From The Times
Ed Miliband’s adverts banned for overstating climate change
by Jonathan Leake, Environment Editor
TWO government advertisements that use nursery rhymes to warn people of the dangers of climate change have been banned by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) for exaggerating the potential harm.
The adverts, commissioned by Ed Miliband, the energy secretary, used the rhymes to suggest that Britain faces an inevitable increase in storms, floods and heat waves unless greenhouse gas emissions are brought under control.
The ASA has ruled that the claims made in the newspaper adverts were not supported by solid science and has told the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) that they should not be published again.
It has also referred a television commercial to the broadcast regulator, Ofcom, for potentially breaching a prohibition on political advertising.
The rulings will be an embarrassment for Miliband, who has tried to portray his policies as firmly science-based. He had commissioned two posters, four press advertisements and a short film for television and cinema, which started appearing in October last year in the run-up to the Copenhagen climate talks.
They attracted 939 complaints — more than the ASA received for any advertisement last year. The deluge posed problems for the ASA, which is not a scientific body, so it decided to compare the text of Miliband’s adverts with the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Based on that comparison, it ruled that two of the DECC’s adverts had broken the advertising code on three counts: substantiation, truthfulness and environmental claims.
Of the two banned adverts, one depicted three men floating in a bathtub over a flooded British landscape, and the text read: “Rub a dub dub, three men in a tub — a necessary course of action due to flash flooding caused by climate change.”
It then explained: “Climate change is happening. Temperature and sea levels are rising. Extreme weather events such as storms, floods and heat waves will become more frequent and intense. If we carry on at this rate, life in 25 years could be very different.”
The second showed two children peering into a stone well amid an arid, post-climate-change landscape. It read: “Jack and Jill went up the hill to fetch a pail of water. There was none as extreme weather due to climate change had caused a drought.”
It then added: “Extreme weather conditions such as flooding, heat waves and storms will become more frequent and intense.”
It was these additional claims, rather than the nursery rhymes or illustrations, that fell foul of the ASA, which ruled it was not scientifically possible to make such definitive statements about Britain’s future climate.
The ASA said: “All statements about future climate were based on modelled predictions, which the IPCC report itself stated still involved uncertainties in the magnitude and timing, as well as regional details, of predicted climate change.” It added that both predictions should have been phrased more tentatively.
The ASA did, however, reject other complaints, including one suggesting the DECC adverts were misleading because they presented human-induced climate change as a fact.
Miliband said: “On the one issue where the ASA did not find in our favour, around one word in our print advertising, the science tells us that it is more than 90% likely that there will be more extreme weather events if we don’t act.”
Greg Barker, shadow minister for climate change, said: “It is so unnecessary to exaggerate the risks of global warming, and also counterproductive.”
Read the complete article here
========================
Here’s the website where the ads originate from ActOnCO2
Here are some of the advertisements in question:
The BIG Government propaganda-machine is at work;
http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2010/03/breaking-news-top-aussie-climate-scientist-goes-feral-on-skeptics-and-fellow-scientists.html
You can bet on this is going on in the UK, the US, Norway, Germany…. you name it.
This is the result of mixing Science and State.
The thought occurs that if ‘the science is settled’ and other such mantras, why is so much UK taxpayer dollar (Okay, pound) being spent on such propaganda? Surely if catastrophic man made climate change is so axiomatic to be self evident, then why does the public need to be bombarded with such messages?
Could it be that the British proponents of AGW are panicking?
Syl_2010 (08:29:19) :
Son of mulder (05:25:04)
LOL
“I never did understand the physics of that.”
Digging a hole for a well on top of the hill does seem like a waste of effort.
————–
Well, yes and no.
In the context of the nursery rhyme I suspect the real suggestion is now hidden but may have little to do with water.
However in a social context there was good reason for digging a well some way up a hill, perhaps even near the top.
