverty unemployable smelly
****** such as you are.
3) Marriage is a legal agreement.
4) You are too stupid to understand this.
5) **** off and die phucker.


  #139   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 40,893
Default Flooding

Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote
Ranger wrote
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote
Ranger wrote
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote
Ranger wrote
The Natural Philosopher wrote
Ranger wrote
The Natural Philosopher wrote
The Todal wrote
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote
The Todal wrote
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote


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


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


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


Ah, understood. Why should I help foot the bill for extra
police security in our cities when I was firmly opposed to
the Iraq war and to the proposal to bomb Syria?


Why should I foot the bill for primary education when I don't
have children?


Because it's quite a bit cheaper to do that than to pay the
much
higher cost of dealing with the dregs of country that dont
bother
to send their kids to school when it isnt free and compulsory.


Well there you go. That's essentially the same answer to the
question "Why should I help foot the bill for extra police
security in our cities when I was firmly opposed to the Iraq war
and to the proposal to bomb Syria"


No that is a quite different question.


Because its cheaper than dealing with syria and the like by
recolonising them and teaching them how to play nice?


That isn't even possible let alone morally acceptable.


Morality costs money.


Not necessarily.


Usually does.


I dont buy that.


For example keeping people alive who are hardened criminals instead
of the death penalty.


That's not morality.


There's plenty examples if you think about it. All the stuff people
do because omitting it might upset someone.


That isn't really morality, more being polite.


There are plenty more serious examples where we have laws to stop you
doing things to upset folk.


Sure, but that isn't morality either.


Don't interrupt.


Go and **** yourself, again.

Like having to have disabled ramps and parking spaces when none of your
employees are disabled.


But it's impossible to ensure that none of the customers
or visitors ever are, and it makes it harder for the disabled
to get employed there when the place has to consider the
substantial cost of the changes needed for them to get in.


There are not that many disabled folk about,


Yes.

it's stupid to have every place of employment equipped for them.


Every place of employment isn't.

Not bombing Syria or invading Iraq actually saves a lot of money.


Pussy footing about wastes money.


Ignoring countrys that can't manage even the most
basic rule of law doesnt waste any money at all.


If we ignore them, they could take over.


Assad can't even manage to rule the roost in his own pathetic
excuse for a country, let alone take over anyone else.


Best not to take chances. Kill them all.


Not even possible. And would produce even more ISIS
if the west was actually stupid enough to try that.

Yes, Saddam did invade Kuwait, and it made sense
to **** him over when he tried to do that. But it made
no sense what so ever to invade Iraq post 9/11 when
he was completely irrelevant to 9/11, at vast expense,
and produced ISIS is the process.


If we'd killed every last one,


Not even possible. Even Genghis Khan never managed that.

there would be no ISIS.


Wrong, as always. Doing that would produce
more of them in the ones you couldnt kill.

That's the problem with morality, all this "don't kill civilians" ****.
They're the enemy, kill all of them.


Not even possible.

The most completely stupid thing the west did apart from Vietnam.


I agree on Vietnam, what danger did they pose?


Iraq posed no danger either.

Syria in spades.

If we kill them, we can use their land for us civilised folk.


Have fun listing even a single place where the west
still uses the land they got after killing some of them.


Britain got kicked out of all of them, even Ireland.


Because we didn't do it properly.


No one else ever did either, even Genghis Khan even tho
he went a lot further in that regard than anyone else did.

Destroying the whole country would stop the nonsense.


Not even possible. Even Genghis Khan never managed that.


We have much more money and weapons.


And have never managed anything like that anywhere.


Because of morality.


Nope, because its not even possible.

We need to stop it.


Not even possible.


Why is it not possible to stop morality?


Because some will always want to behave morally.


Some isn't a reason.


That is the reason its not possible to stop morality.


If it's a minority, we can ignore them.


They will still behave morally.


But not force the rest of us to.


They dont force anyone to do that now.

We dont even have compulsory attendance in church anymore.

You fools were actually stupid enough to try that at one time.

Like those who think everyone should go to church.


That's not morality.


It is in their minds.


Nope.

All we need is a decent government that ignores the dogooders.


That wouldnt stop moral behaviour.


It would stop it being a legal requirement.


Still wouldnt stop moral behaviour.


Plenty chose to not get divorced even when that was legal.


But we can now ignore the weird ones, and most of us can get on with a
divorce without a problem.


And plenty more aren't actually stupid enough
to bother with marriage in the first place.


Sensible people just get a certificate at a registry office.


Sensible people dont even bother with that anymore.

Same idea, just no religious bull****.


And just as stupid, complete waste of time.

Why let the state have any say on anything like that ?

  #140   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,910
Default Flooding

On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 21:08:12 -0000, The Brain the wrote:

Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 20:16:58 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:


"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 18:44:27 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 00:08:51 -0000, Ranger
wrote:


"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Sun, 13 Dec 2015 00:07:30 -0000, Ranger
wrote:


"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Fri, 11 Dec 2015 16:37:27 -0000, Ranger
wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in
message ...
On 11/12/15 11:08, Ranger wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in
message ...
On 10/12/15 19:58, The Todal wrote:
On 10/12/2015 19:33, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Thu, 10 Dec 2015 17:39:53 -0000, The Todal

wrote:

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

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


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

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


Ah, understood. Why should I help foot the bill for
extra police
security in our cities when I was firmly opposed to the
Iraq war
and
to
the proposal to bomb Syria?


Why should I foot the bill for primary education when I
don't have
children?

Because it's quite a bit cheaper to do that than to pay
the much higher cost of dealing with the dregs of country
that don't bother
to send their kids to school when it isnt free and
compulsory.

Well there you go. That's essentially the same answer to the
question
"Why
should I help foot the bill for extra police security in our
cities
when
I
was firmly opposed to the Iraq war and to the proposal to
bomb Syria"

No that is a quite different question.

Because its cheaper than dealing with syria and the like by
recolonising
them and teaching them how to play nice?

That isn't even possible let alone morally acceptable.

Morality costs money.

Not necessarily.

Usually does.

I don't buy that.

For example keeping people alive who are hardened criminals
instead of the
death penalty.

That's not morality.

There's plenty examples if you think about it. All the stuff
people do because omitting it might upset someone.

That isn't really morality, more being polite.

There are plenty more serious examples where we have laws to stop
you doing things to upset folk.

Sure, but that isn't morality either.


Don't interrupt.

Like having to have disabled ramps and parking spaces when none of
your employees are disabled.

But its impossible to ensure that none of the customers
or visitors ever are, and it makes it harder for the disabled
to get employed there when the place has to consider the
substantial cost of the changes needed for them to get in.


There are not that many disabled folk about, it's stupid to have
every place of employment equipped for them.
Not bombing Syria or invading Iraq actually saves a lot of money.

Pussy footing about wastes money.

Ignoring countrys that can't manage even the most
basic rule of law doesn't waste any money at all.

If we ignore them, they could take over.

Assad can't even manage to rule the roost in his own pathetic
excuse for a country, let alone take over anyone else.


Best not to take chances. Kill them all.

