These floods.

[KateLMead]

and I never even mentioned royalty so I am still waiting for find out what you took exception to in my post Kate?

I mentioned the Queen Mother and the blitz, but that was all, I certainly did not insult anyone.

On the news the other night, there was a householder sweeping water out of her house and as a car went past the flow back just made it worse than before she started

I apologise Shell brain malfunction.. I love the Queen and feel blessed we have her, her life has not been a bed of roses and she has taken and carried out her duties without complaint.

[KateLMead]

I think a lot of people in well paid government jobs have a lazy approach to the way they do their jobs. As long as things seem to be ticking over they are quite happy to draw their salaries and blame outside influences when things go wrong.

Quite right, medsec222.

I would add that this attitude is not now confined to people in government jobs.

It's an attitude that comes, in my opinion, from living in an affluent, money-grabbing, thoughtless society.

The Flood Tzar, sunning himself with his Jamaican wife and family in Barbados.. Salary £100,000 a year for "supposedly working three days a week" he was outraged when he was ordered to return to the UK and he 'resigned his position, in other words "the social embarrassment was caught out and was given the boot."

[pederito1]

In my opinion flooding is not being treated seriously enough particularly if people have to live on flood plains. The excess water should be got to the only place for it which is the sea when the ground is saturated or much of it concreted over and to to this end the river beds should be dredged to the maximum possible falls, bxxxxr the snails or whatever lives on the bed and where possible relief channels should also be dug with suitable falls. In addition reservoirs should be provided with massive pumping facilities to send the water on its way. Expensive yes but there seems to be plenty of money for SOME things.

[Aggers]

pederito1 - I agree with everything you say.

I think it is terrible that people should have to suffer time and time again,
because of the lack of a sensible policy for dealing with floods.

[cruiser2]

This afternoon I went into the back garden to prune the rose and some evening primrose. I could stand on the flagged path to do this.
Looking at the lawn, it is still waterlogged and I have never seen it like this before. If we have frost the water will freeze round the roots of the grass and will cause more damage.
Even the front garden is still wet and this slopes down to the pavement.
The EU Directive of 2000 which stopped trees being planted on hills and silt from rivers being classed as hazardous waste started the bad management of rivers and other drainage systems.
If there were no floods we wouldn't have to spend all the money being wasted on flood defenses.

[Kaz]

Exactly right, cruiser x

[Workingman]

The issue of dredging is one to be careful of - it has become a dangerous mantra.

In the lower reaches dredging works to allow quicker flows to the sea. In the upper reaches it is madness, it just moves the floods downstream - that is what the EU regs recognised.

But what am I saying? We all know the floods were the fault of the EU. Carry on.

[Suff]

The floods are a harbinger of things to come. The biggest lesson which is NOT being learned is that there will be more water, in a shorter time period, more often, than we have ever seen before.

Instead of discussing why the flood defences, designed for a different climate, failed so spectacularly when faced with a new event, we should be discussing how to fix them now and how to expand the capabilities for the future events, of which these will simply be a small precursor.

Instead all those responsible for making sure we are not flooding are running around trying to find someone to blame or hiding in a hole. The elephant is still in the room and it is being ignored as usual.