On 11/12/2015 08:27, News wrote:
In message , Rod Speed
writes

It'll soon be the frigid soggy little island

Oxymoron?

Australia gets worse floods than the UK.
Take a look. *Rod*

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floods_in_Australia

--
Bod

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

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 10 December 2015 19:33:19 UTC, 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.

Their insurance companies do.

Corse they never pass those costs on to those they insure in premiums, eh ?

Supposing they can get insurance where they live.

Unlikely they can't if they don't get flooded, stupid.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 10 December 2015 22:32:46 UTC, polygonum wrote:
On 10/12/2015 20:07, Bod wrote:
Avoiding flood plains is only common sense when
buying a house. I checked before moving home.
Moving into a flood area is not very sensible.

A house which was mostly very appealing is officially just in Flood Zone
2:

"Flood Zone 2 - Medium Probability

Definition

This zone comprises land assessed as having between a 1 in 100 and 1 in
1,000 annual probability of river flooding (1% - 0.1%), or between a 1
in 200 and 1 in 1,000 annual probability of sea flooding (0.5% - 0.1%)
in any year."

Even in the worst of the floods of recent years, this particular
location and its immediate surroundings was not flooded. And showed very
little likelihood of ever being flooded. So on a personal evaluation, I
reckon it is safe. But if the insurers don't agree, it could be very
expensive to insure.

There are (DIY) things that can be done to mitigate the problem.

Yeah, like not buying property in a flood plain.

You don't have to be on a flood
plain to get flooded out either.

Makes it a lot more likely tho.

A lot of people are too idle/stupid to take precautions.

And even more are too stupid to not buy propertys in a flood plain.

News wrote
Rod Speed wrote

It'll soon be the frigid soggy little island

Oxymoron?

Nope, there are plenty of hot little desert islands.

On 11/12/2015 10:17, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
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?




Your education would have been footed by taxpayers, the same as the rest
of us. Are you going to pay us all back?
--
Bod

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

On 11/12/15 10:34, Bod wrote:
On 11/12/2015 10:17, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
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?




Your education would have been footed by taxpayers, the same as the rest
of us. Are you going to pay us all back?

I have, in spades..;-0)

--
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.

On 11/12/2015 10:46, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 11/12/15 10:34, Bod wrote:
On 11/12/2015 10:17, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
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?




Your education would have been footed by taxpayers, the same as the rest
of us. Are you going to pay us all back?

I have, in spades..;-0)

Sorry, *spades* is not a recognised currency ;-)

--
Bod

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

On 11/12/2015 10:54, Brian-Gaff wrote:
Well, to me the main culprits are not the house occupiers who no doubt did
all the right checks about this sort of thing, its the planners and the
companies who develop sites.

Given the long term nature of housing and short term nature of some
building companies, I would say much of the onus goes on the local
authority for allowing house building on known flood planes rather than
alternative, even green field, sites.

We should assume builders and architects will build wherever they can to
make a profit.

"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.

"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 11/12/2015 08:27, News wrote:
In message , Rod Speed
writes

It'll soon be the frigid soggy little island

Oxymoron?

Australia gets worse floods than the UK.

Depends on how you define worse.

Not in terms of how many people are affected.

Take a look. *Rod*

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floods_in_Australia

Now have a look at the number of people affected.

Its also a hell of a lot drier than that soggy little frigid island too.

On 11/12/2015 11:11, Rod Speed wrote:


"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 11/12/2015 08:27, News wrote:
In message , Rod Speed
writes

It'll soon be the frigid soggy little island

Oxymoron?

Australia gets worse floods than the UK.

Depends on how you define worse.

Not in terms of how many people are affected.

Take a look. *Rod*

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floods_in_Australia

Now have a look at the number of people affected.

Its also a hell of a lot drier than that soggy little frigid island too.

Of course, but then many areas of Oz suffer from serious droughts that
sometimes devastate some areas. Swings and roundabouts.

2000s Australian drought - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000s_Australian_drought
Beginning in the second half of 1991, a very severe drought occurred ...
By 1995 the drought had spread to many parts of Australia and by 2003
was ... In Queensland the worse affected areas are Biloela which has
reduced the area under ...

