** The Brexit Thread ** - 'Brexit Means Brexit'

Use this board for general non-cycling-related chat, or to introduce yourself to the forum.
pete75
Posts: 11709
Joined: 24 Jul 2007, 2:37pm

Re: ** The Brexit Thread ** - 'Brexit Means Brexit'

Postby pete75 » 21 Sep 2019, 1:01pm

brynpoeth wrote:
Mick F wrote:Being called a traitor was a big insult to me, and not one I will forgive.

I think one should be prepared to forgive, as Jesus said

Besides, one can learn more from those who have different opinions


Calling someone a traitor isn't a matter of a difference of opinion. Mick is a fairly easy going sort of bloke so it's obvious that the attack hurt his feelings quite a bit. What can he learn from something he regards as a big insult ,other than the person who made the remark probably doesn't like him much?

User avatar
Cunobelin
Posts: 9492
Joined: 6 Feb 2007, 7:22pm

Re: ** The Brexit Thread ** - 'Brexit Means Brexit'

Postby Cunobelin » 21 Sep 2019, 1:07pm

Just to quote a certain MP about a similar situation a few years ago, there was a maiisive rant about Gordon Brown becoming PM when Tony Blair stepped down

Now if we bring that up to date with a couple of name changes... the words of our dear Prime Minister become...

It's the arrogance. It's the contempt. That's what gets me. It's Boris Johnson's apparent belief that he can just trample on the democratic will of the British people. It's at moments like this that I think the political world has gone mad, and I am alone in detecting the gigantic fraud.
Everybody seems to have forgotten that the last general election was only two years ago, in 2017. A woman called Theresa May presented himself for re-election, and her face was to be seen - even if less prominently than in the past - on manifestos, leaflets, television screens and billboards. We rather gathered from the Conservative prospectus that said May was going to be Prime Minister. Indeed, Theresa sought a new mandate from the British electorate with the explicit promise that he would serve a full term.
The British public sucked its teeth, squinted at her closely, sighed and, with extreme reluctance, decided to elect her Prime Minister for another five years. Let me repeat that. They voted for Theresa May to serve as their leader. They were at no stage invited to vote on whether Boris Johnson should be PM.
I must have knocked on hundreds of doors during that campaign, and heard all sorts of opinions of Mr May, not all of them favourable. But I do not recall a single member of the public saying that he or she was yearning for Boris Johnson to take over. Perhaps I missed it, but I don't remember any Conservative spokesman revealing that they planned to do a big switcheroo after only two years.

Psamathe
Posts: 10380
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: ** The Brexit Thread ** - 'Brexit Means Brexit'

Postby Psamathe » 21 Sep 2019, 1:22pm

pete75 wrote:
Psamathe wrote:
pete75 wrote:
They were also told that Brexit might well have dire consequences for the country. They had a choice one way or another. When someone makes a decision to do something they should accept responsibility for the consequences of it be they they good or bad. Any harm it causes them is self inflicted.
Anyhow I've decided to donate to Consonant rather than the food bank.

I agree and what, why, how much, to whom, etc. you make charitable donations is not something for me to hold an opinion about.

But whilst it is true the public were warned of the dire consequences, one also needs to consider who was doing that warning - e.g. Cameron/Osborne, architects of austerity and people I would not believe if they told me it the oceans were made of water. Not that the Leave campaign had anybody more reliable. Gove/Johnson vs Cameron/Osborne - my choice would be neither.

I agree that people need to take responsibility for their decisions but there has to be some balance. The person that swims outside the red flags on the beach - should the rescue services stand and watch them drown? If we reduce mitigation over large groups because they chose to vote Leave (self-inflicted) we would undoubtedly be penalising some people who voted remain - so those remain voters get hit by a double whammy.

Ian


It's the rescue services raison d'etre to aid those people and it's the state's job to support people with no or low incomes. Private individuals may choose to donate to the RNLI or food banks etc or they may choose to donate to other causes or not at all. no one should be criticised for making any of those choices.

