Fwd: Evesham Pictures

From elsewhere, links to some pictures of the Avon in Evesham last
night and early this morning...

Andrew

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Whether the weather be rain or fine
Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 10:05:09 +0100
Newsgroups: uk.media.radio.archers

On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 23:57:08 -0700, Mike <mruddock@toucansurf.com> scrawled
in the dust...

>Somerats will know that we live within a short (1) distance of the
>Avon in Evesham a town which is being described this morning as an
>island. We are fine, though further along the road there is a small
>lake. After breakfast i will stroll (paddle?) down to the river to see
>how high it is. (Mem to self: take camers)

A Geograph-er has beaten you to it, being marooned in a riverside hotel he
recorded the rising waters
http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/500151
http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/500152
http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/500153
http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/500156

Pleased to hear you are home and dry.
--
Penny
Laughter is the dance of the spirit and the music of the soul.
umra Nicknames & Abbreviations http://www.umra.freeuk.com/nicks.html

Brian Dominic wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 15:30:08 +0100, Andrew Instone-Cowie
> <address-not-read@datagram.co.uk> finished tucking into their plate of
> fish, chips and mushy peas. Wiping their mouths, they swiggged the
> last of their cup of tea, paid the bill and wrote::
>>
>> Pleased to hear you are home and dry.
>
> Regrettably that's not the case.

Misattributed quotation there, Brian - I was forwarding what someone
else had written on UMRA (Lest anyone think I was being tactless).

Andrew

"Pete Stockdale" <peter.jeanne@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:W-OdnZYEUu6M-D_bRVnytAA@bt.com...
>
> According to the beeb 5.15 news tonite - [Upton upon Severn's] flood
> protection barriers were still on the motorway it was claimed.
>
> Heads should roll very far.

You didn't see the state of the M5 on Friday afternoon, then? I doubt if any
barriers on earth could have saved Upton - and if they could, it was not
unreasonable to try to transport them by motorway.

I've been in Worcester this afternoon. Browns Restaurant seems to have
copped a packet and New Road and the racecourse are a right mess - again.
With the bridge closed to vehicular traffic there was a rather surreal
atmosphere, with everyone wandering around eating ice cream and taking in
the view.

Regards

Jonathan

On 22 Jul, 17:41, "Jonathan Morton"
<jonat...@jonathanmortonbutignorethisbit.co.uk> wrote:
> "Pete Stockdale" <peter.jea...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
>
> news:W-OdnZYEUu6M-D_bRVnytAA@bt.com...
>
>
>
> > According to the beeb 5.15 news tonite - [Upton upon Severn's] flood
> > protection barriers were still on the motorway it was claimed.
>
> > Heads should roll very far.
>
> You didn't see the state of the M5 on Friday afternoon, then? I doubt if any
> barriers on earth could have saved Upton - and if they could, it was not
> unreasonable to try to transport them by motorway.
>
> Jonathan

Of course it's not unreasonable to transport the flood defences by
motorway, and Upton would in all probability not have been saved by
them. Point is, theose barriers were stuck on the M5 motorway on
Friday. The floods were forecast on Wednesday!!

"Zeke" <tarnishedvent@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1185140523.952419.255650@22g2000hsm.googlegro ups.com...

> Of course it's not unreasonable to transport the flood defences by
> motorway, and Upton would in all probability not have been saved by
> them. Point is, theose barriers were stuck on the M5 motorway on
> Friday. The floods were forecast on Wednesday!!

Looking at the pictures on the news a few minutes ago, the phrase that
springs to mind involves deckchairs and the Titanic. Tewkesbury looks
absolutely horrible - they've got all the stuff we're sending down from
Worcester, and the Avon as well this time. The last time, a few weeks ago,
the main rain was in Wales rather than the Midlands, so the Severn was up
but the Avon was relatively OK.

Regards

Jonathan

On 22 Jul, 23:02, "Jonathan Morton"
<jonat...@jonathanmortonbutignorethisbit.co.uk> wrote:
> "Zeke" <tarnishedv...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1185140523.952419.255650@22g2000hsm.googlegro ups.com...
>
> > Of course it's not unreasonable to transport the flood defences by
> > motorway, and Upton would in all probability not have been saved by
> > them. Point is, theose barriers were stuck on the M5 motorway on
> > Friday. The floods were forecast on Wednesday!!
>
> Looking at the pictures on the news a few minutes ago, the phrase that
> springs to mind involves deckchairs and the Titanic.
>
> Jonathan

Agreed, but the authorities didn't know that it would turn out as bad
as it did - point is, flood defences for Upton were in transit two
days after the flood warning, too late to do a worthwhile job had the
floods NOT been as severe. Never mind though, we will no doubt be
told that 'lessons wil be learned' as usual.

On 23 Jul, 09:27, Zeke <tarnishedv...@aol.com> wrote:

> Never mind though, we will no doubt be
> told that 'lessons wil be learned' as usual.