--
Bod

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

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"

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


--
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.

On 11/12/15 11:29, Jonno wrote:
Fredxxx scribbled


On 11/12/2015 10:54, Brian-Gaff wrote:
Well, to me the main culprits are not the house occupiers who no doubt did
all the right checks about this sort of thing, its the planners and the
companies who develop sites.

Given the long term nature of housing and short term nature of some
building companies, I would say much of the onus goes on the local
authority for allowing house building on known flood planes rather than
alternative, even green field, sites.

We should assume builders and architects will build wherever they can to
make a profit.


There is one group with the clout that could stop house building on
flood plains - the insurance companies. They are backing a campaign,
but I've no idea if they have achieved any success.

http://www.floodfreehomes.org.uk/


It is trivial, if not totally cheap, to place new builds either in
bunded locations, or indeed above flood levels by simply giving them
'non habitable' ground floors (garages and the like).

But there is no code of practice to make this happen.


--
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.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"harry" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 10 December 2015 19:33:00 UTC, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Thu, 10 Dec 2015 17:38:20 -0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 10/12/15 17:19, Mick 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.

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.

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.

did you know that he has got a degree?

Pharmacology and needlework?

Physics and Digital Microelectronics.

So why do you ask such stupid questions?

That's the ear to ear dog ****, stupid.

Further proof that education, intelligence
and common sense are unrelated.

Even sillier and more pig ignorant than you usually manage, bigot boy.

There you are, pamela. This thread gives a taste of silly Wodney posts.
aka John James, Simon Brown, Jacko, Simon263, John Chance, Ratsack, Hank,
kshy, JHY, Blano, Santo Brown, hqhy etc etc.
Hilarious.
Someone else collected those nicks, I just enjoy the silly sod.

In article , Fredxxx wrote:
On 11/12/2015 10:54, Brian-Gaff wrote:
Well, to me the main culprits are not the house occupiers who no doubt
did all the right checks about this sort of thing, its the planners and
the companies who develop sites.

Given the long term nature of housing and short term nature of some
building companies, I would say much of the onus goes on the local
authority for allowing house building on known flood planes rather than
alternative, even green field, sites.


Most of these flood plains are green field sites which is why developers
like them.

We should assume builders and architects will build wherever they can to
make a profit.

--
Please note new email address:

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 11/12/15 11:29, Jonno wrote:
Fredxxx scribbled


On 11/12/2015 10:54, Brian-Gaff wrote:
Well, to me the main culprits are not the house occupiers who no doubt did
all the right checks about this sort of thing, its the planners and the
companies who develop sites.

Given the long term nature of housing and short term nature of some
building companies, I would say much of the onus goes on the local
authority for allowing house building on known flood planes rather than
alternative, even green field, sites.

We should assume builders and architects will build wherever they can to
make a profit.


There is one group with the clout that could stop house building on
flood plains - the insurance companies. They are backing a campaign,
but I've no idea if they have achieved any success.

http://www.floodfreehomes.org.uk/


It is trivial, if not totally cheap, to place new builds either in
bunded locations, or indeed above flood levels by simply giving them
'non habitable' ground floors (garages and the like).

In Carlisle there were "bunds" but they turned out no to be high enough.


But there is no code of practice to make this happen.

--
Please note new email address:

In message , Bod
writes
On 11/12/2015 08:27, News wrote:
In message , Rod Speed
writes

It'll soon be the frigid soggy little island

Oxymoron?

Australia gets worse floods than the UK.

I was thinking more of frigid and soggy.
--
Graeme

In message , Bod
writes
On 11/12/2015 10:46, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I have, in spades..;-0)

Sorry, *spades* is not a recognised currency ;-)

So reintroduce the slave trade ...
--
Graeme

On 11/12/2015 12:59, News wrote:
In message , Bod
writes
On 11/12/2015 08:27, News wrote:
In message , Rod Speed
writes

It'll soon be the frigid soggy little island

Oxymoron?

Australia gets worse floods than the UK.

I was thinking more of frigid and soggy.