Maybe needing rescue on the beach was a bad example (or maybe the Government fund the rescue helicopter service), maybe things like smoking or drinking and needing NHS care, or kids tomb-stoning and needing hospital treatment. Loads of potential examples but I find the question of "self-inflicted" problems being underwritten by an already stretched society a difficult question. Not suggesting society withdraw support but at what point does it become an unjustified burden on society? How much help -> pressure -> enough is enough?

Certainly the French lifeboats (SNSM) can and do (sometimes) charge the person rescued (though unlikely where "life & limb" are at risk and financial discussions do not stop a rescue and tend to take place after the rescue). There are stories about the RNLI charging depending on the circumstances but I don't know of any specific cases (the talk is in cases of stupidity e.g. motorboat setting out with virtually empty fuel tanks). In Europe some mountain rescue services are said to charge (e.g. Lombardy region,Italy).

Ian

User avatar
Audax67
Posts: 4494
Joined: 25 Aug 2011, 9:02am
Location: Alsace, France
Contact:

Re: ** The Brexit Thread ** - 'Brexit Means Brexit'

Postby Audax67 » 21 Sep 2019, 1:35pm

Cunobelin wrote:Just to quote a certain MP about a similar situation a few years ago, there was a maiisive rant about Gordon Brown becoming PM when Tony Blair stepped down

Now if we bring that up to date with a couple of name changes... the words of our dear Prime Minister become...

It's the arrogance. It's the contempt. That's what gets me. It's Boris Johnson's apparent belief that he can just trample on the democratic will of the British people. It's at moments like this that I think the political world has gone mad, and I am alone in detecting the gigantic fraud.
Everybody seems to have forgotten that the last general election was only two years ago, in 2017. A woman called Theresa May presented himself for re-election, and her face was to be seen - even if less prominently than in the past - on manifestos, leaflets, television screens and billboards. We rather gathered from the Conservative prospectus that said May was going to be Prime Minister. Indeed, Theresa sought a new mandate from the British electorate with the explicit promise that he would serve a full term.
The British public sucked its teeth, squinted at her closely, sighed and, with extreme reluctance, decided to elect her Prime Minister for another five years. Let me repeat that. They voted for Theresa May to serve as their leader. They were at no stage invited to vote on whether Boris Johnson should be PM.
I must have knocked on hundreds of doors during that campaign, and heard all sorts of opinions of Mr May, not all of them favourable. But I do not recall a single member of the public saying that he or she was yearning for Boris Johnson to take over. Perhaps I missed it, but I don't remember any Conservative spokesman revealing that they planned to do a big switcheroo after only two years.


The British PM is never elected by the electorate: the party with the most seats is elected to govern and chooses the PM from within its ranks. OK, the face of whatever weasel* currently leads the pack has a large effect on the result, so that the electorate may like to think they chose the PM - which de facto they usually did but de jure not. That means that if the PM resigns or carks it in office the electorate can stamp and scream all it likes, but whoever wins the internal rat-fight** to be the boss is it. Twas ever thus and it's too amenable to twisting by conniving vermin to change.

* apologies to mustelids everywhere.
** and rodents
Have we got time for another cuppa?

pete75
Posts: 11709
Joined: 24 Jul 2007, 2:37pm

Re: ** The Brexit Thread ** - 'Brexit Means Brexit'

Postby pete75 » 21 Sep 2019, 2:03pm

Psamathe wrote:
pete75 wrote:
Psamathe wrote:I agree and what, why, how much, to whom, etc. you make charitable donations is not something for me to hold an opinion about.

But whilst it is true the public were warned of the dire consequences, one also needs to consider who was doing that warning - e.g. Cameron/Osborne, architects of austerity and people I would not believe if they told me it the oceans were made of water. Not that the Leave campaign had anybody more reliable. Gove/Johnson vs Cameron/Osborne - my choice would be neither.

I agree that people need to take responsibility for their decisions but there has to be some balance. The person that swims outside the red flags on the beach - should the rescue services stand and watch them drown? If we reduce mitigation over large groups because they chose to vote Leave (self-inflicted) we would undoubtedly be penalising some people who voted remain - so those remain voters get hit by a double whammy.

