UK flooding

briantrumpet

bendertherobot wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

It's weirder than that. Who is the "We" he speaks of? Governments don't do dredging. Sure, they can provide more funding for it to their AGENCIES, but the language is very odd.

It's almost certainly a precursor to having a go at the Agency despite all agreeing that the job they are doing on the ground is first rate.

I fear you may be right. That said, Pickles probably should watch his back too. When all of this is all over, there will be independent reviews of what happened carried out and when they show what everyone in the business knows, that dredging would have made little difference, Cameron and Pickles will be the ones having some questions to answer.

They are playing this like spiteful children in the playground and it does them no favours at all.

There's some interesting stuff knocking round about putting birds lives before peoples. Protecting wetlands etc. Or, if you like, **** off Europe. Have a google of sluice gate Somerset. Interesting conspiracy theories about the Agency not letting the water out. But, on the other side of that gate, is a Nature Reserve. Open it and I suspect that it would be wiped out. And that's IF opening it is even useful or sensible in the first place (it's open but only partially so).

Yes, I'd agree the whole thing does smell of political opportunism, but on both sides: on the "just add water" side, there has been the opportunity both for the excuse to reduce costly procedures to keep drained land drained, and to be able blame Brussels and its 'Habitat Directive' as the reason, with the double whammy of appearing green and saving money at the same time; and now Pickles and co are jumping on the dredging bandwagon to hit political opponents, as well as appearing to do something about the crisis.

That said, the sluice gate link is interesting, and illustrates why people whose livelihoods depend on viable farmland get twitchy about manipulation of water levels on sensitive low-lying land: it is relatively easy to raise water levels in such land, and very often difficult to understand the reasons or how/why it's happening - and whilst it's extremely unlikely that individual farmers will have a good understanding of the complexities of the entire drainage system, they'll know when water levels aren't what they are expecting, field-by-field. When there is also the political movement to raise water levels (whether or not that's a direct result of the EU directive), it can only feed the conspiracy theories. If water isn't being allowed to drain off such land when the opportunity is there, it's not surprising that people will ask "why?"

Having said all of that, though the current situation would probably have occurred to some extent what ever dredging had been done, the upside is that at least a better debate might be had about how such land is managed. Up till now it's been pretty much out of public view, and management practices have changed out of view of those whom it directly affects, and which could have profound implications for how sensitive land is managed. So even if the current furore has been provoked for the wrong reasons, it might yet have positive outcomes. And by that, I don't mean 'dredging is good' (even if I do think that it is important part of the management of the land in question), but that both the science and politics will have to be more open to scrutiny.

rayjay

Rick Chasey wrote:

Can't remember what I was watching but they had some expert with some good quality looking credentials talking about how to solve this now and prevent it in the future.

He was saying that dredging is really only part of a wider solution and is only applicable for certain instances. He then accused both sides of the government for fixating on dredging as a political rally cry rather than sensible governance.

I think I was watching the same thing. Dredging has become the trendy word for both sides of the debate.

Dredging alone will not be the answer for the amount of rain that has fallen.

We have had some seriously wet weather now for quite a while and a permanent solution needs to be found even if it means it will take longer for things to get back to normal. We are a country of sticking plasters. I see pot holes filled then weeks later they are there again.

These issues need to sorted out with long term efficiency and not another sticking plaster or the same thing will happen again and again.

bendertherobot

Some good points there chaps.

Anyway, the focus is about to change big time. Thames is bursting out all over the place. No amount of dredging would help there.

adamfo

I live in Somerset, not the levels but the Blackdown hills. Even high up we can get localized flooding due to the high water table level. Dig a hole deeper than six feet or so and it will fill up with water from underneath to a depth of about a foot. Someone building house foundations must make sure they lay a waterproof membrane.

When it rains really heavily for a prolonged period the rain soaks into the fields until hits the flint level and comes out horizontally through the hedge banks. These date back to medieval times. As long as the local streams and ditches are not blocked there is no real problem. In the fall though they do get blocked with small branches and debris within minutes particularly if it's windy . There is no easy solution. You need the trees to stabilize the land and soil.