You get the pick of the (often naturally filtered) water from the water table. This was likely to be of much better quality (read healthier) than water from lower levels.
There were good reasons why larger houses for the more prosperous local landowners were built, lke castles before them, at higher levels. Not the least was the better quality of any water available nearby – whether from a stream or from a well. For a start the number of decaying dead animals in the field would usually be less. Perhaps more importantly the sewage form ‘the big house’ would flow down to lower levels and contaminate the water further down the hill. Living in the valley was probably not so good from a health POV, though having cold running water in the abode might have been seen as an advantage. (Well, people had little understanding of health matters in those days.)
So if one was seeking good quality water (in the right sort of landscape) climbing a hill to find it would have been a wise decision. In some parts of the world it probably is a wise decision to this day – though with the spending in AGW/HiCC to date any such health problem realted to clean water could probably have been pretty much eliminated already.
For some the plus point of not spending the money on water supply would be that the poor quality supplies help to keep population levels down.
We can have strange sets of values in play.
As long as we are telling fairy tales:
Once upon a time there was a dear little chicken named Chicken Little.
One morning as she was scratching in her garden, a pebble fell off the roof and hit her on the head.
“Oh, dear me!” she cried, “the sky is falling. I must go and tell the King,” and away she ran down the road.
By and by she met Henny Penny going to the store. “Where are you going?” asked Henny Penny.
“I’m going to tell the King the sky is falling,” answered Chicken Little.
“How do you know the sky is falling?” asked Henny Penny.
“Because a piece of it fell on my head,” she replied. “May I go with you?” begged Henny Penny. “Certainly,” answered Chicken Little, and she hastened on, followed by Henny Penny. Turning up a shady lane they met Cocky Locky.
“Where are you two going?” asked Cocky Locky.
“Oh, we are going to tell the King the sky is falling,” answered Henny Penny.
“How do you know?”
“Chicken Little told me,” said Henny Penny.
“A piece of it fell on my head,” cried Chicken Little. “May I go with you?” asked Cocky Locky. “Certainly,” answered Chicken Little.
Then away went the three, Chicken Little, Henny Penny and Cocky Locky.
By and by they came to a pond where they met Ducky Daddles.
“Where are you three going?” he asked.
“The sky is falling and we are going to tell the King,” answered Cocky Locky.
“How do you know?” asked Ducky Daddies. “Henny Penny told me,” said Cocky Locky. “Chicken Little told me,” said Henny Penny. “‘A piece of it fell on my head,” cried Chicken Little.
“May I go with you?” asked Ducky Daddies.
“Certainly,” they answered.
By and by whom should they meet but Goosey Poosey, carrying a basket of gooseberries to market.
“Where are you four going?” she asked.
“The sky is falling and we are going to tell the King,” answered Ducky Daddles.
“How do you know it is falling?” asked Goosey Poosey.
“Cocky Locky told me,”answered Ducky Daddles.
“Henny Penny told me,” said Cocky Locky.
“Chicken Little told me,” said Henny Penny.
“A piece of it fell on my head,” cried Chicken Little. “May I go with you?” asked Goosey Poosey. “Certainly,” said Chicken Little.
Then Goosey Poosey followed Chicken Little, Henny Penny, Cocky Locky, and Ducky Daddles until they met Turkey Lurkey.
“Where are you five going?” asked Turkey Lurkey.
“The sky is falling and we’re going to tell the king,” answered Goosey Poosey.
“How do you know?” asked Turkey Lurkey.
“Ducky Daddies told me so,” answered Goosey Poosey. “Cocky Locky told me,” answered Ducky Daddles. “Henny Penny told me,” said Cocky Locky. “Chicken Little told me,” said Henny Penny.
“A piece of it fell on my head,” cried Chicken Little. “May I go with you?” asked Turkey Lurkey.
“Certainly,” said Chicken Little, Henny Penny, Cocky Locky, Ducky Daddies and Goosey Poosey.