Yes, Saddam did invade Kuwait, and it made sense
to **** him over when he tried to do that. But it made
no sense what so ever to invade Iraq post 9/11 when
he was completely irrelevant to 9/11, at vast expense,
and produced ISIS is the process.


If we'd killed every last one, there would be no ISIS. That's the
problem with morality, all this "don't kill civilians" ****. They're
the enemy, kill all of them.
The most completely stupid thing the west did apart from Vietnam.


I agree on Vietnam, what danger did they pose?

If we kill them, we can use their land for us civilised folk.

Have fun listing even a single place where the west
still uses the land they got after killing some of them.

Britain got kicked out of all of them, even Ireland.


Because we didn't do it properly.

Destroying the whole country would stop the nonsense.

Not even possible. Even Genghis Khan never managed that.

We have much more money and weapons.

And have never managed anything like that anywhere.


Because of morality.

We need to stop it.

Not even possible.

Why is it not possible to stop morality?

Because some will always want to behave morally.

Some isn't a reason.

That is the reason its not possible to stop morality.

If it's a minority, we can ignore them.

They will still behave morally.


But not force the rest of us to.

Like those who think everyone should go to church.

That's not morality.


It is in their minds.

All we need is a decent government that ignores the dogooders.

That wouldn't stop moral behaviour.

It would stop it being a legal requirement.

Still wouldn't stop moral behaviour.

Plenty chose to not get divorced even when that was legal.

But we can now ignore the weird ones, and most of us can get on
with a divorce without a problem.

And plenty more aren't actually stupid enough
to bother with marriage in the first place.


Sensible people just get a certificate at a registry office. Same
idea, just no religious bull****.



1) A person needs to find a person to marry.


Yes.

2) You can't because no woman will entertain a poverty unemployable smelly
****** such as you are.


Or I haven't found anyone worthy.

3) Marriage is a legal agreement.


Which means you are both responsible for the council tax.

4) You are too stupid to understand this.


You've just proved you can't.

5) **** off and die phucker.


Oh my god, you made a pun!

--
Peter is listening to "Hollywood Undead - Turn Out The Lights"


  #141   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 39,563
Default Flooding

On 14/12/15 21:08, The Brain wrote:
Sensible people just get a certificate at a registry office. Same
idea, just no religious bull****.


1) A person needs to find a person to marry.
2) You can't because no woman will entertain a poverty unemployable smelly
****** such as you are.
3) Marriage is a legal agreement.
4) You are too stupid to understand this.
5) **** off and die phucker.


Sensible people avoid getting married.


--
the biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.
  #142   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,910
Default Flooding

On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 21:18:17 -0000, Rod Speed wrote:

Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote
Ranger wrote
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote
Ranger wrote
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote
Ranger wrote
The Natural Philosopher wrote
Ranger wrote
The Natural Philosopher wrote
The Todal wrote
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote
The Todal wrote
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote


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


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


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


Ah, understood. Why should I help foot the bill for extra
police security in our cities when I was firmly opposed to
the Iraq war and to the proposal to bomb Syria?


Why should I foot the bill for primary education when I don't
have children?


Because it's quite a bit cheaper to do that than to pay the
much
higher cost of dealing with the dregs of country that dont
bother
to send their kids to school when it isnt free and compulsory.


Well there you go. That's essentially the same answer to the
question "Why should I help foot the bill for extra police
security in our cities when I was firmly opposed to the Iraq war
and to the proposal to bomb Syria"


No that is a quite different question.


Because its cheaper than dealing with syria and the like by
recolonising them and teaching them how to play nice?


That isn't even possible let alone morally acceptable.


Morality costs money.


Not necessarily.


Usually does.


I dont buy that.


For example keeping people alive who are hardened criminals instead
of the death penalty.


That's not morality.


There's plenty examples if you think about it. All the stuff people
do because omitting it might upset someone.


That isn't really morality, more being polite.


There are plenty more serious examples where we have laws to stop you
doing things to upset folk.


Sure, but that isn't morality either.


Don't interrupt.


Go and **** yourself, again.


Reply properly you silly little troll.

Like having to have disabled ramps and parking spaces when none of your
employees are disabled.


But it's impossible to ensure that none of the customers
or visitors ever are, and it makes it harder for the disabled
to get employed there when the place has to consider the
substantial cost of the changes needed for them to get in.


There are not that many disabled folk about,


Yes.

it's stupid to have every place of employment equipped for them.


Every place of employment isn't.


Have to by law.

Not bombing Syria or invading Iraq actually saves a lot of money..


Pussy footing about wastes money.


Ignoring countrys that can't manage even the most
basic rule of law doesnt waste any money at all.


If we ignore them, they could take over.


Assad can't even manage to rule the roost in his own pathetic
excuse for a country, let alone take over anyone else.


Best not to take chances. Kill them all.


Not even possible.


Why not?

And would produce even more ISIS
if the west was actually stupid enough to try that.


They can't produce if they're all dead.

Yes, Saddam did invade Kuwait, and it made sense
to **** him over when he tried to do that. But it made
no sense what so ever to invade Iraq post 9/11 when
he was completely irrelevant to 9/11, at vast expense,
and produced ISIS is the process.


If we'd killed every last one,


Not even possible. Even Genghis Khan never managed that.


But we have lots of weapons and allies.

there would be no ISIS.


Wrong, as always. Doing that would produce
more of them in the ones you couldnt kill.


Then make bloody sure you decimate the whole of their land.

The most completely stupid thing the west did apart from Vietnam.


I agree on Vietnam, what danger did they pose?


Iraq posed no danger either.

Syria in spades.


Religious morons, we don't want them on our planet.

We need to stop it.


Not even possible.


Why is it not possible to stop morality?


Because some will always want to behave morally.


Some isn't a reason.


That is the reason its not possible to stop morality.


If it's a minority, we can ignore them.


They will still behave morally.


But not force the rest of us to.


They dont force anyone to do that now.

We dont even have compulsory attendance in church anymore.

You fools were actually stupid enough to try that at one time.


There's plenty other moral stuff we're forced to do, like not spank our own kids.

Like those who think everyone should go to church.


That's not morality.


It is in their minds.


Nope.


Yip, religious nuts want everyone to be holy.

All we need is a decent government that ignores the dogooders.


That wouldnt stop moral behaviour.


It would stop it being a legal requirement.


Still wouldnt stop moral behaviour.


Plenty chose to not get divorced even when that was legal.


But we can now ignore the weird ones, and most of us can get on with a
divorce without a problem.


And plenty more aren't actually stupid enough
to bother with marriage in the first place.


Sensible people just get a certificate at a registry office.


Sensible people dont even bother with that anymore.


It helps legally when buying houses or getting bank accounts or something.

