if london flooded, would they declare it a national emergency?

Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 81 total)
  • if london flooded, would they declare it a national emergency?
  • Premier Icon kilo
    Subscriber

    Dunno if somewhere with an average population density of 5,590 people per square km flooded do you think that would be a big thing?

    Premier Icon seosamh77
    Subscriber

    All of it? I’d think that would constitute one, aye.

    Just wait a few years and we’ll find out.

    scuttler
    Member

    Quality use of the words If and Would. London-on-sea is as we know tidal. I would expect it to take up more column inches than Donny, Hebden, Carlisle, Somerset etc..

    Premier Icon mos
    Subscriber

    It would be such a mega-deal that they would probably jack the whole country up an put it on stilts.

    Premier Icon colp
    Subscriber

    They could raft up on all those wooden platters they eat avocado off.

    kerley
    Member

    Yes, because it would be a national emergency – i.e. whole country impacted by the downstream effects.
    If where I live was flooded I would not expect it to be a national emergency as impact is localised, a local emergency if you will.

    Joris would instantly blame the flooding on the Evil EU.

    Can’t predict anything else about it.

    Premier Icon lunge
    Subscriber

    Yes, because it would be a national emergency – i.e. whole country impacted by the downstream effects.
    If where I live was flooded I would not expect it to be a national emergency as impact is localised, a local emergency if you will.

    Pretty much this.

    ton
    Member

    Human welfare – involving loss of life, illness or injury, homelessness, damage to property or disruption of a supply of money, food, water, energy, communication or health services

    The environment – involving the chemical, biological or radioactive contamination of land, water or air or the disruption or destruction of plant life or animal life

    Premier Icon Drac
    Subscriber

    Human welfare – involving loss of life, illness or injury, homelessness, damage to property or disruption of a supply of money, food, water, energy, communication or health services

    The environment – involving the chemical, biological or radioactive contamination of land, water or air or the disruption or destruction of plant life or animal life

    Exactly this.

    Premier Icon howsyourdad1
    Subscriber

    Are we talking groundwater flooding, fluvial flooding, tidal flooding, sewer flooding, watermains flooding, reservoir flooding or a good old classic surface water flooding OP?

    Premier Icon BillOddie
    Subscriber

    Yes – of course they would.

    Assuming this thread is about the Governments (non)response to the flooding up north rather than Venice being literally underwater, a better question would be “Would the Government declare a national emergency if Slough flooded?

    The answer is obviously No because Slough is awful on every level.

    kerley
    Member

    The answer is obviously No because Slough is awful on every level.

    A decent government would be looking to actively flood Slough

    Premier Icon thisisnotaspoon
    Subscriber

    Quality use of the words If and Would. London-on-sea is as we know tidal. I would expect it to take up more column inches than Donny, Hebden, Carlisle, Somerset etc..

    +1

    It’s like when London struggles in with 6″ of snow and someone in Scotland posts a photo of their farm track under 6ft asking what the problem is. There isn’t one because 9 million people didn’t need to use that farm track (so it neither struggles, or gets turned into compacted ice).

    Hypothetically if PART of London flooded, lets say Notting Hill, that would get more press coverage than Rotherham flooding because it has a larger population than Rotherham.

    That and when people say …….. has flooded, they really mean a few streets down by the river. It’s not like hurricane season in the USA where entire cities really do flood. If Sheffield/Rotherham/Doncaster was actually flooded, now that really would be newsworthy to the handful of people left in the UK not drowned.

    Premier Icon finishthat
    Subscriber

    Somebody built the Thames barrier because something

    Premier Icon jimdubleyou
    Subscriber

    Quote the whole thing…

    Today, the government has a definition of what constitutes an “emergency”, under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 but it does not use the phrase “national emergency”.

    Such an emergency can be declared when “an event or situation threatens serious damage to”:

    Human welfare – involving loss of life, illness or injury, homelessness, damage to property or disruption of a supply of money, food, water, energy, communication or health services

    The environment – involving the chemical, biological or radioactive contamination of land, water or air or the disruption or destruction of plant life or animal life

    ….

    Serious – events which need sustained government co-ordination, such as the swine flu outbreak in 2009 and the 7 July 2005 London bombings

    Premier Icon dissonance
    Subscriber

    If there was a storm surge and the barrier failed then yeah it would probably be a national emergency.
    Just the cost and hassle of relocating all those civil servants and business HQ staff from their offices with a nice river view would be rather inconvenient.
    Then there is the risk to Tate Britain and so on.

    ElShalimo
    Member

    Remember the Somerset levels flooding? A relative handful of houses along the River Parrett in a safe tory seat/wealthy area with influential friends. It got more coverage than the very serious flooding in East Yorkshire around the same time. It’s certainly not a level playing field when it comes to press coverage, govt response etc.

    BTW, the Thames Barrier was designed for a notional 1000 year Return Period flooding event. It has been very close to being overtopped a couple of times.  Bear in mind that the flood scenarios are based on what is now slightly past its sell-by-date thinking/science. Climate change is going to make this very interesting in the coming years. The barrier’s primary function is to keep very high tides, or storm surge waters, out of London. It’s worked well to date. (I’m sure someone on here works there).
    The type of flooding we’ve seen recently is a completely different type of flooding, basically it’s water from the sky not the sea.

    Premier Icon binners
    Subscriber

    Given that it depends on a series of tunnels for its population to get around I’d imagine water would be a tad more of a problem than in Rotherham.

    But in answer to your question, as long as you get a skinny, decaffe, organic, free-trade Frappawhappachino that costs the same as the GDP of Portugal,served to you by a man with full-sleeve tattoos and a waxed beard then all’s well.