Frank the tank

rayjay wrote:

Frank the tank wrote:

Perhaps if everyone paid all their income tax councils would have a bit more money to spend aye.

Do you mean , If all these companies raking in millions of pounds in this country and then avoiding paying the tax they should be by having smart accountant's

Do you mean some of the wealthiest people also having tax avoidance schemes.

or do you mean some bloke who earns £40 / 50 a day and gets cash in hand.,,thats going to stop the floods

I know what ones we should be going after ....

If they want to take their business services away then they can Fu%K off , Go and take your full cream coffee dream somewhere else.

I was making a response to Pross.

bianchimoon

Rolf F wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

Mikey23 wrote:

@bendertherobot.... talking sense. But will that stop us playing the blame game? i doubt it...

You'll see this morning that Pickles has admitted the dredging failure. So Smith will be gone soon. Possibly Patterson as well.

Quote from Pickles (clearly either a nasty piece of work or simply very, very stupid).

"We made a mistake, there's no doubt about that and we perhaps relied too much on the Environment Agency's advice" ."I am really sorry that we took the advice … we thought we were dealing with experts."

I love the reference to relying too much on EA advice. From where would he prefer to get his 'advice' from? He isn't in a position to rely on others advice as he doesn't make these decisions (that's what the EA is for) and that's right because he knows absolutely nothing about the problems. I'll be impressed if he can find a reputable expert anywhere in the world who agrees with his politically skewed and unknowledgeable opinions.

Why do we end up having unpleasant, stupid fools like this in charge of us?

because some people are born to lie, cheat, forget all principles to make a name (and money) for themselves.
At the opposite end of the spectrum there are the people who realise that leading people is a thankless, unwinable task, so they just ride their bikes instead.

BelgianBeerGeek

I did see Piffles' interview ( Mrs BBGEEK works in govt, so we spend our Sunday mornings thus :roll: ). It was a small section of his chat, almost immediately on BBC News.

the Govt took advice, but were overruled by others shouting "drainage" louder. I really do not know who is right and who is wrong (and the truth may be somewhere in between), but the Govt decided to go with the vocal majority. It's the way they work. If the Daily Mail had insisted immigration was to blame, Cameron and his cronies would have been on that bandwagon too. As if the government have any real, clear ideas how to sort this out.

Mikey23

They did all they could... Visit the scene, play the media, look suitably concerned/determined, promise the earth. Hope everybody forgets about it when the sun comes out and still votes for them and they don't have to actually do anything...

Cynical? Moi?

BelgianBeerGeek

Mikey23 wrote:

They did all they could... Visit the scene, play the media, look suitably concerned/determined, promise the earth. Hope everybody forgets about it when the sun comes out and still votes for them and they don't have to actually do anything...

Cynical? Moi?

Indeed Mikey. A quick check shows that Somerset is largely blue. And with local elections coming up, they would be mad to not pay a visit, strike a few poses, make a few promises before getting in the helicopter and buggering off.
Which might explain Pickles' appearance. I don't think there is a helicopter built that could lift that excrescence.

rolf_f

BelgianBeerGeek wrote:

Which might explain Pickles' appearance.

The only thing that would explain Pickles appearance is an awful lot of pies in a short period of time and no exercise.

I noticed another quote of his "Pickles said: "It does not matter if it is climate change or a fluctuation in weather patterns," adding that he was not qualified to comment on the ultimate cause".

Which begs the question - why did not being qualified to comment not stop him from spouting ignorant nonsense about hydrology? And what actually is he qualified to comment on?

rayjay

Rolf F wrote:

BelgianBeerGeek wrote:

Which might explain Pickles' appearance.

The only thing that would explain Pickles appearance is an awful lot of pies in a short period of time and no exercise.

I noticed another quote of his "Pickles said: "It does not matter if it is climate change or a fluctuation in weather patterns," adding that he was not qualified to comment on the ultimate cause".

Which begs the question - why did not being qualified to comment not stop him from spouting ignorant nonsense about hydrology? And what actually is he qualified to comment on?

Like most cabinet minsters they are just a sound piece for whoever is in power.