--
Two blondes living in Oklahoma were sitting on a bench talking, and one blonde says to the other, "Which do you think is farther away... Florida or the moon?"
The other blonde turns and says "Helloooooooooo, can you see Florida ?????"
  #143   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18
Default Flooding

Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 21:08:12 -0000, The Brain the
wrote:
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 20:16:58 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:


"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 18:44:27 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 00:08:51 -0000, Ranger
wrote:


"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Sun, 13 Dec 2015 00:07:30 -0000, Ranger
wrote:


"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Fri, 11 Dec 2015 16:37:27 -0000, Ranger
wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in
message ...
On 11/12/15 11:08, Ranger wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in
message ...
On 10/12/15 19:58, The Todal wrote:
On 10/12/2015 19:33, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Thu, 10 Dec 2015 17:39:53 -0000, The Todal

wrote:

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

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


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

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


Ah, understood. Why should I help foot the bill for
extra police
security in our cities when I was firmly opposed to the
Iraq war
and
to
the proposal to bomb Syria?


Why should I foot the bill for primary education when I
don't have
children?

Because it's quite a bit cheaper to do that than to pay
the much higher cost of dealing with the dregs of country
that don't bother
to send their kids to school when it isnt free and
compulsory.

Well there you go. That's essentially the same answer to
the question
"Why
should I help foot the bill for extra police security in
our cities
when
I
was firmly opposed to the Iraq war and to the proposal to
bomb Syria"

No that is a quite different question.

Because its cheaper than dealing with syria and the like
by recolonising
them and teaching them how to play nice?

That isn't even possible let alone morally acceptable.

Morality costs money.

Not necessarily.

Usually does.

I don't buy that.

For example keeping people alive who are hardened criminals
instead of the
death penalty.

That's not morality.

There's plenty examples if you think about it. All the stuff
people do because omitting it might upset someone.

That isn't really morality, more being polite.

There are plenty more serious examples where we have laws to stop
you doing things to upset folk.

Sure, but that isn't morality either.

Don't interrupt.

Like having to have disabled ramps and parking spaces when none of
your employees are disabled.

But its impossible to ensure that none of the customers
or visitors ever are, and it makes it harder for the disabled
to get employed there when the place has to consider the
substantial cost of the changes needed for them to get in.

There are not that many disabled folk about, it's stupid to have
every place of employment equipped for them.
Not bombing Syria or invading Iraq actually saves a lot of
money.

Pussy footing about wastes money.

Ignoring countrys that can't manage even the most
basic rule of law doesn't waste any money at all.

If we ignore them, they could take over.

Assad can't even manage to rule the roost in his own pathetic
excuse for a country, let alone take over anyone else.

Best not to take chances. Kill them all.

Yes, Saddam did invade Kuwait, and it made sense
to **** him over when he tried to do that. But it made
no sense what so ever to invade Iraq post 9/11 when
he was completely irrelevant to 9/11, at vast expense,
and produced ISIS is the process.

If we'd killed every last one, there would be no ISIS. That's the
problem with morality, all this "don't kill civilians" ****. They're the
enemy, kill all of them.
The most completely stupid thing the west did apart from Vietnam.

I agree on Vietnam, what danger did they pose?

If we kill them, we can use their land for us civilised folk.

Have fun listing even a single place where the west
still uses the land they got after killing some of them.

Britain got kicked out of all of them, even Ireland.

Because we didn't do it properly.

Destroying the whole country would stop the nonsense.

Not even possible. Even Genghis Khan never managed that.

We have much more money and weapons.

And have never managed anything like that anywhere.

Because of morality.

We need to stop it.

Not even possible.

Why is it not possible to stop morality?

Because some will always want to behave morally.

Some isn't a reason.

That is the reason its not possible to stop morality.

If it's a minority, we can ignore them.

They will still behave morally.

But not force the rest of us to.

Like those who think everyone should go to church.

That's not morality.

It is in their minds.

All we need is a decent government that ignores the dogooders.

That wouldn't stop moral behaviour.

It would stop it being a legal requirement.

Still wouldn't stop moral behaviour.

Plenty chose to not get divorced even when that was legal.

But we can now ignore the weird ones, and most of us can get on
with a divorce without a problem.

And plenty more aren't actually stupid enough
to bother with marriage in the first place.

Sensible people just get a certificate at a registry office. Same
idea, just no religious bull****.



1) A person needs to find a person to marry.


Yes.

2) You can't because no woman will entertain a poverty unemployable
smelly ****** such as you are.


Or I haven't found anyone worthy.

PMSL.
41 year old unemployed failure.
41 years of age and without a female companion.
Think about that.
What a ******.
Please reply and keep your **** take active.
It's cold outside and we need to be entertained by the Usenet clown.






  #144   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,910
Default Flooding

On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 22:16:01 -0000, The Brain the wrote:

Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 21:08:12 -0000, The Brain the
wrote:
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 20:16:58 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:


"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 18:44:27 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 00:08:51 -0000, Ranger
wrote:


"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Sun, 13 Dec 2015 00:07:30 -0000, Ranger
wrote:


"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Fri, 11 Dec 2015 16:37:27 -0000, Ranger
wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in
message ...
On 11/12/15 11:08, Ranger wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in
message ...
On 10/12/15 19:58, The Todal wrote:
On 10/12/2015 19:33, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Thu, 10 Dec 2015 17:39:53 -0000, The Todal

wrote:

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

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


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

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


Ah, understood. Why should I help foot the bill for
extra police
security in our cities when I was firmly opposed to the
Iraq war
and
to
the proposal to bomb Syria?


Why should I foot the bill for primary education when I
don't have
children?

Because it's quite a bit cheaper to do that than to pay
the much higher cost of dealing with the dregs of country
that don't bother
to send their kids to school when it isnt free and
compulsory.

Well there you go. That's essentially the same answer to
the question
"Why
should I help foot the bill for extra police security in
our cities
when
I
was firmly opposed to the Iraq war and to the proposal to
bomb Syria"

No that is a quite different question.

Because its cheaper than dealing with syria and the like
by recolonising
them and teaching them how to play nice?

That isn't even possible let alone morally acceptable.

Morality costs money.

Not necessarily.

Usually does.

I don't buy that.

For example keeping people alive who are hardened criminals
instead of the
death penalty.

That's not morality.

There's plenty examples if you think about it. All the stuff
people do because omitting it might upset someone.

That isn't really morality, more being polite.

There are plenty more serious examples where we have laws to stop
you doing things to upset folk.

Sure, but that isn't morality either.

Don't interrupt.

Like having to have disabled ramps and parking spaces when none of
your employees are disabled.

But its impossible to ensure that none of the customers
or visitors ever are, and it makes it harder for the disabled
to get employed there when the place has to consider the
substantial cost of the changes needed for them to get in.

There are not that many disabled folk about, it's stupid to have
every place of employment equipped for them.
Not bombing Syria or invading Iraq actually saves a lot of
money.

Pussy footing about wastes money.

Ignoring countrys that can't manage even the most
basic rule of law doesn't waste any money at all.

If we ignore them, they could take over.

Assad can't even manage to rule the roost in his own pathetic
excuse for a country, let alone take over anyone else.

Best not to take chances. Kill them all.

Yes, Saddam did invade Kuwait, and it made sense
to **** him over when he tried to do that. But it made
no sense what so ever to invade Iraq post 9/11 when
he was completely irrelevant to 9/11, at vast expense,
and produced ISIS is the process.

If we'd killed every last one, there would be no ISIS. That's the
problem with morality, all this "don't kill civilians" ****. They're the
enemy, kill all of them.
The most completely stupid thing the west did apart from Vietnam.