Yes, that's a very good description of Rod ;-)

--
Bod

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

On 11/12/2015 13:00, News wrote:
In message , Bod
writes
On 11/12/2015 10:46, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I have, in spades..;-0)

Sorry, *spades* is not a recognised currency ;-)

So reintroduce the slave trade ...

:-)

--
Bod

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

On Fri, 11 Dec 2015 11:00:57 +0000, Fredxxx wrote:

On 11/12/2015 10:54, Brian-Gaff wrote:
Well, to me the main culprits are not the house occupiers who no doubt did
all the right checks about this sort of thing, its the planners and the
companies who develop sites.

Given the long term nature of housing and short term nature of some
building companies, I would say much of the onus goes on the local
authority for allowing house building on known flood planes rather than
alternative, even green field, sites.

We should assume builders and architects will build wherever they can to
make a profit.

That is what is happening in Ipswich. The government wants more houses
built so the Environment Agency builds flood barriers around the open
space so it can be built on and everybody makes a lot of money until
there is a downfall when an unprotected area gets floodeded and more
flood barriers are required. They are spending about £50 million here
just to enable the off shore Associated British Ports can build even
more flats. I have been fighting this for years, unsuccessfully I
might add.

"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.

That worked REAL well with Iraq.

It is however perfectly possible to provide free school education
paid for by almost everyone, even those who dont have any kids.
Almost everyone because clearly those whose entire income is
benefits aren't paying for that.

On Thu, 10 Dec 2015 20:42:15 -0000, Rod Speed wrote:

Mick 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.

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.

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.

did you know that he has got a degree?

Yes. Pity there is **** all in the way of jobs for anyone
with that particular degree there and he is determined
to stay there instead of moving to where there are a
few jobs in that area. **** all jobs tho.

He's just another example of someone who gets a
degree in what interests them without considering
what qualifications would get him a job.

A degree in what I'm good at, and you can't tell how many jobs will be in that line of work in the future.

--
What do you call an Amish man with his arm up a horse's ass?
A mechanic.

On Thu, 10 Dec 2015 21:23:08 -0000, Rod Speed wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 10 Dec 2015 17:38:20 -0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 10/12/15 17:19, Mick 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.

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.

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.

did you know that he has got a degree?

Pharmacology and needlework?

Physics

**** all jobs in that area except with teaching
which you turned your nose up at after trying it.

I've never tried teaching.

and Digital Microelectronics.

**** all jobs in that area where you want to 'live'

London? And pay 5 times the price for a house half the size? I don't think so.

Corse you could always do your own smartphone
or something and turn the entire industry on its head
like Ive did, but it's a tad unlikely that you would be
any good at that and you don't need a degree in that
to do that anyway.

You designed a smartphone?

--
"When one engine fails on a twin-engine aeroplane you always have enough power left to get you to the scene of the crash."

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 11/12/15 11:29, Jonno wrote:
Fredxxx scribbled


On 11/12/2015 10:54, Brian-Gaff wrote:
Well, to me the main culprits are not the house occupiers who no doubt
did
all the right checks about this sort of thing, its the planners and the
companies who develop sites.

Given the long term nature of housing and short term nature of some
building companies, I would say much of the onus goes on the local
authority for allowing house building on known flood planes rather than
alternative, even green field, sites.

We should assume builders and architects will build wherever they can to
make a profit.


There is one group with the clout that could stop house building on
flood plains - the insurance companies. They are backing a campaign,
but I've no idea if they have achieved any success.

http://www.floodfreehomes.org.uk/


It is trivial, if not totally cheap, to place new builds either in bunded
locations, or indeed above flood levels by simply giving them 'non
habitable' ground floors (garages and the like).

Still a problem with the cost of the damage to the cars etc.

But there is no code of practice to make this happen.

Because no one world wide has ever been silly enough to go that route.

What does work is the way the Dutch have done it, at immense cost.

On 11/12/15 16:37, 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.

It's perfectly possible and morality is not an absolute thing. One man's
morality is another man's sacrilege.



That worked REAL well with Iraq.

No, it was never attempted in Iraq.