So away they went until they met Gander Pander. “Where are you six going?” he asked.
“The sky is falling and we are going to tell the King.” “How do you know?” asked Gander Pander. “Goosey Poosey told me,” said Turkey Lurkey. “Ducky Daddies told me,” said Goosey Poosey. “Cocky Locky told me,” said Ducky Daddles.
“Henny Penny told me,” said Cocky Locky. “Chicken Little told me,” said Henny Penny.
“A piece of it fell on my head,” cried Chicken Little. “May I go with you?” asked Gander Pander. “Certainly,” answered all the little feathered folks.
By and by they became tired, and sat down to rest, when out from behind the rocks jumped Foxy Loxy.
“Where are you all going?” he asked, with a sly grin.
“The sky is falling and we are going to tell the King,” they all replied together.
“How do you know?” asked Foxy Loxy squinting his wicked eyes.
“Turkey Lurkey told me,” said Gander Pander.
“Goosey Poosey told me,” said Turkey Lurkey. “Ducky Daddies told me,” said Goosey Poosey. “Cocky Locky told me,” said Ducky Daddies. “Henny Penny told me,” said Cocky Locky. “Chicken Little told me,” said Henny Penny.
“A piece of it fell on my head,” cried Chicken Little, “and we are going to tell the King.”
“You are not going the right way. Shall I show it to you?” said Foxy Loxy.
“Oh, certainly,” they all answered at once and followed Foxy Loxy, until they came to the door of his cave among the rocks.
“This is a short way to the King’s Palace; you’ll soon get there if you follow me. I will go in first,” said Foxy Loxy.’
Just as the little feathered folks crowded around the dark narrow hole, eager to follow the sly fox, a little gray squirrel, with very bright eyes, jumped out from behind the bushes and whispered to them: “Don’t go in, don’t go in, all your little necks he’ll wring, and you’ll never see the King.”
But the sharp ears of Foxy Loxy heard the warning, and, quick as a wink, he turned and caught Gander Pander.
Just as he was about to twist Gander Pander’s neck, the little squirrel threw a big stone and hit the old fox right on the head.
“The sky surely is falling,” groaned Foxy Loxy, creeping into the darkest corner of his cave.
Happy to escape from the wicked old fox, away ran Chicken Little, Henny Penny, Cocky Locky, Ducky Daddies, Goosey Poosey, Turkey Lurkey and Gander Pander.
By and by they came to the beautiful palace in which lived the wise King, and upon being brought before him, they all shouted at once; “Good and wise King, we have come to warn you that the sky is falling!”
“How do you know the sky is falling?” asked the King. “Because a piece of it fell on my head,” said Chicken Little.
“Come nearer, Chicken Little,” said the King and leaning from his velvet throne, he picked the pebble from the feathers of Chicken Little’s head.
“You see it was only a little pebble and not part of the sky at all,” said the King. “Go home in peace and do not fear because the sky cannot fall; only rain falls from the sky.”
Weary but wiser, the little feathered folks left the palace and started on their long journey homeward.
Chicken Little is hurrying
Umbrella ‘neath her wing.
She thinks the sky is falling fast
So goes to tell the King.
But, after she has spread the news
And all is told and said
The good old King just laughs at her
And this one comes next:
There once was a shepherd boy who was bored as he sat on the hillside watching the village sheep. To amuse himself he took a great breath and sang out, “Wolf! Wolf! The Wolf is chasing the sheep!”
The villagers came running up the hill to help the boy drive the wolf away. But when they arrived at the top of the hill, they found no wolf. The boy laughed at the sight of their angry faces.
“Don’t cry ‘wolf’, shepherd boy,” said the villagers, “when there’s no wolf!” They went grumbling back down the hill.
Later, the boy sang out again, “Wolf! Wolf! The wolf is chasing the sheep!” To his naughty delight, he watched the villagers run up the hill to help him drive the wolf away.