I agree on Vietnam, what danger did they pose?

If we kill them, we can use their land for us civilised folk.

Have fun listing even a single place where the west
still uses the land they got after killing some of them.

Britain got kicked out of all of them, even Ireland.

Because we didn't do it properly.

Destroying the whole country would stop the nonsense.

Not even possible. Even Genghis Khan never managed that.

We have much more money and weapons.

And have never managed anything like that anywhere.

Because of morality.

We need to stop it.

Not even possible.

Why is it not possible to stop morality?

Because some will always want to behave morally.

Some isn't a reason.

That is the reason its not possible to stop morality.

If it's a minority, we can ignore them.

They will still behave morally.

But not force the rest of us to.

Like those who think everyone should go to church.

That's not morality.

It is in their minds.

All we need is a decent government that ignores the dogooders.

That wouldn't stop moral behaviour.

It would stop it being a legal requirement.

Still wouldn't stop moral behaviour.

Plenty chose to not get divorced even when that was legal.

But we can now ignore the weird ones, and most of us can get on
with a divorce without a problem.

And plenty more aren't actually stupid enough
to bother with marriage in the first place.

Sensible people just get a certificate at a registry office. Same
idea, just no religious bull****.


1) A person needs to find a person to marry.


Yes.

2) You can't because no woman will entertain a poverty unemployable
smelly ****** such as you are.


Or I haven't found anyone worthy.

PMSL.
41 year old unemployed failure.


Age wrong.

41 years of age and without a female companion.
Think about that.


Already been explained to you.

What a ******.
Please reply and keep your **** take active.
It's cold outside and we need to be entertained by the Usenet clown.


Can't you afford a house?

--
"His idea of safe sex is an `X' spray-painted on the rump of animals that are known to kick."
  #145   Report Post  
Posted to uk.legal,uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,910
Default Flooding

On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 00:31:39 -0000, Rod Speed wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 10 Dec 2015 21:08:10 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:

Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote

I see floods all over the news.

I told you it was a soggy little island.

Yes, and especially so just now, rain almost every
day for 2 months. The tail end of three hurricanes.

It'll soon be the frigid soggy little island
I keep reminding you it has always been.


What, no global warming? :-)


The climate has always varied.


Exactly.

How much of the variation that has happened has
been due to the activity of man is much harder to say.

Very little IMO, although it is clear that major citys
do produce heat islands etc. It would be a hell of a
lot more surprising if they didn't given the immense
amount of energy that is pumped into them.


If you look at the statistics you'll find we've affected it by **** all.

Why should sensible people like me who didn't buy a house
in a flood plain have to foot the bill for those that did?


Because that's the way it works.


That doesn't answer "why".


Because that's what gets the current crew marginally
better prospects of getting elected again, stupid.


Funny how they frequently do things that annoy most of the public.


When they annoy them enough, and the alternative govt looks
like it will annoy them less, they get the bums rush at the ballot
box in the next election. That's why Labour got the bums rush.

Sometimes the voters just decide that the current crew
has been driving the bus for long enough and that its
time to see if the alternate crew can do any better.


Except they choose the ones they hated only two elections ago. Why not try a third one?

The government is paying millions to "victims" of flood.


They pay millions to those like you who were too stupid
to work out what qualifications would get you a job too.


Not getting a job is the government's fault,


Nope, the fault of those too stupid to get
qualified in an area where there are plenty of
jobs that they have to use immigrants to fill.


Stop the immigrants, then we could work there.


You couldn't because you were too stupid to get
qualified in one of the areas where immigrants
had enough of a clue to get qualified and show
up there like with health care.


Immigrants don't have qualifications. They do bricklaying.

buying a house in the wrong place is entirely your own fault.


Not when the govt is stupid enough to allow house to be built there.


Doesn't matter, if nobody bought flood plain houses, the builders wouldn't
put them there, because they'd never sell them.


There will always be some that can only afford the cheaper places on the
flood plane.


But the builder has made less money.

Anyway, have they never heard of house insurance?


Have you never heard of getting qualified in an area where
there are jobs or moving to somewhere where there are jobs ?


Why would I want to live in a noisy congested city with a house costing 5
times as much for half the size?


You don't have to do that. You could have got qualified
as a teacher


I have teacher friends, they hate their jobs.

or in health care and 'live' where you do now.


Working in health care is not fun.

--
They have Mother's day for Mother's and Father's day for Father's -- so what do they have for Single Men?
Palm Sunday


  #146   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 40,893
Default Flooding

Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote
Ranger wrote
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote
Ranger wrote
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote
Ranger wrote
The Natural Philosopher wrote
Ranger wrote
The Natural Philosopher wrote
The Todal wrote
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote
The Todal wrote
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote


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


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


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


Ah, understood. Why should I help foot the bill for extra
police security in our cities when I was firmly opposed to
the Iraq war and to the proposal to bomb Syria?


Why should I foot the bill for primary education when I
don't
have children?


Because it's quite a bit cheaper to do that than to pay the
much
higher cost of dealing with the dregs of country that dont
bother
to send their kids to school when it isnt free and
compulsory.


Well there you go. That's essentially the same answer to the
question "Why should I help foot the bill for extra police
security in our cities when I was firmly opposed to the Iraq
war
and to the proposal to bomb Syria"


No that is a quite different question.


Because its cheaper than dealing with syria and the like by
recolonising them and teaching them how to play nice?


That isn't even possible let alone morally acceptable.


Morality costs money.


Not necessarily.


Usually does.


I dont buy that.


For example keeping people alive who are hardened criminals
instead of the death penalty.


That's not morality.


There's plenty examples if you think about it. All the stuff people
do because omitting it might upset someone.


That isn't really morality, more being polite.


There are plenty more serious examples where we have laws to stop you
doing things to upset folk.


Sure, but that isn't morality either.


Don't interrupt.


Go and **** yourself, again.


Reply properly you silly little troll.


Go and **** yourself, again.

Like having to have disabled ramps and parking spaces when none of
your employees are disabled.


But it's impossible to ensure that none of the customers
or visitors ever are, and it makes it harder for the disabled
to get employed there when the place has to consider the
substantial cost of the changes needed for them to get in.


There are not that many disabled folk about,


Yes.


it's stupid to have every place of employment equipped for them.


Every place of employment isn't.


Have to by law.


Wrong, as always.

Not bombing Syria or invading Iraq actually saves a lot of money.


Pussy footing about wastes money.


Ignoring countrys that can't manage even the most
basic rule of law doesnt waste any money at all.


If we ignore them, they could take over.


Assad can't even manage to rule the roost in his own pathetic
excuse for a country, let alone take over anyone else.


Best not to take chances. Kill them all.


Not even possible.


Why not?


No way to do that.

And would produce even more ISIS if the west was actually stupid enough
to try that.


They can't produce if they're all dead.


Not possible to kill all moslems world wide.

Yes, Saddam did invade Kuwait, and it made sense
to **** him over when he tried to do that. But it made
no sense what so ever to invade Iraq post 9/11 when
he was completely irrelevant to 9/11, at vast expense,
and produced ISIS is the process.


