UK flooding again

[El Cid]

The other point I was making is that if you take £40 million from the total budget it doesn't all come from anti-flooding measures. If you then give them £40 million specifically for anti-flooding measures, it should all go to anti-flooding measures. Therefore the anti-flooding budget should have gone up substantially.

 

There is that aspect, but perhaps a bigger on is its just for defences in the North; what happens if Central of Southern England floods next week?

Didnt Ireland flood too?

[Eric Arthur]

As I'm the only one to have posted facts, figures and references on this thread; I'm going to assume that was some kind of joke.

 

It's no good posting facts and figures if you don't understand what they mean because sometimes duo plus duo pares quinque.

[unbeliever]

It's no good posting facts and figures if you don't understand what they mean because sometimes duo plus duo pares quinque.

 

Better than relying on argumentum ad verecundiam.

[Mister M]

I have a friend who has bought a house in the Lower Broughton area of Salford, and with more rain predicted, they live in fear of the River Irwell bursting its banks again. The flooding which subsided left all sorts of debris in its wake soiled nappies, excrement, plastic bags etc. He says the whole area now stinks to high heaven.

[tzijlstra]

As I'm the only one to have posted facts, figures and references on this thread; I'm going to assume that was some kind of joke.

 

No you're not. You post things that you think support your argument without understanding your argument.

[Eric Arthur]

Better than relying on argumentum ad verecundiam.

 

Although you still don't seem to have any experience of either the costs of running a business or what the EA actually does.

[sgtkate]

There must be lessons learned from Pickering and other similar examples, where the entire water management system from rain to town has been looked at and worked with. Building higher and higher walls cannot continue indefinitely. Flooding is never about the amount of water, it's always about the rate of that water hitting the rivers. I'm sure the EA is well aware of this and probably try to do something about it, but while we keep giving out subsidies to farmers to leave land as 'agricultural' which means it is more often than not left as empty soil, and then puts in flood defences to protect a bloody empty field while sending the water tumbling down the hill to a major city, then the EA is as useless as a chocolate tea pot.

[unbeliever]

Although you still don't seem to have any experience of either the costs of running a business or what the EA actually does.

 

It might be more constructive to stop complaining about what I supposedly don't know and post some actual information of your own.

 

Your arguments are becoming more ad hominem than ad verecundiam. Neither of which is terribly convincing.

Edited January 4, 2016 by unbeliever

[Eric Arthur]

It might be more constructive to stop complaining about what I supposedly don't know and post some actual information of your own.

 

Your arguments are becoming more ad hominem than ad verecundiam. Neither of which is terribly convincing.

 

Please begin this process by explaining why you think the EA flood and staff budgets are wrong. Actual information, not complaints, if you want to be convincing,

[unbeliever]

Please begin this process by explaining why you think the EA flood and staff budgets are wrong. Actual information, not complaints, if you want to be convincing,

 

I've already done that.

They have a budget of £1200 million and spend only £240 million (20%) on building and maintaining flood defences.

You made handwaving statements about how they had other responsibilities and how it might take over 11000 directly employed people to manage the whole thing. You did so without specifying what those other responsibilities were and how they might account for a good chunk of the £960 million per year that is not spent directly on flood defences.

 

You're trying to place the entire evidentiary burden on me, which is a fairly common debate tactic, but rather unconvincing in this case.