Jump to content

flooding


breakaleg

Recommended Posts

i think marquis tewksbury might be having a sale in short while, did you see the sales site flooded on the news today?.

 

would a flood damaged van be servisable? looking at the news the water must have entered the vans, one of the staff lives in a static van on the campsite next door to marquis and all you can see of his van is the roof.

bloody awful situation to be in

pete

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 63
  • Created
  • Last Reply

exactly michelle, have you ever been to fishborne roman villa, just outside of chichester?

beautiful villa, talking to the curator, he said that the high status romans who visited sailed up to the door.

its now around 4 miles from the sea and there is a housing estate where the sea used to be a mere two thousand years ago

pete

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On a more serious note did anyone see the following today?

 

-------------------------------------------------------------

Floods 'must not stop houses plan'

23/07/2007 13:23

 

The floods across southern England should not be used as an excuse to "whip up hostility" to new housebuilding, the Government has warned.

 

Housing Minister Yvette Cooper said critics should not "play politics" with the floods to block urgently-needed new developments to provide affordable homes.

 

Her comments came as the Government's housing Green Paper - to be published later on Monday - is expected to warn that it is "unrealistic" to prevent building on flood plains.

 

Ms Cooper insisted that the rules are being tightened to ensure there is no building on land considered to be at "high risk" of flooding by the Environment Agency.

 

She also made clear that some of the millions of new homes which the Government wants to build would be sited on flood plains.

 

She told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "What we are not saying is that there should be no housebuilding anywhere in the city of York, which is on a flood plain - the Romans built it on a flood plain - or around 10 Downing Street. That's also on a flood plain.

 

"The thing about 10 Downing Street is that it's protected by the Thames barrier. There are very good flood defences in place. That's what you've got to take account of."

 

She hit out at critics who want to use the floods to block new developments.

 

"I really hope that people will not play politics with the dreadful flooding and the misery that we have seen in order to whip up hostility to new housing," she said.

 

"We have got to both provide people with proper protection and make sure new homes are built in safe areas and are properly protected. But I don't think that misinformation being used just to whip up hostility against housing is fair on those people who desperately need affordable housing now."

 

© 2007 The Press Association Limited

------------------------------------------------------

 

To me it seems that this government (and probably applies to all past and future governments too) thinks that because they say so it will be OK. The release says that no building will be in 'high risk' areas' but surely they know that nothing is in isolation. Every action has an effect, maybe not at the point of action but somewhere down the road.

 

But still, what do I know being one of the peasants.

 

;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stilts ... why don't they build them on stilts, or at least only keep the ground floor for garages/stores etc as they do in other countries?

 

Much of Hull has been flooded, many areas because the drains couldn't cope, not by river flooding etc, when you see the size of the storm drains in America etc it makes you wonder how our little old decrepid sewer system can manage normally, never mind when there's a major downpoor.

 

I'm glad I've got a canoe .. never know when I'll need it!

8-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

I expect man made drains to get rid of rain water. And hope that the slope of the land gets rid of flood water. If flood water doesn't flow away, one needs to ask what bottlenecks need to be removed to let the water escape. I wonder if any bottlenecks were man made.

 

602

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What she didn't tell the public is that the London Flood Barrier is on it's way out! It needs completely rebuilding in order to protect the Capital.

 

Also if flood defences are built the problem moves downstream! Below Oxford the towns are bracing themselves for a fast moving 'flood' this morning. At least they have had a week's warning!

 

In the Fens people complained over the Winter/Spring because the Ouse Washes were flooded. BUT that is the *whole* point of the dykes/pumping systems developed by the Dukes of Bedford in the 1600s [i think]. The fenlands are below sea level so the dykes were dug by hand in order to protect surrounding land, some of the most fertile in the country as it is reclaimed from the sea.

 

We have to blame the builders too ..... as they must take responsibility - if it is going to flood then don't build! In Northampton there are new properties that mortgage companies won't pay out on! Due to where they have been built ..........

 

There are THOUSANDS of empty properties across the UK which could be done up and lived in. Remember that programme 2 years ago? We have farms across the Fens as well as throughout Northants that stand empty! (!)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi, Dave

 

We were in the Thames Barrier visitor centre 2 weeks ago, and we were informed that it is used to help control the upper Thames water levels as well.

 

If I understand what he was saying correctly, they stop the tidal flow reaching Teddington thus allowing the upper Thames to continue to drain as apparently if they didn't the tide would reach the wears at Teddington and push the natural flow of the swollen upper Thames back thus making a bad situation worse

 

hope that makes sense,

 

Dave Newell - 2007-07-25 11:38 AM

 

Surely the Thames barrier was built to keep the sea out? What good will it do in preventing flooding of the Thames by a large volume of water coming down from Oxfordshire/Gloucestershire?