Ian


It's the rescue services raison d'etre to aid those people and it's the state's job to support people with no or low incomes. Private individuals may choose to donate to the RNLI or food banks etc or they may choose to donate to other causes or not at all. no one should be criticised for making any of those choices.

Maybe needing rescue on the beach was a bad example (or maybe the Government fund the rescue helicopter service), maybe things like smoking or drinking and needing NHS care, or kids tomb-stoning and needing hospital treatment. Loads of potential examples but I find the question of "self-inflicted" problems being underwritten by an already stretched society a difficult question. Not suggesting society withdraw support but at what point does it become an unjustified burden on society? How much help -> pressure -> enough is enough?

Certainly the French lifeboats (SNSM) can and do (sometimes) charge the person rescued (though unlikely where "life & limb" are at risk and financial discussions do not stop a rescue and tend to take place after the rescue). There are stories about the RNLI charging depending on the circumstances but I don't know of any specific cases (the talk is in cases of stupidity e.g. motorboat setting out with virtually empty fuel tanks). In Europe some mountain rescue services are said to charge (e.g. Lombardy region,Italy).

Ian


The NHS is there for all and doesn't make any judgements about the people it treats. It should not be making value judgements on who it will treat. Where would you stop - someone who chooses to play amateur rugby and then suffers a type of injury common in the sport? That could be called self inflicted as they're choosing to take unnecessary risks by playing the game.

User avatar
Mick F
Spambuster
Posts: 46363
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Tamar Valley, Cornwall

Re: ** The Brexit Thread ** - 'Brexit Means Brexit'

Postby Mick F » 21 Sep 2019, 2:05pm

We can only vote for our own MP.
That's all. Can't vote for anyone else, just your single rep in Parliament.

For many years here in SE Cornwall, I wouldn't have given you tuppence for any of the MPs we've had including Sheryl Murray, the present Tory MP.

A friend of ours stood some years back as the Labour candidate. I voted for her, but a Tory got in. :evil:
Mick F. Cornwall

Psamathe
Posts: 10380
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: ** The Brexit Thread ** - 'Brexit Means Brexit'

Postby Psamathe » 21 Sep 2019, 2:09pm

pete75 wrote:
Psamathe wrote:
pete75 wrote:
It's the rescue services raison d'etre to aid those people and it's the state's job to support people with no or low incomes. Private individuals may choose to donate to the RNLI or food banks etc or they may choose to donate to other causes or not at all. no one should be criticised for making any of those choices.

Maybe needing rescue on the beach was a bad example (or maybe the Government fund the rescue helicopter service), maybe things like smoking or drinking and needing NHS care, or kids tomb-stoning and needing hospital treatment. Loads of potential examples but I find the question of "self-inflicted" problems being underwritten by an already stretched society a difficult question. Not suggesting society withdraw support but at what point does it become an unjustified burden on society? How much help -> pressure -> enough is enough?

Certainly the French lifeboats (SNSM) can and do (sometimes) charge the person rescued (though unlikely where "life & limb" are at risk and financial discussions do not stop a rescue and tend to take place after the rescue). There are stories about the RNLI charging depending on the circumstances but I don't know of any specific cases (the talk is in cases of stupidity e.g. motorboat setting out with virtually empty fuel tanks). In Europe some mountain rescue services are said to charge (e.g. Lombardy region,Italy).

Ian


The NHS is there for all and doesn't make any judgements about the people it treats. It should not be making value judgements on who it will treat. Where would you stop - someone who chooses to play amateur rugby and then suffers a type of injury common in the sport? That could be called self inflicted as they're choosing to take unnecessary risks by playing the game.

(All going a bit off-topic) But the NHS does make such decisions e.g. no liver transplant of you are still drinking more than they accept. Only providing limited help to stop you smoking. In some respects NICE make judgements indirectly about people by looking at "cost effectiveness" of treatments.

I agree about "where would you stop" and I'm certainly not proposing any stop - but just that is is an interesting question as I feel there is a fair amount of "self-inflicted" problems where people expect to be bailed-out by the Government or society (e.g. building on floodplains ...).