    If not, then its a national emergency that could escalate to include everything up to full scale nuclear conflict

    Premier Icon dissonance
    Subscriber

    The type of flooding we’ve seen recently is a completely different type of flooding

    I know. It is the most probable and damaging cause of flooding in London though with the biggest impact on central London.
    Another similar scenario, according to some, would be if the Richard Montgomery went up.

    footflaps
    Member

    A decent government would be looking to actively flood Slough

    Anyone know which parties are offering this in their manifestos?

    Floating voter here 😉

    Premier Icon thisisnotaspoon
    Subscriber

    But in answer to your question, as long as you get a skinny, decaffe, organic, free-trade Frappawhappachino that costs the same as the GDP of Portugal,served to you by a man with full-sleeve tattoos and a waxed beard then all’s well.

    Awww, bless the middle aged northerners trying to recall what London was like 10 years ago.

    It’s all about the roadmen and hypebeasts now granddad.

    Premier Icon Northwind
    Subscriber

    BillOddie

    Subscriber

    a better question would be “Would the Government declare a national emergency if Slough flooded?

    Probably yes- because thanks to the lib dems, they actually have a good chance of winning Slough in the general election.

    Not for any other reason obviously

    Premier Icon nickc
    Subscriber

    It got more coverage than the very serious flooding in East Yorkshire around the same time.

    Let’s not loose sight of the fact that all the national newspapers are based in London, and Somerset is a bunch easier and quicker to get to than Yorkshire. It’s partly why this sort of thing happens. See also; fracking threat to village in Sussex (45 mins down the M23) versus actual fracking in Lancs (4.5 hours up the M6). It’s not always the bastard Tories

    Premier Icon MoreCashThanDash
    Subscriber

    Surely they’d declare it a public holiday?

    bsims
    Member

    Somebody built the Thames barrier because something

    That ‘s reaching the end of its useful life due to climate change, so as somebody said up there “ we will find out soon’

    As much as non Londoners aren’t bothered by what happens in London there is no escaping its importance to the uk so we would all have some kind of nock on effect. At a minimum I would think emergency services would have to be moved into London affect cover elsewhere.

    Edit: as El Shalimo already said

    It’s like when London struggles in with 6″ of snow and someone in Scotland posts a photo of their farm track under 6ft asking what the problem is. There isn’t one because 9 million people didn’t need to use that farm track (so it neither struggles, or gets turned into compacted ice).

    Hypothetically if PART of London flooded, lets say Notting Hill, that would get more press coverage than Rotherham flooding because it has a larger population than Rotherham.

    Let’s not kid ourselves here. That’s not the reason.
    The reason is that the UK power base is in London. The prioritise their own needs and wants above everything else. They don’t care about the needs of the northern 80% of the country.

    Simples

    benv
    Member

    Would depend on whether the trains still worked so all the other towns around the country can still get their drugs for the weekend.

    Premier Icon MoreCashThanDash
    Subscriber

    Let’s not ignore the fact that a chunk of London flooding potentially knocks out a lot of housing and direct employment for maybe a million people, plus the knock on effect via the impact on national government, major national employers, international financial markets….

    And it’s not if, it’s when. I left insurance in 1999 but I know at that point industry bodies and government were having conversations about when the barrier failed.

    bsims
    Member

    Wasn’t there a Rutger Hauer film where this happened?

    A big flood could similar damage to that caused by the water in New Orleans, that level of evacuation would be a big undertaking and given limited space in the south east where would the evacuees go?

    bsims
    Member

    P and O would love the extra business

    Premier Icon Richie_B
    Subscriber

    Why does the idea of central London flooding make me think of ‘Ark Fleet Ship B’?

    Premier Icon Kuco
    Subscriber

    The Film is Split Second its currently on Netflix or Amazon.

    Premier Icon thisisnotaspoon
    Subscriber

    Let’s not kid ourselves here. That’s not the reason.

    I think it probably is. If you live in Liverpool and think that Kensington and Chelsea is a suburb of London a bit like Toxteth or Everton. Then you’d be forgiven for wondering why London Boroughs get more news time than entire cities, it’s because they are individually bigger than entire cities (or at least very large towns).

    In fact come to think about it, London does flood fairly regularly (often enough that the ground floor of my old office wasn’t insured against flood risk). And as this thread shows, the rest of the country didn’t infact hear about it.

    The reason is that the UK power base is in London. The prioritise their own needs and wants above everything else. They don’t care about the needs of the northern 80% of the country.

    Simples

    You say that, but “They” isn’t some Illuminati style lizzard overlords controlling the news and politics. Boris doesn’t phone up the BBC and tell them how many minutes to devote to flooding in Huddersfield.

    I think there is a problem of perception though. The news had someone who’s house flooded ranting about how no one cared or was helping because they weren’t important. Missing the irony that a camera was filming them and it’s not like Michel Gove personally delivers the sandbags to Embankment or carries the wet sofas out of basement flats in Hammersmith.

    The rhetoric of “you’ve been ignored” may have a basis in the truth, but it’s also been hyped up enough to give us Brexit! And the rhetoric only flows one way, the population south of Watford haven’t spent the past week thinking of ways to ignore the flooding., in the same way the population of Huddersfield probably haven’t spent the past week worry about how businesses paying the surcharge for crossrail are going to cope with the cost and schedule overuns.

    Premier Icon boomerlives
    Subscriber

    If the whole country flooded it would be a National emergency.

    Just a small spot is a local emergency.

    Surely?

Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 81 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.