When the villagers saw no wolf they sternly said, “Save your frightened song for when there is really something wrong! Don’t cry ‘wolf’ when there is NO wolf!”
But the boy just grinned and watched them go grumbling down the hill once more.
Later, he saw a REAL wolf prowling about his flock. Alarmed, he leaped to his feet and sang out as loudly as he could, “Wolf! Wolf!”
But the villagers thought he was trying to fool them again, and so they didn’t come.
At sunset, everyone wondered why the shepherd boy hadn’t returned to the village with their sheep. They went up the hill to find the boy. They found him weeping.
“There really was a wolf here! The flock has scattered! I cried out, “Wolf!” Why didn’t you come?”
An old man tried to comfort the boy as they walked back to the village.
“We’ll help you look for the lost sheep in the morning,” he said, putting his arm around the youth, “Nobody believes a liar…even when he is telling the truth!”
Anthony – may I humbly suggest, following on the theme from some of the contributions here, that you host a contest for nursery rhimes with an AGW slant. Here is my entry:
All around the CRU
The skeptics chased the numbers
Phil and Keith tried desperately
To cover up their blunders!
“Stu (06:10:46) :
[…]
(if you look at the long term trend of CO2 over very large scales, the trend is downwards. If it ever went below a certain level life on Earth would certainly be in trouble. Perhaps humans were actually bought forward by Gaia in order to release more CO2 into the atmosphere? That’s my take on Gaia and CO2 anyway. A bit philosophical but when you’re talking about big pictures you kind of need to be).”
Makes sense. James “Death Train” Hansen thus works against the spirit of Gaia. Probably as we’re talkin’ she’s already sending out a reptilian monster from the bottom of the sea to get him while he’s asleep.
or this……..
Bake a stick, fake a stick, Michael Mann,
fudge me a stick as fast as you can,
splice and cherry pick so none can see,
then see it lionized by the IPCC
I also complained formally and received my letter outlining the judgement yesterday.
Basically it takes the word of the IPCC as gospel (sorry for the religious connotation….) and rejects almost all of the substantive points of the complaints on this basis.
So – no victory for commonsense here, just the same old whitewash we always get in this country.
I had to endure yet another bit of BBC-driven AGW support this morning on the (spineless) Andrew Marr programme, when he “interviewed” (i.e provided a platform for) the new head of Greenpeace.
I hate the Conservative party as much as I hate Labour, but I will vote for them in order to get rid of this bunch of eco-mentalist loonies
A C Osborn (10:12:28) :
They are still using IPCC quotes that have been discredited by later studies.
No they’re not.
Last week’s letter from the ASA requires me to keep the contents of the report confidential; however, since the online Guardian has disclosed the report in its entirety (!), there’s little point.
I think that Jonathan Leake of the Times is doing his best to portray the result in a positive light, but the fact remains – the ASA did not uphold the bulk of our complaints, the exceptions being the two press ads where there was a disparity between the “likely” and “very likely” effects of climate change. To me this seems to be a relatively minor point.
The ASA state that (concerning the IPCC’s work) “We concluded that it was reasonable, and not misleading, for DECC to have relied on that evidence at the time the ads appeared.”
Of course, much has emerged since then to challenge the IPCC’s work, but the ASA can still argue that at the time the ads were produced and shown, DECC was acting in good faith. They will thus be able to avoid causing embarrassment to DECC, whatever happens to the IPCC; remember that in the UK we are probably less than two months away from a general election, and that ASA’s Chairman is Chris Smith, who is also the Chairman of the Environment Agency, a believer in carbon rationing for all citizens and a Miliband ally.
Although I’ll be appealing (as will many others, surely) I think this is a case of moving on to the next battle. Ofcom is still investigating a possible breach of the law against political advertising, and I think there is a good case to be made.
This is what I wrote to Ofcom on 3rd November 2009:
“This complaint is about the Government’s TV advert “Bedtime Stories” that was first aired on 9th October 2009 at 20.45 on ITV1 and which is part of their “Act on CO2″ initiative.