Like puppets to be manipulated and sacrificed if needed.

Sorry about the interjection earlier Frank.

Lookyhere

plus side... he would make a great sand bag and ballast for the collapsed Dawlish rail line....well.... at least until the sun comes out, he would then melt.

What is crazy is that we are still only in early February...plenty more winter and rain to come.

graham.

There was a bit on Radio 4 this morning (Didn't catch all of it). Scientist bloke, seemed to know what he was talking about.
Ended by saying "Eric Pickles would be more use as a sandbag!".

bendertherobot

The demands for dredging the Thames will be overwhelming by the end of the day. And, this time, it will be from "people who count." Celebs, politicians, the rich and famous.

Mikey23

I think the EA chappy lord doo dah was saying that they have to operate within government restraints and targets and that they could only spend up to an 8 to 1 payback. So 400k was allocated for dredging last year but other funding was required which was not forthcoming. The money is still on the table but was not taken up.

Another point is that there was a plan to allow the levels to selectively flood back in 2007 but this does not seem to be current EA policy. A bit of an own goal there

The bird sanctuary is actually a flooding prevention method whereby we retreat and allow an area to become a buffer which is also attractive to bird life. Was explained in countryfile from the Humber estuary and makes pretty good sense to me

I think it was said that 3000 people have been affected on the levels and 5000 currently at risk in the Thames flood plain

slowbike

Mikey23 wrote:

5000 currently at risk in the Thames flood plain

Hmm ... flood plain ... what does that mean then ... oh yes - it can flood ... good idea to build houses there then ...

kieranb

well, I would prefer some of my taxes to still go to very poor people in other countires, I can live with a few potholes.

pblakeney

Mikey23 wrote:

I think it was said that 3000 people have been affected on the levels and 5000 currently at risk in the Thames flood plain

Can we assume that 4000 is the cut-off before we get interested then?

Pross

kieranb wrote:

well, I would prefer some of my taxes to still go to very poor people in other countires, I can live with a few potholes.

I'd rather mine go to helping the poor guy whose house was in the paper on Saturday. The million pound house that has recently been built on low lying land in the levels. Far more deserving than starving foreigners IMHO.

MartinGT

Charity does begin at home. It is awful what is happening down south, however, you cannot compare someone's £500k house flooding somewhat to some poor kids in places like India etc.

India, a country we certainly abused and cannot drop aid on. Yes, they have a nuclear and space programme etc, but I do think we owe them!

random man

The floods this year have created a lot of media and political frenzy. I don't remember this much fuss when Doncaster, Hull or Cockermouth were under water.
Who's Eric Pickles going to blame now Datchet and Staines are flooded?

The fact is, we've had a hell of a lot of rain in the south this year. I was born and brought up near Staines and Windsor and in 58 years I've never seen the Thames as high as it is now.
Eric ickles should apologise to the Environment Agency and just admit he's a fat tw@t who knows fark all.

MartinGT

random man wrote:

The floods this year have created a lot of media and political frenzy. I don't remember this much fuss when Doncaster, Hull or Cockermouth were under water.
Who's Eric Pickles going to blame now Datchet and Staines are flooded?

The fact is, we've had a hell of a lot of rain in the south this year. I was born and brought up near Staines and Windsor and in 58 years I've never seen the Thames as high as it is now.
Eric ickles should apologise to the Environment Agency and just admit he's a fat tw@t who knows fark all.

Dont you realise if its snowing in the South, it means the whole of the UK is 6ft under!

adamfo

Rolf F wrote:

The only thing that would explain Pickles appearance is an awful lot of pies in a short period of time and no exercise.

Don't panic we are in safe hands.

Pross

random man wrote:

The floods this year have created a lot of media and political frenzy. I don't remember this much fuss when Doncaster, Hull or Cockermouth were under water.
Who's Eric Pickles going to blame now Datchet and Staines are flooded?

The fact is, we've had a hell of a lot of rain in the south this year. I was born and brought up near Staines and Windsor and in 58 years I've never seen the Thames as high as it is now.
Eric ickles should apologise to the Environment Agency and just admit he's a fat tw@t who knows fark all.