Ian

pete75
Posts: 11709
Joined: 24 Jul 2007, 2:37pm

Re: ** The Brexit Thread ** - 'Brexit Means Brexit'

Postby pete75 » 21 Sep 2019, 8:52pm

Psamathe wrote:I agree about "where would you stop" and I'm certainly not proposing any stop - but just that is is an interesting question as I feel there is a fair amount of "self-inflicted" problems where people expect to be bailed-out by the Government or society (e.g. building on floodplains ...).

Ian


Building on flood plains is sanctioned by the government as no development can legally happen without governmental permission unless it is of a very minor nature.

merseymouth
Posts: 1022
Joined: 23 Jan 2011, 11:16am

Re: ** The Brexit Thread ** - 'Brexit Means Brexit'

Postby merseymouth » 22 Sep 2019, 8:35am

Hello there, I hope I'm not going to be made to provide all kinds of corroborative supportive evidence for this point?
But if it is a known fact that an area of land is actually a historic flood plain (A) Why Build on it? (B) If you choose to Build on it why not make adequate dispersal measures? (C) Why not Elevate the properties as in days of old in the Fens? (D) The flat lands in Lancashire employ constant extraction pumping to keep areas dry, if pumping stations like that at Abbeystead work, why not use the system in such areas?
But even more importantly do folk actually buy houses in such areas? I ask this in much the same way as I would like to know why people buy houses on cliff edges subject to coastal erosion?
Living in an elevated area myself , for us to suffer flooding of the type seen the Liver Birds would have to be up to their necks in water, yet I have to pay for "Flood Protection" in my home insurance.
Caveat Emptor! IGICB MM

User avatar
661-Pete
Posts: 9093
Joined: 22 Nov 2012, 8:45pm
Location: Sussex

Re: ** The Brexit Thread ** - 'Brexit Means Brexit'

Postby 661-Pete » 22 Sep 2019, 9:14am

Going a bit off-topic - but featuring a well-known and notorious Brex**iteer - I just had to post this link:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-g ... e-49702929
It's enough to make a man cry ..... tears of laughter! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Any more "onion" jokes gladly welcomed!
Suppose that this room is a lift. The support breaks and down we go with ever-increasing velocity.
Let us pass the time by performing physical experiments...
--- Arthur Eddington (creator of the Eddington Number).

User avatar
Cunobelin
Posts: 9492
Joined: 6 Feb 2007, 7:22pm

Re: ** The Brexit Thread ** - 'Brexit Means Brexit'

Postby Cunobelin » 22 Sep 2019, 9:24am

supporter of brexit walks into a pub and orders a pint of beer.

Barman pours it over him

supporter of brexit then asks for a pint of beer, but this time in a glass.

BArman refuses and says "You did not ask for a glass, and you cannot change your order"

supporter of brexit asks why not and the Barman explains "Democracy"


r

User avatar
Cunobelin
Posts: 9492
Joined: 6 Feb 2007, 7:22pm

Re: ** The Brexit Thread ** - 'Brexit Means Brexit'

Postby Cunobelin » 22 Sep 2019, 9:37am

merseymouth wrote:Hello there, I hope I'm not going to be made to provide all kinds of corroborative supportive evidence for this point?


Don't worry, your posts are never evidenced


But if it is a known fact that an area of land is actually a historic flood plain :
(A) Why Build on it? - Lack of other areas to build, or economic advantage, targets to meet opportunity, and a million others
(B) If you choose to Build on it why not make adequate dispersal measures? - They are adequate for the conditions at the time, but like most things will be caught out by extremes
(C) Why not Elevate the properties as in days of old in the Fens? - They were not, the elevation is due to the shrinking of the land as it dries out.
(D) The flat lands in Lancashire employ constant extraction pumping to keep areas dry, if pumping stations like that at Abbeystead work, why not use the system in such areas? - Different structures, geography, different needs