In Section 4 (Political and Controversial Issues) of the TV Advertising Standards Code, it states: “No advertisement: (a) may be inserted by or on behalf of any body whose objects are wholly or mainly of a political nature, (b) may be directed towards any political end.” In the Notes to Section 4, it states that: “The purpose of this prohibition is to prevent well-funded organisations from using the power of television advertising to distort the balance of political debate. The rule reflects the statutory ban on ‘political’ advertising on television in the Broadcasting Act 1990.”
It increasingly appears to me that, among its other qualities, this ad is mainly of a political nature and directed towards a political end. On Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change Ed Miliband’s website http://wwwedspledge.com there has (as of Sunday 1st November 2009) appeared this page (apologies for the long link): http://www.edspledge.com/advert-tell-a-friend?
utm_source=taomailandutm_medium=emailandutm_campaign=100146+Ed’s+Pledge+-
+the+advert+they+are+trying+to+banandtmtid=732-100146-2-442-195575
On this page, Ed Miliband urges readers to use a web form to tell their friends to watch the advert and join the Ed’s Pledge campaign. This is what he writes: “The advert they are trying to ban. As part of an effort to raise peoples’ awareness of man-made climate change and what we can all do about it, the government had this advert made. Now, whipped up by the sceptics, nearly six hundred people have complained about it in a bid to get it banned. Don’t let the sceptics silence us – use the form below to tell a friend to watch the advert and join the Ed’s Pledge campaign.”
Ed’s Pledge appears to be definitely of a party political nature; recently, as you can see from the website (http://www.edspledge.com/success-letter ) Ed Miliband has used this resource to muster co-signatures on a letter to David Cameron, urging him to persuade Conservative MP Ken Clarke to retract comments made about building wind farms. This campaign would thus appear to be wholly or in part about gaining political advantage over the Conservatives.
As such, by linking the “Bedtime Stories” advert to Ed’s Pledge, on a political web page displaying the Labour Party name and logo, Ed Miliband (and by association, the Department of Energy and Climate Change, sponsors of the advert) would appear to be in breach of Section 4 a) and b).”
As I said, on to the next battle.
Here is something that doesn’t overstate climate change. Offered on the remote chance that someone reading this thread hasn’t already seen this… if you haven’t seen it, it’s a definite “add to favourites”.
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/3/13/lindzen-on-tvo.html
moderate out if too OT…
“In his book “The State In Capitalist Society” Ralph Miliband analyses the functions of the mass media. For Miliband advertising is political, that is, it reinforces the existing social order and thereby the rule of the capitalist class. Advertising does more than merely inform it also persuades. It not only aims to persuade the potential customer to buy it also persuades them that capitalism is the best system. The company not only sells its commodities it also sells itself and thereby also the system of which it is a part. It cannot sell itself without also selling capitalism.”
This is true Marxism, spending our money to pay for political propaganda. The advertising doesn’t actually have a purpose other than indoctrination and to counter public opposition. They will then claim that they have overwhelming support, even though they know full well that they don’t.
The latest figure I saw was 28% support in the UK for AGW. If they show adverts like this, I guarantee that support will plummet even further. Patronising puerile stuff like that won’t be well received.
son of mulder (05:25:04) :
“Jack and Jill went up the hill to fetch a pail of water.”
I never did understand the physics of that.
The Malvern Hills, where I live, are famous for their wells. The Hills are just a large lump of granite and dolerite, and the water comes out up to a few hundred feet above the surrounding (sort of) plain. Quite a lot of Ca in the water. We locals get it free, hehe! And I wash my car in it (but not often).
Propaganda written for children, and with contempt for the intelligence of their audience.
Keep digging 🙂
Rub-a-dub-dub,
Three men in a tub.
And who do you think they be?
The butcher, the baker,
The candlestick maker.