To be fair flooding in Doncaster or Hull isn't going to do any harm is it?

rolf_f

adamfo wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

The only thing that would explain Pickles appearance is an awful lot of pies in a short period of time and no exercise.

Don't panic we are in safe hands.

Lol - as long as they keep him away from the river channels. Can you imagine the consequences if he fell in!

finchy

Rick Chasey wrote:

Can't remember what I was watching but they had some expert with some good quality looking credentials talking about how to solve this now and prevent it in the future.

He was saying that dredging is really only part of a wider solution and is only applicable for certain instances. He then accused both sides of the government for fixating on dredging as a political rally cry rather than sensible governance.

Dredging wasn't really much of an issue until that prize clown Christopher Booker wrote articles for the Daily Heil and the Torygraph about how these floods were created by a lack of dredging. If you were cynical, you might think, hmmmm, the wettest January on record, events unfolding as predicted by climatologists and forecast to increase in frequency in future years... maybe these two global warming denialist rags need to distract people's attention... and now - bingo! - we have the usual scapegoat... bureaucrats and environmentalists get blamed by knee-jerk morons who still believe the shite they read in those little rags. It's like a Torygasm.

But then I'm not cynical.

briantrumpet

johnfinch wrote:

Dredging wasn't really much of an issue until that prize clown Christopher Booker wrote articles for the Daily Heil and the Torygraph about how these floods were created by a lack of dredging. If you were cynical, you might think, hmmmm, the wettest January on record, events unfolding as predicted by climatologists and forecast to increase in frequency in future years... maybe these two global warming denialist rags need to distract people's attention... and now - bingo! - we have the usual scapegoat... bureaucrats and environmentalists get blamed by knee-jerk morons who still believe the shite they read in those little rags. It's like a Torygasm.

But then I'm not cynical.

I suspect you might have found it'd been an issue for some time if you talked to the farmers on the Levels - just because it hadn't made it into the press doesn't mean to say it wasn't a concern for them.

I'm going to post a link to what I think is a climate-change denier's blog, but one which suggests that actually it hasn't been a remarkably wet one for Somerset, in terms of historic rainfall averages. I'd be delighted if you can prove their science wrong, but if their statistics aren't completely topsy-turvy, then it does raise interesting questions. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/18/f ... ase-study/

The pity is that the debate has descended into shouting "Dredge!" and "Dredging is a waste of time!" at each other, and ad hominem attacks and name-calling so quickly, from both sides of the debate, instead of actually sensibly weighing up the complex issues (both scientific and humanitarian). Though I guess that with politicians involved, that's not entirely surprising.

adamfo

Man of action Camoron takes charge at Chesil beach. Us southern pansies can sleep safe tonight.
Grim northern types might be wondering why it's not raining and what the sun is.

finchy

briantrumpet wrote:

I suspect you might have found it'd been an issue for some time if you talked to the farmers on the Levels - just because it hadn't made it into the press doesn't mean to say it wasn't a concern for them.

You're right, I expressed it badly. What I meant by that was that nobody was really suggesting that dredging was the only issue until the media got hold of this angle.

briantrumpet wrote:

I'm going to post a link to what I think is a climate-change denier's blog, but one which suggests that actually it hasn't been a remarkably wet one for Somerset, in terms of historic rainfall averages. I'd be delighted if you can prove their science wrong, but if their statistics aren't completely topsy-turvy, then it does raise interesting questions. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/18/f ... ase-study/

You've also got to consider how saturated the ground was before the latest rains (and notice that January isn't included) as well as land use changes, etc., not just the total rainfall in the month in which the flood started.

briantrumpet wrote:

The pity is that the debate has descended into shouting "Dredge!" and "Dredging is a waste of time!" at each other, and ad hominem attacks and name-calling so quickly, from both sides of the debate, instead of actually sensibly weighing up the complex issues (both scientific and humanitarian). Though I guess that with politicians involved, that's not entirely surprising.

Probably, but I think that the media are as much to blame as anyone else. Also, there are so few politicians with backgrounds in engineering or science that they probably don't have much of a clue.

Mikey23

Makes you both proud and humble at the same time...