But even more importantly do folk actually buy houses in such areas? I ask this in much the same way as I would like to know why people buy houses on cliff edges subject to coastal erosion?
[color=#0000FF]Many don't they are houses that have been there for many generations, and the issues are due to other factors. One area I am familiar with the problems were caused by building on a flood plain, but the issues are because the water cannot run off, so the flooding is away from the flood plain [/color]
Living in an elevated area myself, for us to suffer flooding of the type seen the Liver Birds would have to be up to their necks in water, yet I have to pay for "Flood Protection" in my home insurance. -Flooding is a standard inclusion.... if your bath overflows it is a "flood", as is a rise in the water table, a failure of the drainage system, none of which you are exempt from

Psamathe
Posts: 10380
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: ** The Brexit Thread ** - 'Brexit Means Brexit'

Postby Psamathe » 22 Sep 2019, 10:31am

Cunobelin wrote:
merseymouth wrote:Hello there, I hope I'm not going to be made to provide all kinds of corroborative supportive evidence for this point?


Don't worry, your posts are never evidenced


But if it is a known fact that an area of land is actually a historic flood plain :
(A) Why Build on it? - Lack of other areas to build, or economic advantage, targets to meet opportunity, and a million others
(B) If you choose to Build on it why not make adequate dispersal measures? - They are adequate for the conditions at the time, but like most things will be caught out by extremes
(C) Why not Elevate the properties as in days of old in the Fens? - They were not, the elevation is due to the shrinking of the land as it dries out.
(D) The flat lands in Lancashire employ constant extraction pumping to keep areas dry, if pumping stations like that at Abbeystead work, why not use the system in such areas? - Different structures, geography, different needs

But even more importantly do folk actually buy houses in such areas? I ask this in much the same way as I would like to know why people buy houses on cliff edges subject to coastal erosion?
Many don't they are houses that have been there for many generations, and the issues are due to other factors. One area I am familiar with the problems were caused by building on a flood plain, but the issues are because the water cannot run off, so the flooding is away from the flood plain
Living in an elevated area myself, for us to suffer flooding of the type seen the Liver Birds would have to be up to their necks in water, yet I have to pay for "Flood Protection" in my home insurance. -Flooding is a standard inclusion.... if your bath overflows it is a "flood", as is a rise in the water table, a failure of the drainage system, none of which you are exempt from

When I was house hunting 10 years ago I could have purchased a bigger better house with more land at a lower price if it was in a flood risk area. You get more house for less money. But in such situations I believe it is a choice/risk the purchaser choses to take and so should not be "underwritten" by society.

House hunting in Norfolk I saw some properties that would likely be affected by costal erosion in the long term future (after I'd have moved-on) but like lease terms, longer you stay there the closer you get to the coast the harder it would get to sell the property (or the lower the price you'd get for it) - so I didn't even bother going to look at such properties).

Planning regulations in flood risk areas require not only measures for the building but also means for the residents to escape (get out). So building a property on stilts does not provide the means for the residents to get out. Plus their car parked outside their house would be an insurance claim.

Posted before her by somebody else
floods_3537265b.jpg


Ian

Mike Sales
Posts: 3345
Joined: 7 Mar 2009, 3:31pm

Re: ** The Brexit Thread ** - 'Brexit Means Brexit'

Postby Mike Sales » 22 Sep 2019, 10:36am

Image

Boston Stump in the 2013 floods. It was not built on a flood plain.

slowster
Posts: 933
Joined: 7 Jul 2017, 10:37am

Re: ** The Brexit Thread ** - 'Brexit Means Brexit'

Postby slowster » 22 Sep 2019, 10:53am

merseymouth wrote:But if it is a known fact that an area of land is actually a historic flood plain (A) Why Build on it? (B) If you choose to Build on it why not make adequate dispersal measures? (C) Why not Elevate the properties as in days of old in the Fens? (D) The flat lands in Lancashire employ constant extraction pumping to keep areas dry, if pumping stations like that at Abbeystead work, why not use the system in such areas?
But even more importantly do folk actually buy houses in such areas? I ask this in much the same way as I would like to know why people buy houses on cliff edges subject to coastal erosion?