If we'd killed every last one,


Not even possible. Even Genghis Khan never managed that.


But we have lots of weapons


Nowhere near enough to do that.

and allies.


None of which would be stupid enough to try that.

there would be no ISIS.


Wrong, as always. Doing that would produce
more of them in the ones you couldnt kill.


Then make bloody sure you decimate the whole of their land.


Killing one in 10 of them would produce
a lot more ISIS than not doing that would.

The most completely stupid thing the west did apart from Vietnam.


I agree on Vietnam, what danger did they pose?


Iraq posed no danger either.


Syria in spades.


Religious morons, we don't want them on our planet.


Just how many of you are there between those ears ?

We need to stop it.


Not even possible.


Why is it not possible to stop morality?


Because some will always want to behave morally.


Some isn't a reason.


That is the reason its not possible to stop morality.


If it's a minority, we can ignore them.


They will still behave morally.


But not force the rest of us to.


They dont force anyone to do that now.


We dont even have compulsory attendance in church anymore.


You fools were actually stupid enough to try that at one time.


There's plenty other moral stuff we're forced to do, like not spank our
own kids.


We are free to spank ours.

Like those who think everyone should go to church.


That's not morality.


It is in their minds.


Nope.


Yip, religious nuts want everyone to be holy.


None of the ones I know do and
that includes a couple of ministers.

All we need is a decent government that ignores the dogooders.


That wouldnt stop moral behaviour.


It would stop it being a legal requirement.


Still wouldnt stop moral behaviour.


Plenty chose to not get divorced even when that was legal.


But we can now ignore the weird ones, and most of us can get on with a
divorce without a problem.


And plenty more aren't actually stupid enough
to bother with marriage in the first place.


Sensible people just get a certificate at a registry office.


Sensible people dont even bother with that anymore.


It helps legally when buying houses


Nope.

or getting bank accounts


Nope.

or something.


The only thing it does actually help with is ensures
that the other party gets the assets if you are actually
stupid enough to die without a will and a few other
details like that.

Doesnt come even close to being worth it to let
the state have any say what so ever on anything
at all and the rigmarole involved if you decide
it doesnt make any sense anymore etc.


  #147   Report Post  
Posted to uk.legal,uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 40,893
Default Flooding



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 00:31:39 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 10 Dec 2015 21:08:10 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:

Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote

I see floods all over the news.

I told you it was a soggy little island.

Yes, and especially so just now, rain almost every
day for 2 months. The tail end of three hurricanes.

It'll soon be the frigid soggy little island
I keep reminding you it has always been.

What, no global warming? :-)


The climate has always varied.


Exactly.

How much of the variation that has happened has
been due to the activity of man is much harder to say.

Very little IMO, although it is clear that major citys
do produce heat islands etc. It would be a hell of a
lot more surprising if they didn't given the immense
amount of energy that is pumped into them.


If you look at the statistics you'll find we've affected it by **** all.

Why should sensible people like me who didn't buy a house
in a flood plain have to foot the bill for those that did?


Because that's the way it works.


That doesn't answer "why".


Because that's what gets the current crew marginally
better prospects of getting elected again, stupid.


Funny how they frequently do things that annoy most of the public.


When they annoy them enough, and the alternative govt looks
like it will annoy them less, they get the bums rush at the ballot
box in the next election. That's why Labour got the bums rush.

Sometimes the voters just decide that the current crew
has been driving the bus for long enough and that its
time to see if the alternate crew can do any better.


Except they choose the ones they hated only two elections ago.


Most don't hate any of them. Just prefer
one over another at a particular election.

Why not try a third one?


Coz all the alternatives are even worse.

The government is paying millions to "victims" of flood.


They pay millions to those like you who were too stupid
to work out what qualifications would get you a job too.


Not getting a job is the government's fault,


Nope, the fault of those too stupid to get
qualified in an area where there are plenty of
jobs that they have to use immigrants to fill.


Stop the immigrants, then we could work there.


You couldn't because you were too stupid to get
qualified in one of the areas where immigrants
had enough of a clue to get qualified and show
up there like with health care.


Immigrants don't have qualifications.


Plenty of them do, most obviously in health care
and plenty of engineers and scientists etc etc etc too.

They do bricklaying.


**** all do bricklaying.

buying a house in the wrong place is entirely your own fault.


Not when the govt is stupid enough to allow house to be built there.


Doesn't matter, if nobody bought flood plain houses, the builders
wouldn't
put them there, because they'd never sell them.


There will always be some that can only afford the cheaper places on the
flood plane.


But the builder has made less money.


That's the builder's problem.

Anyway, have they never heard of house insurance?


Have you never heard of getting qualified in an area where
there are jobs or moving to somewhere where there are jobs ?


Why would I want to live in a noisy congested city with a house costing
5
times as much for half the size?


You don't have to do that. You could have got qualified
as a teacher


I have teacher friends,


I do too.

they hate their jobs.


None of those I know do.

or in health care and 'live' where you do now.


Working in health care is not fun.


Your problem.

  #148   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y,uk.legal
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,910
Default Flooding

On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 07:13:45 -0000, Brian Reay wrote:

Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Thu, 10 Dec 2015 17:04:43 -0000, Rod Speed wrote:

Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote

I see floods all over the news.

I told you it was a soggy little island.


Yes, and especially so just now, rain almost every day for 2 months. The
tail end of three hurricanes. I guess somewhere like America is getting blown to bits.

Why should sensible people like me who didn't buy a house
in a flood plain have to foot the bill for those that did?

Because that's the way it works.


That doesn't answer "why".

The government is paying millions to "victims" of flood.

They pay millions to those like you who were too stupid
to work out what qualifications would get you a job too.


Not getting a job is the government's fault,


Rubbish.


Divide the work by the people available, it's what you'd do if you were on say a large expedition and needed tents/latrines/etc built.

buying a house in the wrong place is entirely your own fault.


Huge areas have been flooded in recent years, not just the odd place.

Such floods do happen from time to time, eg in the 50s when part of the
east coast was flooded and a number of people died. This eventually led to
the building of the Thames barrier.


It's not rocket surgery to pick a place that's impossible to flood. You don't just buy something because it's never flooded before, you look at the surrounding land and water and think, "Could that end up on my house?"

Anyway, have they never heard of house insurance?


If you've been flooded before, flood insurance is very expensive, assuming
it is even available.


If you're in a house which has flooded before, you're a prize idiot. Intelligent people learn from their mistakes.

--
User has insufficient intelligence to complete this task, please insert a new user.
  #149   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y,uk.legal
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 40,893
Default Flooding

Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote
Brian Reay wrote
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote


I see floods all over the news.


I told you it was a soggy little island.


Yes, and especially so just now, rain almost every
day for 2 months. The tail end of three hurricanes.
I guess somewhere like America is getting blown to bits.


Why should sensible people like me who didn't buy a house
in a flood plain have to foot the bill for those that did?


Because that's the way it works.


That doesn't answer "why".


The government is paying millions to "victims" of flood.


They pay millions to those like you who were too stupid
to work out what qualifications would get you a job too.


Not getting a job is the government's fault,


Rubbish.


