Quote:
Originally Posted by WillyHeckaslike
No, I don't agree with a number of views on this thread. We thrive as a species because we pull together. In our birthday suits and as individuals there are many critters which are born with the ability to take us down in their natural environments ... assuming we survive their environments long enough for them to do so. Something is wrong when problems are not solved and repeat despite much wonga grabs from those who are charged with serving the source of those wonga grabs. I don't live in a flood zone, but I think something needs to be done to help those who do and we should collectively stand up to the mark with respect to this. Money does not grow on trees but metaphorically speaking do we need so many of them when huge continents survive with much less of them.  |
You are right of course, we have an earned reputation for charitable and generous unstinting attitudes to those in need. The relaxation of planning rules to allow building in previously risky areas is at the root of the current disaster. As said earlier there always have been suitable safe alternatives other than those offered.
The recent comments about
caveat emptor were about just one particular phone-in victim from an affected area suggesting those affected should get compensation from the government for the inundation and the failure to provide protection. That seems a step too far!