It is however perfectly possible to provide free school education
paid for by almost everyone, even those who dont have any kids.
Almost everyone because clearly those whose entire income is
benefits aren't paying for that.


--
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.

On 11/12/15 16:40, Ranger wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 11/12/15 11:29, Jonno wrote:
Fredxxx scribbled


On 11/12/2015 10:54, Brian-Gaff wrote:
Well, to me the main culprits are not the house occupiers who no
doubt did
all the right checks about this sort of thing, its the planners and
the
companies who develop sites.

Given the long term nature of housing and short term nature of some
building companies, I would say much of the onus goes on the local
authority for allowing house building on known flood planes rather than
alternative, even green field, sites.

We should assume builders and architects will build wherever they
can to
make a profit.


There is one group with the clout that could stop house building on
flood plains - the insurance companies. They are backing a campaign,
but I've no idea if they have achieved any success.

http://www.floodfreehomes.org.uk/


It is trivial, if not totally cheap, to place new builds either in
bunded locations, or indeed above flood levels by simply giving them
'non habitable' ground floors (garages and the like).

Still a problem with the cost of the damage to the cars etc.

Drive them up a hill if it starts raining.

But there is no code of practice to make this happen.

Because no one world wide has ever been silly enough to go that route.

Oh you silly little boy.

How on EARTH do you think Holland and the Anglian fens work?

Massive bunding and really well worked out flood control

Dyke is not JUST an LBGT term sweetie pie.


What does work is the way the Dutch have done it, at immense cost.

Its the same way., just done larger, and its not that costly actually.
you deliberately flood, put the roads on causeways and the house s
behind them. And pump that land into the wet bits.

You can do it top a 1/4 acre plot, or to a 50 square mile polder. Well
obviously *you* cant, but I mean educated intelligent people who can do
sums and stuff, and operate Earth moving equipment, and aren't members
of the Green party, can.



--
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.

"News" wrote in message
...
In message , Bod
writes
On 11/12/2015 08:27, News wrote:
In message , Rod Speed
writes

It'll soon be the frigid soggy little island

Oxymoron?

Australia gets worse floods than the UK.

I was thinking more of frigid and soggy.

There are plenty of places that are much more
soggy for much longer than Britain is and
which aren't frigid at all like Bangladesh etc.

Or parts of tropical Australia for that matter
where some places are completely inaccessible
by road for months at a time during 'the wet' which
is the colloquial name for the monsoon season.

And plenty of Canada and Siberia can be very frigid
indeed without being particularly soggy except
once it starts to warm up at the end of winter etc.

"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 11/12/2015 12:59, News wrote:
In message , Bod
writes
On 11/12/2015 08:27, News wrote:
In message , Rod Speed
writes

It'll soon be the frigid soggy little island

Oxymoron?

Australia gets worse floods than the UK.

I was thinking more of frigid and soggy.

Yes, that's a very good description of Rod ;-)

Not after 10 days over 100F it isn't.

Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Mick 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.

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.

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.

did you know that he has got a degree?

Yes. Pity there is **** all in the way of jobs for anyone
with that particular degree there and he is determined
to stay there instead of moving to where there are a
few jobs in that area. **** all jobs tho.

He's just another example of someone who gets a
degree in what interests them without considering
what qualifications would get him a job.

A degree in what I'm good at,

Even when the job prospects in that area have always
been pathetic with all except teaching which you appear
to have decided isn't the sort of job that appeals to you.

and you can't tell how many jobs will
be in that line of work in the future.

Corse you can. Its obvious that there aren't that many
jobs as horse fettlers likely in the future, or archaeologists
etc either. And that we are going to need a hell of a lot
more people working in health care as the population
ages and a bigger percentage of the population survive
to the age when they need a hell of a lot more health
care. Its also obvious that as the number children
people have keeps dropping, that there will be a lot
fewer jobs as teachers too and that many more of
them will be teaching the kids of recent immigrants too.

And that places like Britain do **** all in the way of
digital microelectronics design now, let alone Scotland.

Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote
The Natural Philosopher wrote
Mick 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.

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.

