On Jul 23, 5:40?pm, "Jack )"
wrote:
On 23 Jul, 17:29, Graham P Davis wrote:

However, another listener had pointed out that ground floors of new houses
had been made lower than before so as to make it easier to comply with
disabled-access legislation. Imagine the ramps you'd need for a house on
stilts!

Extrapolating that argument, it would mean that the disabled could
never be housed above ground level. Plenty of disabled people live in
flats and use (stair)lifts. OK, lifts would pose problems when it's
flooded but it cannot be a insuperable difficulty.

As it happens some of the oldest wooden houses in the country were
built on rocky outcrops some 3 feet above the surrounding soil thus
taking them out of the water table abd giving them some flood
resistance.

Of course in those days utilising crown bare sides of hills was the
norm so there never was a chance of flood in the first place.

I am watch Newsnight ATM and some expert is being taken to task
overthe disposition of flood defences. He can't seem to get it through
the skulls of his assailants that there is no defence from such
floods.

Don't people know how long rivers are and how they work or something?
Do they think they are just city features that are in a constant
change, like fountains in watergardens only bigger?

Feck me there are some wazzocks around.