I sailed on the Avon in the area for Donkey's years. I think it's too
late to learn lessons. About 10-15 years ago in Tewkesbury they built
a Safeways store and garage plus a housing estate on the flood plains
and blocked off a huge area of flood plain with a causeway carrying a
bypass. Everyone said at the time it was a crazy thing to do and
almost immediately flooding became worse. Similar in Evesham. They
built an Estate known as "Four Pools" in a large depression with a
natural spring. You'ld think the name would have said it all.

You simply can't 'unbuild' these kind of developments and flood
defences are all but useless. (Sedgeberrow and Waterside in Evesham
already have flood defences and there proved useless.)

The news coverage is a joke. A female news reporter was standing on
Workman Bridge, apparently under the impression it was Abbey Bridge.
This much mentioned "weak bridge" was weak long before the flood. It's
had a 5 ton limit for a few months now. Talk of panic buying are true
but in very localized areas. Someone prepared to drive half an hour
will have no problem getting supplies, and those cut off completely
aren't going to be worried about panic buying!

On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 05:58:15 -0700, toad <toad_oftoadhall@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
>
>You simply can't 'unbuild' these kind of developments and flood
>defences are all but useless. (Sedgeberrow and Waterside in Evesham
>already have flood defences and there proved useless.)
>
Without wishing to be alarmist - just how much do we have to spend to
protect areas - if they are indeed incapable of protection. Do we put
Huge walls down the banks of rivers. This will just make things worse
further downstream; natures way is to allow the flood plain to absorb
the water and let it drain in its own time.

Even behind a high wall - there is still the matter of heavy rainfall
falling on covered surfaces - where does the water drain to without
enormous pumps - and where would these pumps push the water - into the
already narrow river channel ?.

If this is the result of climate change and will only get worse - we
may have to face the inevitable - and not only avoid building in low
lying areas - but actually move towns and villages back away from the
waters edge.

The major problem is that most of our towns were built beside rivers -
and many major cities are vulnerable - not least London.

or is that too extreme ?

--

~Malcolm N....
~

On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 14:50:49 +0100, Malcolm Nixon <malcolm@mgnixon.org.uk>
wrote:

>The major problem is that most of our towns were built beside rivers -
>and many major cities are vulnerable - not least London.
>
>or is that too extreme ?

How many of these river courses get dredged?

Peter
--
Peter A Forbes
Prepair Ltd, Rushden, UK
prepair@easynet.co.uk
http://www.prepair.co.uk

On 23 Jul, 14:50, Malcolm Nixon <malc...@mgnixon.org.uk> wrote:

> If this is the result of climate change

In this case it isn't climate change. It's just bad town planning and
was forseen long before the developments began. Heavy prolonged rain
is not a new thing.

> and not only avoid building in low
> lying areas - but actually move towns and villages back away from the
> waters edge.

Well yeah. If global warming happens as predicted and if sea levels
rise then lots of places are going to be unviable. I'm not sure places
in the Midlands are the ones that will suffer most though, it will be
low lying coastal towns and towns on tidal rivers.

On 23 Jul, 15:07, Prepair Ltd <prep...@easynet.co.uk> wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 14:50:49 +0100, Malcolm Nixon <malc...@mgnixon.org.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >The major problem is that most of our towns were built beside rivers -
> >and many major cities are vulnerable - not least London.
>
> >or is that too extreme ?
>
> How many of these river courses get dredged?

It's an interesting point. AFAIK the Gloucester to Tewkesbury section
of the Severn is still a commercial waterway carrying Flour for the
Allied Mill at Tewkesbury. The Avon from Tewkesbury to Stratford
hasn't carried commercial traffic (hire boats don't count) in my
memory. The Tewkesbury to Pershore stretch has become noticably
shallower in my memory.

I wonder to what extent our rivers are silting up since bulk isn't
carried on them.

Perhaps that's a flawed argument. River use has increased rather than
decreased over the last 50 years, surely rivers would be as well
maintained now as any time in the last 50 years, perhaps better.

I reckon this can be put down to town planning alone. AFAICT all other
factors (including global warming) are minor in comparison in this
case.

On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 17:18:19 +0100, Steve Atty <nospam@tty.org.uk>
wrote:

>On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 08:28:27 -0700, toad <toad_oftoadhall@yahoo.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>On 23 Jul, 15:07, Prepair Ltd <prep...@easynet.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 14:50:49 +0100, Malcolm Nixon <malc...@mgnixon.org.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >The major problem is that most of our towns were built beside rivers -
>>> >and many major cities are vulnerable - not least London.
>>>
>>> >or is that too extreme ?
>>>
>>> How many of these river courses get dredged?
>>
>>It's an interesting point. AFAIK the Gloucester to Tewkesbury section
>>of the Severn is still a commercial waterway carrying Flour for the
>>Allied Mill at Tewkesbury.
>
>Its not done that for years. The only commercial traffic down to
>Gloucester was a couple of test runs of a gravel barge and boats like
>the Oliver Cromwell

The grain barges were still moored by the mill when I last passed that
way, although they didn't seem to be there in the BBC's aerial photos
taken today.