Divide the work by the people available,


Not even possible when fool like you turn their nose
up at the sort of work available in the sort of place
you choose to 'live' and are actually stupid enough
to demand that the govt provide a job that a degree
in physics or digital microelectronics is useful for, in
a place where no employer with even half a clue to
choose to base an operation that needs people
with those qualifications.

And its only a communist govt that is actually stupid
enough to even try to do anything like that, And we
have seen how well they do compared with govts
that aren't that stupid.

it's what you'd do if you were on say a large
expedition and needed tents/latrines/etc built.


But doesn't work for entire countrys/economys.

buying a house in the wrong place is entirely your own fault.


Huge areas have been flooded in recent years, not just the odd place.


Such floods do happen from time to time, eg in the 50s when
part of the east coast was flooded and a number of people
died. This eventually led to the building of the Thames barrier.


It's not rocket surgery to pick a place that's impossible to flood.


Yes, but there is a tad of a shortage of those.

You don't just buy something because it's never flooded
before, you look at the surrounding land and water and
think, "Could that end up on my house?"


Pity that there is a tad of a shortage of that sort of place.

Anyway, have they never heard of house insurance?


You have previously proclaimed that it's a complete waste of money.

If you've been flooded before, flood insurance
is very expensive, assuming it is even available.


If you're in a house which has flooded before, you're a prize idiot.


Depends on whether there has been extensive
antiflood systems put in place since then.

Intelligent people learn from their mistakes.


You didn't with what you were silly enough to get qualified in.
  #150   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y,uk.legal
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 40,893
Default Flooding



"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 07:13:45 -0000, Brian Reay wrote:

Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Thu, 10 Dec 2015 17:04:43 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:

Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote

I see floods all over the news.

I told you it was a soggy little island.

Yes, and especially so just now, rain almost every day for 2 months.
The
tail end of three hurricanes. I guess somewhere like America is
getting blown to bits.

Why should sensible people like me who didn't buy a house
in a flood plain have to foot the bill for those that did?

Because that's the way it works.

That doesn't answer "why".

The government is paying millions to "victims" of flood.

They pay millions to those like you who were too stupid
to work out what qualifications would get you a job too.

Not getting a job is the government's fault,

Rubbish.


Divide the work by the people available, it's what you'd do if you were
on say a large expedition and needed tents/latrines/etc built.

buying a house in the wrong place is entirely your own fault.

Huge areas have been flooded in recent years, not just the odd place.

Such floods do happen from time to time, eg in the 50s when part of the
east coast was flooded and a number of people died. This eventually led
to
the building of the Thames barrier.


It's not rocket surgery to pick a place that's impossible to flood. You
don't just buy something because it's never flooded before, you look at
the surrounding land and water and think, "Could that end up on my
house?"


There is no where impossible to flood.


Bull****. There are plenty of places up on a hill that will never flood.

I will ever be affected by rising sea levels either
given that my house is 500' above mean sea level.

A friend of mine was flooded recently. He is miles from
any river etc. and on high ground. But, heavy rain led to his
ground floor being flooded to a depth of a couple of feet.


Perfectly possible to design the house so that that can't happen.

If the people who designed the Thames Barrier got it wrong, most of
central London is at risk, or perhaps parts of Kent and Essex, depending
on what they got wrong. Should all the people in those areas move out?


Anyway, have they never heard of house insurance?

If you've been flooded before, flood insurance is very expensive,
assuming
it is even available.


If you're in a house which has flooded before, you're a prize idiot.
Intelligent people learn from their mistakes.


So what do people do with their existing houses?


Sell them to people stupid enough to buy them.



  #151   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y,uk.legal
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default Flooding

On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 07:13:45 -0000 (UTC), Brian Reay
wrote:

Huge areas have been flooded in recent years, not just the odd place.

Such floods do happen from time to time, eg in the 50s when part of the
east coast was flooded and a number of people died. This eventually led to
the building of the Thames barrier.

Anyway, have they never heard of house insurance?



If you've been flooded before, flood insurance is very expensive, assuming
it is even available.


Flooding where I live will happen simply because the Environment
Agency is not doing the job they are claiming to do. They seem more
interested in spending money on flood barriers etc which fail almost
immediately. They seem to be more interested in claiming back flood
plains and allowing building on them. It is now very difficult to
accept any guarantees about safe places to buy or build a house.
  #152   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y,uk.legal
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,910
Default Flooding

On Wed, 16 Dec 2015 00:54:06 -0000, Rod Speed wrote:

Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote
Brian Reay wrote
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote


I see floods all over the news.


I told you it was a soggy little island.


Yes, and especially so just now, rain almost every
day for 2 months. The tail end of three hurricanes.
I guess somewhere like America is getting blown to bits.


Why should sensible people like me who didn't buy a house
in a flood plain have to foot the bill for those that did?


Because that's the way it works.


That doesn't answer "why".


The government is paying millions to "victims" of flood.


They pay millions to those like you who were too stupid
to work out what qualifications would get you a job too.


Not getting a job is the government's fault,


Rubbish.


Divide the work by the people available,


Not even possible when fool like you turn their nose
up at the sort of work available in the sort of place
you choose to 'live' and are actually stupid enough
to demand that the govt provide a job that a degree
in physics or digital microelectronics is useful for, in
a place where no employer with even half a clue to
choose to base an operation that needs people
with those qualifications.


I've never refused a job.

And its only a communist govt that is actually stupid
enough to even try to do anything like that, And we
have seen how well they do compared with govts
that aren't that stupid.


Changing the working hours from 40 to 38 is no big deal.

it's what you'd do if you were on say a large
expedition and needed tents/latrines/etc built.


But doesn't work for entire countrys/economys.


Whyever not? Same principle.

buying a house in the wrong place is entirely your own fault.


Huge areas have been flooded in recent years, not just the odd place.


Such floods do happen from time to time, eg in the 50s when
part of the east coast was flooded and a number of people
died. This eventually led to the building of the Thames barrier.


It's not rocket surgery to pick a place that's impossible to flood.


Yes, but there is a tad of a shortage of those.

You don't just buy something because it's never flooded
before, you look at the surrounding land and water and
think, "Could that end up on my house?"


Pity that there is a tad of a shortage of that sort of place.


Anyway, have they never heard of house insurance?


You have previously proclaimed that it's a complete waste of money.

If you've been flooded before, flood insurance
is very expensive, assuming it is even available.


If you're in a house which has flooded before, you're a prize idiot.


Depends on whether there has been extensive
antiflood systems put in place since then.

Intelligent people learn from their mistakes.


You didn't with what you were silly enough to get qualified in.



--
President Bush is rehearsing his speech for the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games.
He begins with "Ooo! Ooo! Ooo! Ooo! Ooo!"
Immediately his speech writer rushes over to the lectern and whispers in the President's ear:
"Mr. President, those are the Olympic rings. Your speech is underneath."
  #153   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y,uk.legal
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,910
Default Flooding

On Wed, 16 Dec 2015 00:54:06 -0000, Rod Speed wrote:

Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote
Brian Reay wrote
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote
buying a house in the wrong place is entirely your own fault.


