|
|
21-02-13, 09:28 AM
Obviously I'm not stupid enough to buy a house built on a flood plain. If my house gets flooded the museum will be visited by fish ;DObviously you don't live in a place that will suffer from flooding, ever?
Council are renown for spending money on wasteful stuff just to keep their budgets up.
As for CCTV don't get me started on that.
21-02-13, 10:35 AM
So any friends or family who find their homes flooded, their possessions ruined, and all the associated problems with insurance, accomodation and repairs shouldn't count on you for help or support, after all they are stupid enough to buy a house in an area that might get flooded? Although they can rely on you to tell them how mentally deficient they are compared to you I take it?Originally Posted by Swanny
You won't get any argument from me that council's waste lots of money on some things, making sure there are top quality biscuits and drinks available for meetings for example, but we should be cutting those bills rather than cutting services that people rely on.
CCTV is a contentious issue, personally I don't mind the camera themselves, it's what they are used for in some cases that bothers me. I understand that not everyone shares my point of view and would rather they all got removed, I assume that from your comment that you are in this camp? So if you, a family member or a friend was the victim of an assault, burglary or a hit and run and there was CCTV evidence that identified the perpetrator and would seal a conviction, you would ask for that evidence to be removed and not used?
21-02-13, 10:35 AM
Ditto![/quote]
You know it makes sense chaps
21-02-13, 11:37 AM
Hmmm... road signs must be interesting.....
21-02-13, 12:37 PM
Hmmm... road signs must be interesting.....
They are pictures for a reason
Sorry Humar but I have no sympathy for someone that buys a house in an area that is prone to flooding.
21-02-13, 02:09 PM
What about those people who got flooded for the first time? When we got hit with 'extreme rainfall' last year, many areas got flooded for the first time. You also have a knock on effect that the more insurance companies have to pay out, the higher you own insurance costs will rise to help pay for it. Of course the value of your house would go up, which will be nice for you, but thousands of people would have huge amounts wiped off theirs, still, never mind.
So the question about the CCTV footage? If you are completely against them, would you refuse the use of footage to prove your innocence or prove the guilt of someone who assaulted or stole from you, a friend or family member?
21-02-13, 02:22 PM
Given the choice of a world with or without CCTV I'd go for without.
Anyone that buys a house near a river or on the same level as a river knowing that floods are becoming more common needs their head tested.
21-02-13, 03:40 PM
I'd agree, but what about people that make a sensible decision and find the council let them down or the builders leave blocked drains or simply too much rain in their area?Anyone that buys a house near a river or on the same level as a river knowing that floods are becoming more common needs their head tested.
I am all for people having to take personal responsibility for their decisions (more than most) but not everything that happens is forseeable or the result of a bad decision - life simply isnt' that black and white.
It really doesn''t help anyone to say that people are responsible for the situations they find themselves in. Sometimes they are, sometimes their not.
21-02-13, 09:13 PM
That's because you are looking at it from a reasonable point of view, with some compassion for others in difficulty. You have to look at it from Swanny's point of view, which appears to be more along the lines of "as long as I'm alright, f**k everyone else", which would apparently also include his family and friends as well as general members of the public. I don't agree with that point of view personally, my grandparents have had their homes modified to enable them to stay in their own homes, I know he doesn't think that the tax payer should fund that, but that's because he can't see beyond his own selfishness. During the war my grandmother was a land army girl, one grandfather was part of the 3rd wave to hit Normandy beaches on D-day and his job was to take ammunition's and grenades from dead and dying soldiers to feed the front line, my other grandfather was in the SAS. He was dropped behind enemy lines to knock out supply depots and other targets, when the war finished he was sent ahead of the rest of our troops to ensure that all remaining German troops where captured or 'neutralised' and it was his unit that came across the concentration camps before everyone else, he said you can tell when you're approaching one of those camps a week before you found it because of the smell of death in the air even if the wind was blowing in the wrong direction. I can't begin to imagine what horrors they witnessed during their service.
I am sure to reasonable people wold agree that we should do everything we can to help people like my grandparents, when you consider what they have done for us. I guess not everyone is that reasonable, and couldn't care less what happened to these people. Of course should Swanny ever need these services and isn't in a position to afford them, I doubt very much he would refuse them if the state offered them to him. Having a "f**k everyone else attitude" is all well and good, but very few of the people that have that attitude will stick by their morals and principles when it's their turn to need help.
His arguments are easy to pick apart, hence the lack of response to my other points, because his argument doesn't stand up to rational debate.
21-02-13, 09:54 PM
That's because you are looking at it from a reasonable point of view, with some compassion for others in difficulty. You have to look at it from Swanny's point of view, which appears to be more along the lines of "as long as I'm alright, f**k everyone else", which would apparently also include his family and friends as well as general members of the public. I don't agree with that point of view personally, my grandparents have had their homes modified to enable them to stay in their own homes, I know he doesn't think that the tax payer should fund that, but that's because he can't see beyond his own selfishness. During the war my grandmother was a land army girl, one grandfather was part of the 3rd wave to hit Normandy beaches on D-day and his job was to take ammunition's and grenades from dead and dying soldiers to feed the front line, my other grandfather was in the SAS. He was dropped behind enemy lines to knock out supply depots and other targets, when the war finished he was sent ahead of the rest of our troops to ensure that all remaining German troops where captured or 'neutralised' and it was his unit that came across the concentration camps before everyone else, he said you can tell when you're approaching one of those camps a week before you found it because of the smell of death in the air even if the wind was blowing in the wrong direction. I can't begin to imagine what horrors they witnessed during their service.
I am sure to reasonable people wold agree that we should do everything we can to help people like my grandparents, when you consider what they have done for us. I guess not everyone is that reasonable, and couldn't care less what happened to these people. Of course should Swanny ever need these services and isn't in a position to afford them, I doubt very much he would refuse them if the state offered them to him. Having a "f**k everyone else attitude" is all well and good, but very few of the people that have that attitude will stick by their morals and principles when it's their turn to need help.
His arguments are easy to pick apart, hence the lack of response to my other points, because his argument doesn't stand up to rational debate.[/quote]
I don't think that Swanny was taking the 'f*ck everyone else' approach. I live in an area with high crime, when I moved to the area I knew full well insurance would be dearer and that the potential for me to be a victim of crime would be higher. I took a knowing risk.
In the seven years i have lived here I have been been the victim of crime 6 times (attempted break-in and theft amongst other things).
Now I knew the risks, but I still decided to live here - I've never moaned once [possibly about the police's slow response!] and the useless uncaring local MP. A lot of people told me I needed my head reading and still do, maybe they are right. I'll tell you something i don't expect anyone else to foot the bill for my higher insurance costs, the additional measures i have to take etc. Personal responsibility seems to be dirty-phrase these days.
On a footnote, i do think we should cut overseas aid and plough that into long term flood prevention, but of course that also puts me as 'f*ck the rest' type by some of your measures, as I don't give 2-sh1ts about foreign aid to some dictator-ran african hell hole. :P
| « Previous Thread | Next Thread » |