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.

did you know that he has got a degree?

Pharmacology and needlework?

Physics

**** all jobs in that area except with teaching
which you turned your nose up at after trying it.

I've never tried teaching.

More fool you when its one of the few areas that
employ many with a degree in physics now.

and Digital Microelectronics.

**** all jobs in that area where you want to 'live'

London? And pay 5 times the price for
a house half the size? I don't think so.

Then it was stupid to waste all that time and money
on a degree in digital microelectronics if you weren't
interested in living where those are mostly employed.

Corse you could always do your own smartphone
or something and turn the entire industry on its head
like Ive did, but it's a tad unlikely that you would be
any good at that and you don't need a degree in that
to do that anyway.

You designed a smartphone?

Irrelevant to what qualifications are needed to do that.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 11/12/15 16:37, 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.

It's perfectly possible

Have fun listing anywhere where that has actually been done successfully.

and morality is not an absolute thing. One man's
morality is another man's sacrilege.

Tell that to the slaves.

That worked REAL well with Iraq.

No, it was never attempted in Iraq.

It was attempted in plenty of the colonies
and didnt work in even a single one.

A few of the worst excesses like sati were stamped out, but that's about it.



It is however perfectly possible to provide free school education
paid for by almost everyone, even those who dont have any kids.
Almost everyone because clearly those whose entire income is
benefits aren't paying for that.

On Fri, 11 Dec 2015 10:19:53 -0000, Rod Speed wrote:

harry 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.

http://www.ga.gov.au/flood-study-web/#/search

Oz is no less soggy

Even sillier and more pig ignorant than you usually manage, bigot boy.

UK:
"Average flood damage costs are currently £1.1 billion per year"
http://www.parliament.uk/topics/Flooding.htm

AUS:
"It was estimated that the cost of cleanup and recovery would amount to approximately $5.6 billion (Australian)"
http://www.britannica.com/event/Aust...s-of-2010-2011

--
Why do divorces cost so much? They're worth it. *

On Fri, 11 Dec 2015 10:22:39 -0000, Rod Speed wrote:



"harry" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 10 December 2015 19:32:44 UTC, 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.

Less than normal rain here in W. Midlands.

Rain varys, stupid.

The Welsh get all our rain.

Pity the DVLA doesn't get washed away.

Then kick them out of the country too, bigot boy.

Then the English would get wet instead, what a stupid idea.

--
He was a very clumsy lover. So the girl had to put him in her place.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 11/12/15 16:40, Ranger wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 11/12/15 11:29, Jonno wrote:
Fredxxx scribbled


On 11/12/2015 10:54, Brian-Gaff wrote:
Well, to me the main culprits are not the house occupiers who no
doubt did
all the right checks about this sort of thing, its the planners and
the
companies who develop sites.

Given the long term nature of housing and short term nature of some
building companies, I would say much of the onus goes on the local
authority for allowing house building on known flood planes rather
than
alternative, even green field, sites.

We should assume builders and architects will build wherever they
can to
make a profit.


There is one group with the clout that could stop house building on
flood plains - the insurance companies. They are backing a campaign,
but I've no idea if they have achieved any success.

http://www.floodfreehomes.org.uk/


It is trivial, if not totally cheap, to place new builds either in
bunded locations, or indeed above flood levels by simply giving them
'non habitable' ground floors (garages and the like).

Still a problem with the cost of the damage to the cars etc.

Drive them up a hill if it starts raining.

Not very practical where it can rain every day for months.

But there is no code of practice to make this happen.

Because no one world wide has ever been silly enough to go that route.

Oh you silly little boy.

How on EARTH do you think Holland and the Anglian fens work?

They aren't silly enough to drive their cars up a hill every time it rains.

Massive bunding and really well worked out flood control

Pity about the immense cost of that approach.

Dyke is not JUST an LBGT term sweetie pie.


What does work is the way the Dutch have done it, at immense cost.

Its the same way., just done larger, and its not that costly actually.
you deliberately flood, put the roads on causeways and the house s behind
them. And pump that land into the wet bits.

Just a tad more expensive than where you dont have to do that.