 

D.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

The thing I find most concerning is that they haven't evacuated the houses and appear to be supporting people living in the up-stairs rooms.

 

The reason for my concern is that the last flood I was involved in the sewage was mixed in with the flood water and after a few days had started to become a health hazard, perhaps this flood is different but I doubt it,

 

Another question I would like answered is are those people living in the upstairs rooms are they using the toilets and if they are where do they think the effluent is going ??

 

If it doesn't subside quickly could we be faced with a serious health hazard ?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Problem with any major civil engineering works is that they cost a lot of money and there are no votes in it.

 

People would rather vote to sink a few million pounds of OUR money (Tis us that pay the taxes) to health service, education, wars than the same amount into earthworks, concrete and / or railway lines etc.

 

Floods are a particular problem, as there is no real yardstick to design against them. It would be possible to build Los Angles type flood culverts, but you can imagine the hue and cry, when the country side is carved up. (Cannot even dig out / lay & cover over electric cables). Then the culverts would only be used once every 50 years or so.

 

Building on the flood plain is acceptable, as long as the risks are known and procautions are taken. Lets face it most of Holland is a flood plain.

 

Builders build houses, Punters buy, Insurance companies will not insure them at an affordable rate. its catch 22 situation.

 

Rgds

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wasn't surprised to hear today that the water authorities are saying the drainage systems in this country need beefing up to cope but they expect the customers to foot the bill rather than affect their profits and shareholder dividends. I say they should do any and all works necessary and pay for it out of profits BEFORE they pay out any dividends. Only when they've completed upgrading the infrastructure which has been largely ignored since Victorian times should they be allowed to pay out to the shareholders.

 

D.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest caraprof
Dave Newell - 2007-07-25 5:28 PM I wasn't surprised to hear today that the water authorities are saying the drainage systems in this country need beefing up to cope but they expect the customers to foot the bill rather than affect their profits and shareholder dividends. I say they should do any and all works necessary and pay for it out of profits BEFORE they pay out any dividends. Only when they've completed upgrading the infrastructure which has been largely ignored since Victorian times should they be allowed to pay out to the shareholders. D.

Mmmm. If I invest my cash in a company by buying its shares I expect a dividend. If I don't get one I'm worse off than if I leave my money in a building society.

No dividends, no shareholders. They'll sell in droves and take their dosh elsewhere.

Most utilities are PLCs so this is a non-starter I'm afraid and apart from that it would be incredibly unfair!

Shareholders are not just fat cats sitting in boardrooms smoking their big cigars. They're pensioners investing their money for better returns than a bank or building society, they're pension funds looking after your pension contributions and all of these large funds represent thousands of ordinary people.

Sorry Dave, it won't happen and it shouldn't!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Frank, somehow I just knew you'd be the first to respond ;-) . I take your point and of course I know that you are correct but doesn't it seem just a wee bit wrong that they can pay out large dividends while so much of their infrastructure is so in need of investment? My workshop water bill is around £20 a quarter of which £16 is for them to collect the water off the roof! Why? They didn't build it, they don't maintain it, they didn't even put in the drains that directly take the water, it travels over a hundred yards in private drains before it gets to theirs! Even if I divert all the water from my roof into my own storage containers I still get charged four times as much as the value of the water I consume for them doing nothing.

 

D.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not heard the story of Kingston Communications then, our local telephone company in Hull and the surrounding areas and the only place BT hasn't got a chance of getting in. It floated at around £2.75 a share (I think!) a few years ago and they went up and up going over £17.00 and into the Footsie 100, they then promptly fell like a stone and went down to around 40p!!!!!

 

We got some, about £1,500 worth (wish we hadn't) as we wanted to support a local company and have lost out, fortunately now only by a few hundred pounds as we didn't buy some until they dropped fairly low, but have held on to them for the time being and hope that some time they'll go up again, oh yes, we do get a dividend, about 36p!!! Not worth the cost of sending it out!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dave Newell - 2007-07-25 5:28 PM I wasn't surprised to hear today that the water authorities are saying the drainage systems in this country need beefing up to cope but they expect the customers to foot the bill rather than affect their profits and shareholder dividends. I say they should do any and all works necessary and pay for it out of profits BEFORE they pay out any dividends. Only when they've completed upgrading the infrastructure which has been largely ignored since Victorian times should they be allowed to pay out to the shareholders. D.

Dave,

The water industry has been under invested since Victorian times, I agree, but remember that it has only been privatised since 1989.

Since then the Government has put in place a regulatory body called Ofwat and it is their responsibility to monitor the water companies charges, investments in infrastructure and profits.

