Flood defences

Softus · 28 Jul 2007

It seems that some people don't equate money having to be spent with someone having to pay.

Call me callous, but the people who are suffering from the floods are the very ones with the least right to complain, since they have the most to benefit from the expenditure that every household will have to share.

material.buyer · 28 Jul 2007

IMO if people are stupid / too tight to pay for house insurance, thats a risk they take. If they get flooded, then why should my tax go to pay for a new sofa, carpets etc for them??

That said, if people are homeless etc, then these are the people that taxes etc should be going to help.

Sorry if this causes offence, but it's my opinion.

Softus · 28 Jul 2007

material.buyer said:
IMO if people are stupid / too tight to pay for house insurance, thats a risk they take. If they get flooded, then why should my tax go to pay for a new sofa, carpets etc for them?

I agree, but that isn't what I was posting about.

The disruption to the productivity of the affected communities is something that affects the whole country.

I live in a place where flooding is pretty much inconceivable, and yet I would be happy to contribute to the cost of preventing it happening, which is why I don't have any sympathy with, say, a Tewkesbury resident expressing anger at having to pay higher water 'rates' in the future.

material.buyer · 28 Jul 2007

Sorry mate, too much Jameson & coke!

Yes I agree, what would the residents of said flooded towns prefer.. Flood defenses with the cost of their rates slightly higher, or flooding on a yearly basis.

Softus · 28 Jul 2007

It seems that what the ones prepared to mouth off in front of a TV camera would prefer is for anyone but them to pay for the defences. That's the attitude that I can't respect, and makes the evil side of me feel that they deserve every misfortune that drops out of the ar*e of climate change.

ellal · 28 Jul 2007

Softus said:
The disruption to the productivity of the affected communities is something that affects the whole country.

I live in a place where flooding is pretty much inconceivable, and yet I would be happy to contribute to the cost of preventing it happening, which is why I don't have any sympathy with, say, a Tewkesbury resident expressing anger at having to pay higher water 'rates' in the future.

Unfortunately, what is failed to be mentioned here is that said tewkesbury residents are already paying over the odds in water rates (as are we all) to generate profits for shareholders in the private water companies - and that the profits each year outweigh what the government deems necessary to provide flood defences which will help in most situations...nothing will ever prevent something that has just happened, but the effects may have been lessened..

Add to that, that although some may have not been covered through choice this time, anyone that has already been flooded will find in the future that it is either not possible to find cover, or it is financially beyond them!

Softus · 28 Jul 2007

ellal said:
Unfortunately, what is failed to be mentioned here is that said tewkesbury residents are already paying over the odds in water rates (as are we all)...

It isn't a "failure to mention" when omitting information that's entirely irrelevant to the point in hand.

...to generate profits for shareholders in the private water companies and that the profits each year outweigh what the government deems necessary to provide flood defences which will help in most situations...nothing will ever prevent something that has just happened, but the effects may have been lessened.

If you feel irked at not being included in the profits being shared by shareholders, then stop bleating and go and buy some shares.

Add to that, that although some may have not been covered through choice this time, anyone that has already been flooded will find in the future that it is either not possible to find cover, or it is financially beyond them!

I don't care - this isn't about insurance.

ellal · 28 Jul 2007

Softus said:
If you feel irked at not being included in the profits being shared by shareholders, then stop bleating and go and buy some shares.

wtf are you on?...

why make a conclusion that I want a share of the profits?

some of us would prefer that water companies hadn't been privatised in the first place, and would rather those profits are used to provide the infrastructure required!

It isn't a "failure to mention" when omitting information that's entirely irrelevant to the point in hand.

Ah..of course it's 'irrelevant' to mention that a percentage of your water bill goes purely to company profit instead of infrastructure as stated above

(I'll use a

now if that's ok with you)...

Softus · 29 Jul 2007

ellal said:
why make a conclusion that I want a share of the profits?

Because you introduced the subject of profits; since it's irrelevant to this discussion, you must have had some reason for introducing it, and the reasonable conclusion is that you don't like people profiting from the lack of investment.

some of us would prefer that water companies hadn't been privatised in the first place, and would rather those profits are used to provide the infrastructure required!

That's a stupidly naive view to hold, so please feel free to take yourself, and anyone else who believes that cr*p, and go away.

It isn't a "failure to mention" when omitting information that's entirely irrelevant to the point in hand.

Click to expand...

Ah..of course it's 'irrelevant' to mention that a percentage of your water bill goes purely to company profit instead of infrastructure as stated above

Quite so - well done - you're now doing a passable impression of someone who's beginning to have a glimmer of understanding.

securespark · 29 Jul 2007

material.buyer said:
Sorry mate, too much Jameson & coke!

Kindly leave the forum now.

You do not adulterate whisky with anything...

pjholybloke · 29 Jul 2007

securespark said:
material.buyer said:

Sorry mate, too much Jameson & coke!

Click to expand...

Kindly leave the forum now.

You do not adulterate whisky with anything...

Beat me to it Mr Secure - had to read it twice to believe my eyes!

Jog on Mr Material - and don't darken this forum again until you know that whiskey is only to be mixed with a glass.

Heathen!

PS Mr Secure - don't want to appear picky - real whiskey has an 'e' in it

BoxBasher · 29 Jul 2007

One thing that people fail to realise is that before privatisation, Water Authorities were running massively overspent which was then subsidised by government coffers.

I do think the focus on profit for shareholders is a problem with any industry/business where provision of a service can suffer as a result of "efficiencies".

Just out of interest - what will increased water rates have to do with the provision of flood defences? Flooding because of heavy rain has nothing to do with the water companies... although a lot of it may be due to inefficient/unserviced land drains (the maintenance of which has already been paid for in council tax...)

Persimmon · 29 Jul 2007

Ooo-er..... I couldn't believe my eyes either as I thought 'material.buyer' was referring to the other kind of coke......

WoodYouLike · 29 Jul 2007

BoxBasher said:
Just out of interest - what will increased water rates have to do with the provision of flood defences? Flooding because of heavy rain has nothing to do with the water companies... although a lot of it may be due to inefficient/unserviced land drains (the maintenance of which has already been paid for in council tax...)

Boxbarher, my thoughts exactly. The first flood defence is proper working drainage, everywhere. We live in a village that's not prone to flooding due to rivers etc, but a heavy burst of rain has the whole of our street flooded in now time, because the drainage isn't up to anything - rainwater floods various gardens and if rain persists enters sheds, houses etc.

Councils and water companies who charges us for waste-water should be held responsible for making sure the waste water system is up to scratch.

ellal · 29 Jul 2007

Softus said:
That's a stupidly naive view to hold, so please feel free to take yourself, and anyone else who believes that cr*p, and go away.

you appear to have the ability to 'play with yourself' (

), so I suggest you go and do that instead of dismiss an opinion held by many!

Just out of interest - what will increased water rates have to do with the provision of flood defences? Flooding because of heavy rain has nothing to do with the water companies...

I believe that the elements in the water bill/rates regarding wastewater, surface water drainage, and highway drainage might have something to do with the provision of flood defences, because if the infrastructure is not in place to divert water away adequately, then areas will flood regardless of physical barriers!

On our current water bill, 61% of the total is for those 3 things and only 39% for water supply...

Flood defences

Similar threads