Turn them out, knaves all three.
Ah-ha! The butcher sells beef, the baker burns fuel to heat his ovens, and the candlestick maker uses refined metals and heat.
All three are far more responsible for global warming than an average person. The flooding is their fault! They deserve to be sent adrift in a tub!
Lousy bunch of knaves. Off with their heads!
In a similar vein, it may be of interest for readers of this blog that Northern Ireland’s environment minister Sammy Wilson banned this type of political pro-AGW nonsense TV ads from the British Government over a year ago.
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/environment–minister-sammy-wilson-bans-adverts-warning-of-the-effects-of-climate-change-14180104.html
Environment Minister Sammy Wilson has banned government television adverts in Northern Ireland warning of the effects of climate change, it emerged today.
The DUP man said he was not prepared to allow “insidious New Labour propaganda” about the impact of climate change which would have been screened on UTV.
“It was the sheer arrogance of them saying ‘we are doing this’ and yet they have had no consultation with my Department whatsoever. This is a devolved responsibility so they were also wrong constitutionally,” he said.
Mr Wilson said the adverts attempted to tell people that simple measures like changing their lightbulbs and turning off TVs from stand-by mode could help prevent them “wrecking the world”.
He told the Belfast Telegraph: “The vast majority of people are not prepared to accept this view of life any more and are certainly not prepared to bear the massive financial consequences.”
The Minister said all the focus groups involved in producing the ads, which are also being shown on Channels Four and Five, and Sky, were based in England and he wrote to then Minister David Milliband to stress “hands off Northern Ireland”.
“Since then, the Scottish administration has also said no to these adverts, which I would like to think was encouraged by my position and the Welsh Assembly, while being more timid, has taken a similar view,” he said.
The Green Party today however accused Mr Wilson of contradicting himself and warned his outdated opinions are preventing action to tackle fuel poverty and the provision of more jobs.
Steven Agnew said: “He has always said he will support measures which will encourage energy efficiency and these adverts are all about people supporting measures which can help energy efficiency — whether you agree with climate change or not. So Sammy is now contradicting himself.
“He seems to think that climate change is a belief you can argue for or against but when he had been asked to provide alternative explanations comes up with solar variations which have also been investigated by scientists.”
Mr Agnew said: “Certainly there are now very few who would agree with him.”
Mr Agnew, the Green Euro-candidate for this June’s election, argued the Green ‘new deal’ promoted by new President Barack Obama had shown how fuel poverty and climate change could be tackled while providing new jobs.
Mr Wilson insisted, however: “I have no difficulty with energy efficiency and I take my Ministerial obligations in this regard very seriously, but I believe there is virtually a fear factor in how this whole climate change issue is being addressed.”
These ads are so Monte Python like. They just have to be someone in middle management taking the p#**.
Yeah Binny, it’ll be the ones who didnt really get what Python was about- taking the P out of these middle management twits!
(The Pythons REALLY hate accountants)
The Miliband brothers are from a family of Marxists, liars and traitors. They well know how to lie and commit treachery on their own nation: their father lied about their background (they were traitors) to get into the UK, and their grandfather joined the invading Communist Red Army and butchered their own Polish neighbours. I would not trust them on any level whatsoever: they are the worst of the worst. See my two posts:
http://buythetruth.wordpress.com/2008/10/17/carbon-capture/
http://buythetruth.wordpress.com/2009/07/09/death-by-eco-fascism/
“The adverts, commissioned by Ed Miliband…”
I don’t know who this Ed is, but I know there is a David Miliband. Not that I know much about English politics, but Dave Miliband is, from what I know of him, a sort of English version of Al Gore. They’re probably brothers. But whatever the case…
They should produce a new type of fortune cookie. Call them M&Ms, for Miliband and Miliband. Inside each “cookie” (all green, btw) is a message about the consequences of global warming. Of course, like the M&M we all know and enjoy, once you get past the coating and chocolate (melted of course, from the global warming)… nuts, just like the Milibands!