Huge areas have been flooded in recent years, not just the odd place.


Such floods do happen from time to time, eg in the 50s when
part of the east coast was flooded and a number of people
died. This eventually led to the building of the Thames barrier.


It's not rocket surgery to pick a place that's impossible to flood.


Yes, but there is a tad of a shortage of those.

You don't just buy something because it's never flooded
before, you look at the surrounding land and water and
think, "Could that end up on my house?"


Pity that there is a tad of a shortage of that sort of place.


I didn't have a problem.

Anyway, have they never heard of house insurance?


You have previously proclaimed that it's a complete waste of money.


Unless you think a flood etc is likely.

If you've been flooded before, flood insurance
is very expensive, assuming it is even available.


If you're in a house which has flooded before, you're a prize idiot.


Depends on whether there has been extensive
antiflood systems put in place since then.


I would never trust such a thing. You cannot stop the forces of nature.

Intelligent people learn from their mistakes.


You didn't with what you were silly enough to get qualified in.


I wasn't exactly going to get another degree was I?

--
President Bush is rehearsing his speech for the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games.
He begins with "Ooo! Ooo! Ooo! Ooo! Ooo!"
Immediately his speech writer rushes over to the lectern and whispers in the President's ear:
"Mr. President, those are the Olympic rings. Your speech is underneath."
  #154   Report Post  
Posted to uk.legal,uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,910
Default Flooding

On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 23:55:09 -0000, Rod Speed wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 00:31:39 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Thu, 10 Dec 2015 21:08:10 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:

Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote

I see floods all over the news.

I told you it was a soggy little island.

Yes, and especially so just now, rain almost every
day for 2 months. The tail end of three hurricanes.

It'll soon be the frigid soggy little island
I keep reminding you it has always been.

What, no global warming? :-)

The climate has always varied.


Exactly.

How much of the variation that has happened has
been due to the activity of man is much harder to say.

Very little IMO, although it is clear that major citys
do produce heat islands etc. It would be a hell of a
lot more surprising if they didn't given the immense
amount of energy that is pumped into them.


If you look at the statistics you'll find we've affected it by **** all.

Why should sensible people like me who didn't buy a house
in a flood plain have to foot the bill for those that did?

Because that's the way it works.

That doesn't answer "why".

Because that's what gets the current crew marginally
better prospects of getting elected again, stupid.

Funny how they frequently do things that annoy most of the public.

When they annoy them enough, and the alternative govt looks
like it will annoy them less, they get the bums rush at the ballot
box in the next election. That's why Labour got the bums rush.

Sometimes the voters just decide that the current crew
has been driving the bus for long enough and that its
time to see if the alternate crew can do any better.


Except they choose the ones they hated only two elections ago.


Most don't hate any of them. Just prefer
one over another at a particular election.


Short memories. Our Labour and Conservative parties have always been ****, yet those are the only ones most vote for.

Why not try a third one?


Coz all the alternatives are even worse.


No they aren't.

The government is paying millions to "victims" of flood.

They pay millions to those like you who were too stupid
to work out what qualifications would get you a job too.

Not getting a job is the government's fault,

Nope, the fault of those too stupid to get
qualified in an area where there are plenty of
jobs that they have to use immigrants to fill.

Stop the immigrants, then we could work there.

You couldn't because you were too stupid to get
qualified in one of the areas where immigrants
had enough of a clue to get qualified and show
up there like with health care.


Immigrants don't have qualifications.


Plenty of them do, most obviously in health care
and plenty of engineers and scientists etc etc etc too.


The odd one. Most do minimum wage jobs.

They do bricklaying.


**** all do bricklaying.


All the Polish are builders. All the Irish are electricians. All the Pakistanis make awful food in restaurants that fail health regulations.

buying a house in the wrong place is entirely your own fault.

Not when the govt is stupid enough to allow house to be built there.

Doesn't matter, if nobody bought flood plain houses, the builders
wouldn't put them there, because they'd never sell them.

There will always be some that can only afford the cheaper places on the
flood plane.


But the builder has made less money.


That's the builder's problem.


Builders are stupid if they make less money doing the same work.

Anyway, have they never heard of house insurance?

Have you never heard of getting qualified in an area where
there are jobs or moving to somewhere where there are jobs ?

Why would I want to live in a noisy congested city with a house costing
5
times as much for half the size?

You don't have to do that. You could have got qualified
as a teacher


I have teacher friends,


I do too.

they hate their jobs.


None of those I know do.


Your education system is probably better than ours. Our teachers spend half their time doing paperwork and never actually teach much. We have too many managers ****ing about and changing things all the time.

or in health care and 'live' where you do now.


Working in health care is not fun.


Your problem.


Why on earth would anyone want to examine other people with disgusting problems?

--
You know you've spent too much time on the computer when you spill milk and the first thing you think is, 'Edit, Undo.'
  #155   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y,uk.legal
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 40,893
Default Flooding

Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote
Brian Reay wrote
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote


I see floods all over the news.


I told you it was a soggy little island.


Yes, and especially so just now, rain almost every
day for 2 months. The tail end of three hurricanes.
I guess somewhere like America is getting blown to bits.


Why should sensible people like me who didn't buy a house
in a flood plain have to foot the bill for those that did?


Because that's the way it works.


That doesn't answer "why".


The government is paying millions to "victims" of flood.


They pay millions to those like you who were too stupid
to work out what qualifications would get you a job too.


Not getting a job is the government's fault,


Rubbish.


Divide the work by the people available,


Not even possible when fools like you turn their nose
up at the sort of work available in the sort of place
you choose to 'live' and are actually stupid enough
to demand that the govt provide a job that a degree
in physics or digital microelectronics is useful for, in
a place where no employer with even half a clue to
choose to base an operation that needs people
with those qualifications.


I've never refused a job.


Hardly anyone has ever actually been stupid enough to
offer you one and you chose to not even apply for the
sort of job that does employ those with degrees in physics
which employ people where you prefer to 'live' teaching.

And its only a communist govt that is actually stupid
enough to even try to do anything like that, And we
have seen how well they do compared with govts
that aren't that stupid.


Changing the working hours from 40 to 38 is no big deal.


And had no effect on the unemployment rate when
France was actually stupid enough to try that.

And Britain has a rather lower unemployment rate than
France has without being stupid enough to go that route.

it's what you'd do if you were on say a large
expedition and needed tents/latrines/etc built.


But doesn't work for entire countrys/economys.


Whyever not?


Because the entire country has a lot more freedom
to do nothing at all, or get qualified in areas where
there are **** all jobs and so are no use when you
have a shortage of say people qualified in health
care so you need to employ immigrants who have
had enough of a clue to get qualified in an area like
that because it improves their employment prospects.

Same principle.


Like hell it is.

National budgets aren't the same thing as putting money in separate
envelopes for the various utility bills you have to pay either.

buying a house in the wrong place is entirely your own fault.


Huge areas have been flooded in recent years, not just the odd place.


Such floods do happen from time to time, eg in the 50s when
part of the east coast was flooded and a number of people
died. This eventually led to the building of the Thames barrier.


It's not rocket surgery to pick a place that's impossible to flood.