You can do it top a 1/4 acre plot, or to a 50 square mile polder. Well
obviously *you* cant, but I mean educated intelligent people who can do
sums and stuff, and operate Earth moving equipment, and aren't members of
the Green party, can.

Pity about the cost.

On Fri, 11 Dec 2015 07:14:04 -0000, harry wrote:

On Thursday, 10 December 2015 19:33:19 UTC, 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.

Their insurance companies do.
Supposing they can get insurance where they live.

No, the GOVERNMENT is paying for damages, not just insurance companies.

--
My childbirth instructor says it's not pain I'll feel during labour, but pressure. Is she right?
Yes, in the same way that a tornado might be called an air current.

On Fri, 11 Dec 2015 07:05:29 -0000, harry wrote:

On Thursday, 10 December 2015 19:33:00 UTC, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Thu, 10 Dec 2015 17:38:20 -0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 10/12/15 17:19, Mick 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.

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.

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.

did you know that he has got a degree?

Pharmacology and needlework?

Physics and Digital Microelectronics.


So why do you ask such stupid questions?

Further proof that education, intelligence and common sense are unrelated.

What question did you think was stupid?


--
A young blonde girl goes to the doctor for a physical. The doctor puts his stethoscope up to the girl's chest and says, "Big breaths."
The girl replies, "Yeth and I'm not even thickthteen."

On Fri, 11 Dec 2015 10:21:20 -0000, Rod Speed wrote:



"harry" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 10 December 2015 19:33:00 UTC, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Thu, 10 Dec 2015 17:38:20 -0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 10/12/15 17:19, Mick 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.

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.

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.

did you know that he has got a degree?

Pharmacology and needlework?

Physics and Digital Microelectronics.

So why do you ask such stupid questions?

That's the ear to ear dog ****, stupid.

Further proof that education, intelligence
and common sense are unrelated.

Even sillier and more pig ignorant than you usually manage, bigot boy.

Why are you so intolerant of bigots?

--
A young blonde girl goes to the doctor for a physical. The doctor puts his stethoscope up to the girl's chest and says, "Big breaths."
The girl replies, "Yeth and I'm not even thickthteen."

On 11/12/2015 17:46, Rod Speed wrote:
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Mick 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.

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.

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.

did you know that he has got a degree?

Yes. Pity there is **** all in the way of jobs for anyone
with that particular degree there and he is determined
to stay there instead of moving to where there are a
few jobs in that area. **** all jobs tho.

He's just another example of someone who gets a
degree in what interests them without considering
what qualifications would get him a job.

A degree in what I'm good at,

Even when the job prospects in that area have always
been pathetic with all except teaching which you appear
to have decided isn't the sort of job that appeals to you.
and you can't tell how many jobs will be in that line of work in the
future.

Corse you can. Its obvious that there aren't that many
jobs as horse fettlers likely in the future, or archaeologists
etc either. And that we are going to need a hell of a lot
more people working in health care as the population ages and a bigger
percentage of the population survive
to the age when they need a hell of a lot more health
care. Its also obvious that as the number children people have keeps
dropping, that there will be a lot
fewer jobs as teachers too and that many more of
them will be teaching the kids of recent immigrants too.
And that places like Britain do **** all in the way of
digital microelectronics design now, let alone Scotland.

Now I know that you're clueless as to what goes on in the UK.
The UK is at the forefront in microelectronics in many areas,
not least in satellites etc.
Rod, you are a first class bull****ter.

--
Bod

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

"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 11 Dec 2015 10:19:53 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:

harry 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.

http://www.ga.gov.au/flood-study-web/#/search

Oz is no less soggy

Even sillier and more pig ignorant than you usually manage, bigot boy.

UK:
"Average flood damage costs are currently £1.1 billion per year"
http://www.parliament.uk/topics/Flooding.htm

AUS:
"It was estimated that the cost of cleanup and recovery would amount to
approximately $5.6 billion (Australian)"
http://www.britannica.com/event/Aust...s-of-2010-2011

Apples and oranges, stupid. The last one isn't PER YEAR, it's the most
dramatic recent event.