Wren (22:21:47) : “After reading the Times article by Jonathan Leake, read ASA’s Final Adjudication, available at guardian.co.uk
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/mar/13/scienceofclimatechange-climate-change
Now ask yourself if Leak is an accurate reporter?”
Yes.
Jonathan Leake says “The ASA has ruled that the claims made in the newspaper adverts were not supported by solid science”
which seems a reasonable interpretation of the finding
“all statements about future climate conditions were based on modelled predictions, which the IPCC report itself stated still involved uncertainties in the magnitude and timing, as well as regional details […] and we concluded that the claim […] should have been phrased more tentatively to reflect that.”.
Well not surprised. Everytime I hear, see or read about Milliband he comes across as clearly having no idea of the science, an ultra-hysteric and a politican who realises his own portfolio and his own job are dependent upon hysterical, Hollywood-science stunts such as this one.
He is the classic Chardonnay Socialist (as we like to call them here in Australia). Happy to have to good life and a position in society, (through no effort of his own) but to appease their guilty conscience have to resort to socialist mantras and double standards as a deflection. And its the Chardonay Socialists that are the first to preach about reducing consumption, and getting people to pay more for basic services. Easy for them to say!!
In Britain they are called champagne socialists.
(We are clearly more upmarket than you colonial types, cam)
😉
This kind of advertising paid for by the taxpayer makes me hopping mad, as does the appeal to emotion – esp as it’s aimed at terrifying children. Shame on them all.
The recent floods in the UK over the last few years have absolutely nothing to do with global warming, and everything to do with short-term greed and stupidity, which has allowed large-scale surburban building on flood plains, Not only is this foolish in itself, but the modern habit of tarmacing and paving everything leaves nowhere for rain run-off to soak into the earth; add the neglect of the storm pipes and (in ruaral areas) the silting up of drainage ditches through lack of famr labour, and there you have it.
I was staying in Berks a couple of summers ago when the massive floods occoured and many friends had their houses under water. Unless you have witnessed something like that you have no idea of the repercussions which go on for months if not years: hassles iwth insurance companies, people *ordered* by the Health & Safety Exec to have their kitchens etc ripped out and all their furniture put in skips – broken marriages, nervous breakdowns…
And all becuase of institutional inefficiency and ignorance in the first place!
In the Lambourn valley which fflooded right along its length, the locals had for the previous few years been forbidden (even the kids!) to set foot in the stream or touch any vegetation therein; consequently – funds and staff being in short supply – there was a huge buildup of weed which greatly exacerbated the floods. Meanwhile the sluice gates, which up to this generation had always been maintained by the locals in each village and closed in times of heavy rain, to flood the meadows above each of the villages and not the houses, fell in to disrepair because they were the repsonsibility of the ‘Envirnoment Agency’ (as was the river, which in spate is about 15 ft wide and 4ft deep). Consequently there were no functioning sluice gates to close, so weed and tree debris built up against the village bridges, and all the houses adjoining were under water. No-one could remember the Lam ever flooding before, in living memory.
In Thatcham, a sprawling suburbia a few miles the other side of Newbury, half the town was flooded that week. The local historian wrote a scathing piece for the local paper pointing out that the houses worst affected were in ‘Water Street’ and ‘Flood Street’ and similarly named places – and asking why developers had been permitted to build in those areas, which were (as their names indictated and older residents were well aware) prone to regular flooding in the past.
It’s sickening that semi-educated morons get into government and then spend OUR money on pernicious propaganda rather than studying the practicalities of how to manage the environment which actually affects how people live, and acting accordingly.
Part of the problem of course is the centralisation of decision making, nowadays – the remote people in charge, whether ministers, apparatchiks, or quangos – are far mor interested in setting or hitting their goverment ‘targets’ than taking advice from people on the ground, let alone allowing htem to manage their own ‘environment’