It seems to me that Ofwat is failing in it's duties and responsibilities. At the end of the day, the Water Companies will try to get away with whatever Ofwat allows them to.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kingston communications showed great foresight about 150 years ago when the then BT equivalent decided that this here telephone thingy would never catch on and telegrams were the future and so put all their money and energy into that rather than 'phones. Some years later - when they realised their error - they set about buying up all the 'franchises' they'd lost - Hull - with canny tyke foresight - held out.

Unfortunately they've been overtaken by teckie advances as much as anything else.

as for water [and rail] any investors in these industries who expected to make any profit by any means other than rooking the public/customers/taxpayers were short sighted fools - the market should throw them to the wolves - they were greedy and short-sighted - and the commercial world doesn't do sympathy

 

 

 

but back on thread - we've used that Marquis branch to sort out a problem while on holiday - they were brilliant - I wish them well

 

B-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bazza454 - 2007-07-25 10:51 PM
Dave Newell - 2007-07-25 5:28 PM I wasn't surprised to hear today that the water authorities are saying the drainage systems in this country need beefing up to cope but they expect the customers to foot the bill rather than affect their profits and shareholder dividends. I say they should do any and all works necessary and pay for it out of profits BEFORE they pay out any dividends. Only when they've completed upgrading the infrastructure which has been largely ignored since Victorian times should they be allowed to pay out to the shareholders. D.

Dave,

The water industry has been under invested since Victorian times, I agree, but remember that it has only been privatised since 1989.

Since then the Government has put in place a regulatory body called Ofwat and it is their responsibility to monitor the water companies charges, investments in infrastructure and profits.

It seems to me that Ofwat is failing in it's duties and responsibilities. At the end of the day, the Water Companies will try to get away with whatever Ofwat allows them to.  

I have to get rid of this Dyslexia when I read this I thought you were swearing bazza :D Ofidiot no I said T W A T
Link to comment
Share on other sites

michele - 2007-07-25 11:02 PM
Bazza454 - 2007-07-25 10:51 PM
Dave Newell - 2007-07-25 5:28 PM I wasn't surprised to hear today that the water authorities are saying the drainage systems in this country need beefing up to cope but they expect the customers to foot the bill rather than affect their profits and shareholder dividends. I say they should do any and all works necessary and pay for it out of profits BEFORE they pay out any dividends. Only when they've completed upgrading the infrastructure which has been largely ignored since Victorian times should they be allowed to pay out to the shareholders. D.

Dave,

The water industry has been under invested since Victorian times, I agree, but remember that it has only been privatised since 1989.

Since then the Government has put in place a regulatory body called Ofwat and it is their responsibility to monitor the water companies charges, investments in infrastructure and profits.

It seems to me that Ofwat is failing in it's duties and responsibilities. At the end of the day, the Water Companies will try to get away with whatever Ofwat allows them to.  

I have to get rid of this Dyslexia when I read this I thought you were swearing bazza :D Ofidiot no I said T W A T

Have you been in the same pub as Twooks?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

davenewell@home - 2007-07-25 8:28 PM Hi Frank, somehow I just knew you'd be the first to respond ;-) . I take your point and of course I know that you are correct but doesn't it seem just a wee bit wrong that they can pay out large dividends while so much of their infrastructure is so in need of investment? My workshop water bill is around £20 a quarter of which £16 is for them to collect the water off the roof! Why? They didn't build it, they don't maintain it, they didn't even put in the drains that directly take the water, it travels over a hundred yards in private drains before it gets to theirs! Even if I divert all the water from my roof into my own storage containers I still get charged four times as much as the value of the water I consume for them doing nothing. D.

Dave

After many years of listening,learning and being taught by my late father re investments I've learnt a couple of hard lessons.

My late father always said - "Do not be sentimental about any investments you make"

If you get emotionally attached then it's going to be a bad investment, once invested then only look at the dividends payable and make your judgement from there.!!Once any share holding has been sold, then never ever look at the price of that share again, as if you've sold at a profit and are happy then that's all that matters.If you've sold at a loss then again so be it. So far we're  doing OK!! 

I've used that lesson ever since, sometimes even seemingly going against my Buddhist beliefs and upbringing in Thailand.

It's hard to understand, but that's the way of the world and the way of the investment machine operates, might as well try and gain something along the way!!. Very un Buddhist for me I know.

My only regret is that he's not here to see me carrying on what he loved to do the most, or even back in Thailand - my birth place - and operating from there, where he was at his most happiest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thai

 

Your philosophy is [unsurprisingly given its source] eminently sensible and logical - imo - at least]

 

the beef is against get rich quick merchants who expect - as of a right - something for nothing

 

well - that's my reading of it

 

B-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...