Yes, but there is a tad of a shortage of those.


You don't just buy something because it's never flooded
before, you look at the surrounding land and water and
think, "Could that end up on my house?"


Pity that there is a tad of a shortage of that sort of place.


Anyway, have they never heard of house insurance?


You have previously proclaimed that it's a complete waste of money.


If you've been flooded before, flood insurance
is very expensive, assuming it is even available.


If you're in a house which has flooded before, you're a prize idiot.


Depends on whether there has been extensive
antiflood systems put in place since then.


Intelligent people learn from their mistakes.


You didn't with what you were silly enough to get qualified in.




  #156   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y,uk.legal
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 40,893
Default Flooding

Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote
Brian Reay wrote
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote
buying a house in the wrong place is entirely your own fault.


Huge areas have been flooded in recent years, not just the odd place.


Such floods do happen from time to time, eg in the 50s when
part of the east coast was flooded and a number of people
died. This eventually led to the building of the Thames barrier.


It's not rocket surgery to pick a place that's impossible to flood.


Yes, but there is a tad of a shortage of those.


You don't just buy something because it's never flooded
before, you look at the surrounding land and water and
think, "Could that end up on my house?"


Pity that there is a tad of a shortage of that sort of place.


I didn't have a problem.


But got to wear the dismal employment prospects that came with it.

Anyway, have they never heard of house insurance?


You have previously proclaimed that it's a complete waste of money.


Unless you think a flood etc is likely.


In which case most insurance companys will just make
an obscene gesture in your general direction and tell
you to bugger off if you try to insure it against flood.

If you've been flooded before, flood insurance
is very expensive, assuming it is even available.


If you're in a house which has flooded before, you're a prize idiot.


Depends on whether there has been extensive
antiflood systems put in place since then.


I would never trust such a thing.


More fool you.

You cannot stop the forces of nature.


Holland did that fine.

The Chinese did that fine with the new airport for HongKong too.

Intelligent people learn from their mistakes.


You didn't with what you were silly enough to get qualified in.


I wasn't exactly going to get another degree was I?


Yes, you actually are that stupid. It was a complete
waste of time and money to get that one.
  #157   Report Post  
Posted to uk.legal,uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 40,893
Default Flooding

Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote


I see floods all over the news.


I told you it was a soggy little island.


Yes, and especially so just now, rain almost every
day for 2 months. The tail end of three hurricanes.


It'll soon be the frigid soggy little island
I keep reminding you it has always been.


What, no global warming? :-)


The climate has always varied.


Exactly.


How much of the variation that has happened has
been due to the activity of man is much harder to say.


Very little IMO, although it is clear that major citys
do produce heat islands etc. It would be a hell of a
lot more surprising if they didn't given the immense
amount of energy that is pumped into them.


If you look at the statistics you'll find we've affected it by **** all.


Why should sensible people like me who didn't buy a house
in a flood plain have to foot the bill for those that did?


Because that's the way it works.


That doesn't answer "why".


Because that's what gets the current crew marginally
better prospects of getting elected again, stupid.


Funny how they frequently do things that annoy most of the public.


When they annoy them enough, and the alternative govt looks
like it will annoy them less, they get the bums rush at the ballot
box in the next election. That's why Labour got the bums rush.


Sometimes the voters just decide that the current crew
has been driving the bus for long enough and that its
time to see if the alternate crew can do any better.


Except they choose the ones they hated only two elections ago.


Most don't hate any of them. Just prefer
one over another at a particular election.


Short memories.


Most don't give a damn who is the govt.

Most don't even bother to vote.

Our Labour and Conservative parties have always been ****, yet those are
the only ones most vote for.


Those are the only ones those who bother to vote
mostly vote for, because they are the only ones
who have any real possibility of being the govt.

Why not try a third one?


Coz all the alternatives are even worse.


No they aren't.


The majority who bother to vote feel otherwise.

And so few bother to vote for UKIP that they can't
even get Farage elected to parliament, just some
clapped out renegade from the Torys.

BNP can't even manage that.

The government is paying millions to "victims" of flood.


They pay millions to those like you who were too stupid
to work out what qualifications would get you a job too.


Not getting a job is the government's fault,


Nope, the fault of those too stupid to get
qualified in an area where there are plenty of
jobs that they have to use immigrants to fill.


Stop the immigrants, then we could work there.


You couldn't because you were too stupid to get
qualified in one of the areas where immigrants
had enough of a clue to get qualified and show
up there like with health care.


Immigrants don't have qualifications.


Plenty of them do, most obviously in health care
and plenty of engineers and scientists etc etc etc too.


The odd one.


Hell of a lot more than the odd one.

Most do minimum wage jobs.


Not once they have been there for a while.

They do bricklaying.


**** all do bricklaying.


All the Polish are builders.


Even sillier than you usually manage.

All the Irish are electricians.


Even sillier than you usually manage.

Harry's were Polish.

All the Pakistanis make awful food in restaurants that fail health
regulations.


And hordes of you lot eat currys etc anyway.

Hardly surprising given what else you have to eat.

buying a house in the wrong place is entirely your own fault.


Not when the govt is stupid enough to allow house to be built there.


Doesn't matter, if nobody bought flood plain houses, the builders
wouldn't put them there, because they'd never sell them.


There will always be some that can only afford the cheaper places on
the flood plane.


But the builder has made less money.


That's the builder's problem.


Builders are stupid if they make less money doing the same work.


They have to take what they can get, stupid.

Anyway, have they never heard of house insurance?


Have you never heard of getting qualified in an area where
there are jobs or moving to somewhere where there are jobs ?


Why would I want to live in a noisy congested city with a house
costing 5 times as much for half the size?


You don't have to do that. You could have got qualified
as a teacher


I have teacher friends,


I do too.


they hate their jobs.


None of those I know do.


Your education system is probably better than ours.


Nope.

Our teachers spend half their time doing paperwork


Some of ours spend a lot more than half their time doing that.

and never actually teach much.


Bull****. Plenty of yours do. Watch 'The School: Educating Essex' sometime.

We have too many managers ****ing about and changing things all the time.


Kids get taught anyway.

or in health care and 'live' where you do now.


Working in health care is not fun.


Your problem.


Why on earth would anyone want to examine other people with disgusting
problems?


Because some prefer to do something useful.

  #158   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y,uk.legal
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,853
Default Flooding

On 15/12/2015 23:25, Brian Reay wrote:
There is no where impossible to flood. A friend of mine was flooded
recently. He is miles from any river etc. and on high ground. But, heavy
rain led to his ground floor being flooded to a depth of a couple of feet


AIUI the last time we were flooded was when the glaciers melted.

All you need is to be on a slope near the top of a hill.

Andy
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
re flooding Gary[_11_] UK diy 2 April 19th 12 01:34 PM
flooding Gary[_11_] UK diy 8 February 21st 12 02:08 AM
Flooding MuddyMike UK diy 35 February 17th 11 01:19 PM
Flooding KMS Construction Home Repair 0 September 10th 08 05:53 PM
Flooding. Weatherlawyer UK diy 2 November 10th 07 01:53 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:00 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 DIYbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about DIY & home improvement"