Who's the bigger vandal?

morstar

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-46316985

Got to be honest, I'm a bit confused.

It is acceptable to flood an entire village. Vandalism on a permanent and epic scale, but heaven forbid you should trash any of said village when the water drops.

Don't get me wrong, people are dickheads, but isn't there some loss of perspective here? It is no longer a village, it's a feature of a lake bed.

sniper68

They had to blow up the church spire from the other flooded village(Ashopton) across the A57 as people were taking boats out to it to nick bits when then water was low enough.
I sort of agree with your sentiments but these decisions were taken over 100 years ago so a different time and different outlook?The growing Cities of Sheffield/Manchester/Derby were considered more important than the two villages they flooded.
I'm sure they still food villages/valleys to build Dams now too?

morstar

I just don't see why it's a news story. If a unique archaeological site of historic significance was discovered, I could understand the big deal if people went and trashed it.
It's not, it's a village that was ruled expendable, the likes of the village exist all over the peak district in unflooded format. There is no historic significance, it's a bunch of stones.
You would have to be a bit of a censored to trash the place but kids throw stones. It's a unique stone throwing opportunity.

surrey_commuter

I don’t know much about reservoirs but I would have thought it being November 25th and it still being empty would be a bigger news story

sniper68

morstar wrote:

I just don't see why it's a news story.

So why bother posting this thread at all then :?:

Ben6899

I'm merely envious of the quoted lady who doesn't have anything of any enormity going on in her life to put what she witnessed into some kind of perspective.

robert88

Surrey Commuter wrote:

I don’t know much about reservoirs but I would have thought it being November 25th and it still being empty would be a bigger news story

This.

oxoman

I would be more bothered about the risk to rescue services that had to rescue some numpty stuck up to their chest in the mud.

rolf_f

Sniper68 wrote:

They had to blow up the church spire from the other flooded village(Ashopton) across the A57 as people were taking boats out to it to nick bits when then water was low enough.
I sort of agree with your sentiments but these decisions were taken over 100 years ago so a different time and different outlook?The growing Cities of Sheffield/Manchester/Derby were considered more important than the two villages they flooded.
I'm sure they still food villages/valleys to build Dams now too?

Not in the UK as that sort of thing struggles to get past the planning/massed public protest stage. There is potential for some reservoir developments in the South but I can't see any villages being taken out by such activities; having to use Perrier to wash your car isn't yet regarded as a good enough reason to trash villages. That may change as climate change increases the frequency and extent of droughts.

thegreatdivide

Sniper68 wrote:

morstar wrote:

I just don't see why it's a news story.

So why bother posting this thread at all then :?:

You just used the censored *st forum comeback in the book. Poor effort.

joe_totale-2

In my opinion, Gaiseric was the biggest and most influential of the Vandals.

craigus89

Joe Totale wrote:

In my opinion, Gaiseric was the biggest and most influential of the Vandals.

That tickled me.

pblakeney

Rolf F wrote:

Sniper68 wrote:

They had to blow up the church spire from the other flooded village(Ashopton) across the A57 as people were taking boats out to it to nick bits when then water was low enough.
I sort of agree with your sentiments but these decisions were taken over 100 years ago so a different time and different outlook?The growing Cities of Sheffield/Manchester/Derby were considered more important than the two villages they flooded.
I'm sure they still food villages/valleys to build Dams now too?

Not in the UK as that sort of thing struggles to get past the planning/massed public protest stage. There is potential for some reservoir developments in the South but I can't see any villages being taken out by such activities; having to use Perrier to wash your car isn't yet regarded as a good enough reason to trash villages. That may change as climate change increases the frequency and extent of droughts.

Meanwhile, they are wondering what to do with all the flood water.
Hmmmmmm.....

robert88

Rolf F wrote:

Sniper68 wrote:

They had to blow up the church spire from the other flooded village(Ashopton) across the A57 as people were taking boats out to it to nick bits when then water was low enough.
I sort of agree with your sentiments but these decisions were taken over 100 years ago so a different time and different outlook?The growing Cities of Sheffield/Manchester/Derby were considered more important than the two villages they flooded.
I'm sure they still food villages/valleys to build Dams now too?

Not in the UK as that sort of thing struggles to get past the planning/massed public protest stage. There is potential for some reservoir developments in the South but I can't see any villages being taken out by such activities; having to use Perrier to wash your car isn't yet regarded as a good enough reason to trash villages. That may change as climate change increases the frequency and extent of droughts.

I have cycled through Perrier. They have a tap from which I was able fill my bidon, real bona fide Perrier water. I could have washed my bike with it if it had occurred to me.

Matthewfalle

morstar wrote:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-46316985

Got to be honest, I'm a bit confused.

It is acceptable to flood an entire village. Vandalism on a permanent and epic scale, but heaven forbid you should trash any of said village when the water drops.

Don't get me wrong, people are dickheads, but isn't there some loss of perspective here? It is no longer a village, it's a feature of a lake bed.

so you are condoning it then? saying its ok to trash a monument?

robert88

It can be ok to trash a monument. Why not?

It's one of the ten commandments that monuments are bad.

morstar

Matthewfalle wrote:

morstar wrote:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-46316985

Got to be honest, I'm a bit confused.

It is acceptable to flood an entire village. Vandalism on a permanent and epic scale, but heaven forbid you should trash any of said village when the water drops.

Don't get me wrong, people are dickheads, but isn't there some loss of perspective here? It is no longer a village, it's a feature of a lake bed.

so you are condoning it then? saying its ok to trash a monument?

I don't think it's worth getting wound up about. It is not a village, it is an ex village.

Most of Hadrians wall was used to make roads. Old stuff gets knocked down and tarmacced over all the time.

crispybug2

When I was still a kid I lived not far from Rutland water, which I think I’m correct in saying is the largest man made inland body of water in England, me and some friends would often cycle up there and go swimming
During the long hot summer of ‘76 a village which was flooded making the reservoir slowly appeared, it was fascinating and strangely eerie to watch!

mouth

You're asking this in a country with a government which is about to plough down thousands of miles of countryside and CPO a great many livelihoods in order to build a train set. Of course it's going to be ok.