We live on a relatively small island, parts of which are densely populated, and demographic changes and culture (increasing numbers of homes in single occupancy and a preference for houses over flats) are such that it is probably impossible to meet demand and needs for new private and commercial properties without building in areas where there is a degree of increased flood risk.

pete75 wrote:Building on flood plains is sanctioned by the government as no development can legally happen without governmental permission unless it is of a very minor nature.

To clarify:

The Government in England and Wales has published guidelines for planning applications where there is a flood risk, which local authority planning committees must follow. In short they are something like this:
1. Don't build on land with a flood risk. There is usually insufficient flood risk free land available in the area to allow this, so
2. Default to only putting classes of buildings on flood plain which present a relatively low consequence if they are flooded, e.g. typically commercial premises, as opposed to private residences and more especially buildings with highly vulnerable occupants, e.g. nursing homes and hospitals, as well as important infrastructure like electricity stations etc.
3. Default to using flood plain that has the lowest level of increased risk, e.g. 1 in 200 instead of 1 in 75.
The developer's planning application will need to comply with the above guidelines and include a flood risk assessment of the impact of flooding and the mitigation measures and flood protection that it proposes to provide, e.g. things like raising the ground floor level.

Obviously the amount of potential land available that could be used for development that is flood risk free will vary between local authority areas. In some areas of the UK with likely low development pressures it's probably easy to fulfil development needs without using flood risk land, in others it's impossible.

The planning committee should block applications that don't meet the guidelines, but obviously the decision making process may be inappropriately influenced by local politics and politicians, and the Environment Agency therefore has a duty to review all such planning applications and advise the local authority. If the local authority overrules or ignores EA advice not to give planning permission, the EA can challenge the decision (can't remember if it goes to court or central government). However, EA resources are limited, and they are likely only to challenge where they are fairly confident of winning.

I can recall at least one developer's risk assessment for a major residential conversion on an exposed area of coastal flood risk which basically suggested that because residents would have X minutes to walk along a causeway to get to a place of safety, it was OK, i.e. the risk assessment was little more than suggesting the residents should be able to evacuate in time. It was a laughable risk assessment, and I'm pretty sure that one was turned down.

As for protection measures like raising flooors and dispersal methods, fenland drainage systems etc., all these things are done and used, but there is usually no single panacea. All these systems have weaknesses or potential failure modes, and usually it's necessary to consider multiple systems.

If you improve drainage in one area, you may find that the increased water flow through results in areas downstream becoming flooded. Similarly there can be synergistic effects: inland drainage systems and pumping stations to help remove the water from a period of heavy rainfall can be rendered almost useless if the same low pressure weather system has also resulted in a major storm surge, i.e. the sea/tidal river levels can be so high that outfalls from the inland drainage are submerged, with the result that water backs up inland.

In fact there are several types of flooding. It's not just a matter of the risk of rivers overflowing or coastal storm surges. Drainage and sewage systems can be overwhelmed by heavy rainfall and/or blocked, and sometimes extremely heavy rainfall can flood areas before it even gets anywhere near the river or drainage systems (as happened in Hull in 2007). Moreover, as I mentioned above, often these types of flooding occur together, making the impact worse, harder to predict/model, and harder to mitigate and protect against.

merseymouth wrote:Living in an elevated area myself , for us to suffer flooding of the type seen the Liver Birds would have to be up to their necks in water, yet I have to pay for "Flood Protection" in my home insurance.

I presume you mean that your cover includes flooding as standard together with all the usual covers in a household policy, e.g. fire, explosion, storm, escape of water, impact by vehicles etc. If you are in a low/normal flood risk area, then your premium will reflect that, and the percentage of the premium that might be notionally allocated to the flood risk is tiny. It's not worth it to insurers to start offering policies where people can choose to omit flood cover, or impact cover etc. because they reckon the risk is negligible. The discount would be trivial and the administration costs would exceed the discount. Bear in mind also that while it might be impossible for sea levels to reach your home, sewer system back up or heavy rainfall and surface run off are things which you might still suffer, so it's worth having the cover even if you think you'll never need it.