Well according to the BBC 5,800 homes and business are under water.

Let’s ignore other countries for now – countries we know get it far worse.

In the UK in 2007, it was 55,000 give or take. But they were main in Hull and Sheffield so don’t count perhaps?

In 2000, it was around 11,000.

So should the headlines be well done Environment Agency, and stop whinging southern types?

It’s not a competition FFS.

If your house and your village/town were under 6ft of water wouldn’t you be ****ed off?

Always good to keep things in perspective and yes, the closer to London, the higher the priority in the News, Media and Westminster.

spacemonkey +1
Just give it a rest, eh?

In a similar vein I walked past a man who got knocked down in the street as people are suffering far worse in Syria.

Fair enough, I agree it’s nasty of to happens to you, but the reporting it way over the top.

Perhaps it’s just living south of York where we have regular flooding events, and having been heavily involved in the 2000 aftermath around Selby, and the 2007 aftermath in Sheffield (Hull was worse than Sheffield for what it’s worth) I’ve ended up with a different view of flooding events.

They’re going to happen. We have to learn to deal with it.

It’s not just the households though it’s the huge swathes of agriculture land and infrastructure damage. I’m thankful it’s not me or the county I live in that’s effected and thoughts with those that are.

So should the headlines be well done Environment Agency, and stop whinging southern types?

Yes they should.

The balanced view seems to have been that things would be much worse if it weren’t for the investment in flood defences since 2007 and therefore the scale of the damage is much less than in Sheffield and Hull.

The reason the media reaction (and therefore the polictical reaction) seems out of proportion to 2007 may in part be due to the proximity to London. However I think it is probably more an consequence of the length of time the flooding has been an issue.

The floods in 2007 were flash floods, huge ammounts of damage, infastructure affected, etc. The M1 being closed and the damm about to burst got lots of attention but the whole thing was big news as well. But after a week all the water was gone, the clear up started and for all except those directly affected the event was over.

This time its has seemingly rained no stop for months. It’s not the size of any one storm but the sheer ammount of rain falling over a very long time that is the issue. So the floods have stayed in the news. People are angry because they want politicians to do what mother nature normally does and get rid of the water, this also makes news and sucks politicians into the narative. The longer this goes on the more the retoric ramps up as people want to maintain their share of the story.

But there has also been a lot of press given to the fact “it’s not that bad”. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26172688 is an example. No policictian will say this though as it would seem hartless and they would be crucified over the comment. Afterall the average daily mail reader has a veiw very like this:

It’s not a competition FFS.

If your house and your village/town were under 6ft of water wouldn’t you be ****ed off?

No it’s not a competition but comparisons between events are useful to ensure that the response is propotionate.

It isn’t huge swathes though, its actually a lot less than the 1% flood zone and previous floods. Yeah its rubbish for those affected but the constant stream of angry interviews is laughable, there’s even a story now about people being angry at the flood defences being installed to stop their houses flooding. And those complaining about the lack of defences now will surely also object to the works required in the future to stop it happening again.

The country is turning into a hysterical moaning mess. Imagine how bad its going to be when the first Scotland v England war happens.

The Somerset levels have flooded on numerous occasions since reclamation. The 1919 floods saw 28,000ha inundated, currently there is 6,500ha under water. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to work out it was a f*&^ of a lot worse in 1919.

there was an interesting perspective from a chap on radio 4 this morning, talking about the record average flow on the Thames. His view was that even though climate change was producing wetter winters there was a “benefit” due to the reduced risk of snow melt water flash flooding as in 1947 & 63.

…those complaining about the lack of defences now will surely also object to the works required in the future to stop it happening again.

This has been the case in Somerset for decades (pretty much since 1919 I think) with regard to the Parett (sp?), the only river in the area not to be installed with a sluice. The reason? Local factions can’t agree on which side of Bridgwater to put it.

These floods are fairly unusual and some rivers are certainly running at extraordinary levels, but this is as much due to human influences on local hydrology (both positive & negative) as it is excessive rainfall. For the most part our flood defences are doing a grand job – so far. The insurance industry (in which I work!) had a far worse time in 2007 and is prepared for far, far worse than what we saw then or what we’re currently seeing (that’s not a veiled prediction BTW!).

one thing I was curious about is what happens if there was a need to close the Thames barrier, say the same conditions as the spring high tide and high northerly winds we had a while back. Record flows on the Thames and you’ve put a Dam up !?

that’s not a veiled prediction BTW

statistically far worse is going to happen though. The UK media might self-implode. I’ve yet to see anyone ask people why they built/bought their house on a flood plain and expected anything else but a flood to happen.

Anecdotal.

A colleague on a capital scheme in The Environment Agency had a discussion with a pub landlord. The landlord was threatening legal intervention to prevent installation of a defence that would block river views for seated diners.

They were standing in 300mm of water in the dining room of the pub, in the background skips were being filled with the contents of neighbouring houses.

I

one thing I was curious about is what happens if there was a need to close the Thames barrier, say the same conditions as the spring high tide and high northerly winds we had a while back. Record flows on the Thames and you’ve put a Dam up !?

I have been wondering this and decided after discussions at work that the barrier generally only goes up for a short period of time during high tides.

Well that my uneducated guess

one thing I was curious about is what happens if there was a need to close the Thames barrier, say the same conditions as the spring high tide and high northerly winds we had a while back. Record flows on the Thames and you’ve put a Dam up !?

Close it a low tide and open again at low tide, it’s what they’re doing now anyway.

Lol @ pictonroads comment.

The landlords insurance will pick up the cost of loss of income from the current flood. He can’t insure against losing future business if his view is spoilt.

His view may alter when the business insurance renewal comes through

the floods are currently only demanding a single stw thread per day.

in 2007 the northerners had the site hamsters struggling under the weight, a minimum two threads a day

none of this compares to the seven concurrent threads which were maintained when two inches of snow fell south of watford.

lets be honest, with half term fast approaching, we could be looking at double figures next week unless something changes.

Wait till the sacrifice flooding starts next week near Bridgewater I wonder if the media will run much with that story. 😉

the constant stream of angry interviews is laughable

Yes it is, but that’s just news channels for you. The thing about this flood is the duration, and the fact that some people have been cut off completely for months. That’s DIFFERENT to the Yorkshire ones rather than better or worse.

There are businesses out there who’ve lost months’ of takings. This is going to be a problem.

Record flows on the Thames and you’ve put a Dam up !?

Not sure you understand the situation. No water flows out of the Thames at high tide in normal situations – the sea flows in, quite quickly. Watching from work in Southwark the water flows inland on the incoming tide just as fast as it flows seaward on the outgoing tide. The estuary goes all the way through London up to Richmond or somewhere near. So not only is the sea blocking the river water, it’s pouring in loads more water too. When you close the barrier, the river channel is only filling up from one end not both.

Close it a low tide and open again at low tide, it’s what they’re doing now anyway

The tidal Thames has a far geater capacity than the upper reaches, so when the tide goes out so does all the water, regardless of the state of flood upstream. If the barrier is closed at low tide the area immediately upstream of it will fill with river water instead of sea water, thus enabling the upper reaches to drain more quickly rather than being backed-up by the flood tide. When the tide turns the barrier is opened an all the river water goes out with it. Simples.