--
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"

"Steve Atty" <nospam@tty.org.uk> wrote in message
news:n04aa3djfodopba7hfci8ep6k2rsit2qnq@4ax.com...
>>The grain barges were still moored by the mill when I last passed that
>>way, although they didn't seem to be there in the BBC's aerial photos
>>taken today.
>
> They were sold when the mill closed down:

130 ft x 17 ft. I remember seeing them at Tewkesbury four years ago. What
was their capacity? You wouldn't want to meet one in a narrowboat.

Regards

Jonathan

On 23 Jul, 15:07, Prepair Ltd <prep...@easynet.co.uk> wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 14:50:49 +0100, Malcolm Nixon <malc...@mgnixon.org.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >The major problem is that most of our towns were built beside rivers -
> >and many major cities are vulnerable - not least London.
>
> >or is that too extreme ?
>
> How many of these river courses get dredged?
>
> Peter
> --
> Peter A Forbes
> Prepair Ltd, Rushden, UK
> prep...@easynet.co.ukhttp://www.prepair.co.uk

So are you saying dredging rivers would have stopped this flooding?

On 23 Jul, 17:18, Steve Atty <nos...@tty.org.uk> wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 08:28:27 -0700, toad <toad_oftoadh...@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >On 23 Jul, 15:07, Prepair Ltd <prep...@easynet.co.uk> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 14:50:49 +0100, Malcolm Nixon <malc...@mgnixon.org.uk>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >The major problem is that most of our towns were built beside rivers -
> >> >and many major cities are vulnerable - not least London.
>
> >> >or is that too extreme ?
>
> >> How many of these river courses get dredged?
>
> >It's an interesting point. AFAIK the Gloucester to Tewkesbury section
> >of the Severn is still a commercial waterway carrying Flour for the
> >Allied Mill at Tewkesbury.
>
> Its not done that for years.

You're kidding. How many years? When I was a student I worked there
one summer. I assumed it was still going strong.

On 24 Jul, 00:54, JP <junkmailh...@dodgeit.com> wrote:
> On 23 Jul, 15:07, Prepair Ltd <prep...@easynet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 14:50:49 +0100, Malcolm Nixon <malc...@mgnixon.org.uk>
> > wrote:
>
> > >The major problem is that most of our towns were built beside rivers -
> > >and many major cities are vulnerable - not least London.
>
> > >or is that too extreme ?
>
> > How many of these river courses get dredged?
>
> > Peter
> > --
> > Peter A Forbes
> > Prepair Ltd, Rushden, UK
> > prep...@easynet.co.ukhttp://www.prepair.co.uk
>
> So are you saying dredging rivers would have stopped this flooding?

I think he's posing that question. Are you saying it wouldn't?

On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 21:55:24 +0100, "Jonathan Morton"
<jonathan@jonathanmortonbutignorethisbit.co.uk> wrote:

>"Steve Atty" <nospam@tty.org.uk> wrote in message
>news:n04aa3djfodopba7hfci8ep6k2rsit2qnq@4ax.com.. .
>>>The grain barges were still moored by the mill when I last passed that
>>>way, although they didn't seem to be there in the BBC's aerial photos
>>>taken today.
>>
>> They were sold when the mill closed down:
>
>130 ft x 17 ft. I remember seeing them at Tewkesbury four years ago. What
>was their capacity?

>You wouldn't want to meet one in a narrowboat.

Whyever not?
It keeps you awake knowing there might be something bigger just around
the corner <g>
It shouldn't be a problem if the navigation is big enough, though.

Tim

On 24 Jul, 09:21, Tim Leech <duttond...@onetel.no.spam.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 21:55:24 +0100, "Jonathan Morton"
>
> <jonat...@jonathanmortonbutignorethisbit.co.uk> wrote:
> >"Steve Atty" <nos...@tty.org.uk> wrote in message
> >news:n04aa3djfodopba7hfci8ep6k2rsit2qnq@4ax.com.. .
> >>>The grain barges were still moored by the mill when I last passed that
> >>>way, although they didn't seem to be there in the BBC's aerial photos
> >>>taken today.
>
> >> They were sold when the mill closed down:
>
> >130 ft x 17 ft. I remember seeing them at Tewkesbury four years ago. What
> >was their capacity?
> >You wouldn't want to meet one in a narrowboat.
>
> Whyever not?
> It keeps you awake knowing there might be something bigger just around
> the corner <g>
> It shouldn't be a problem if the navigation is big enough, though.

The river's pretty wide anywhere you'ld be likely to meet one anyway.

"Jonathan Morton" <jonathan@jonathanmortonbutignorethisbit.co.uk> wrote in
message news:hd6dnfc9S60hiDjbnZ2dnUVZ8qKvnZ2d@bt.com...
> "Steve Atty" <nospam@tty.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:n04aa3djfodopba7hfci8ep6k2rsit2qnq@4ax.com...
>>>The grain barges were still moored by the mill when I last passed that
>>>way, although they didn't seem to be there in the BBC's aerial photos
>>>taken today.
>>
>> They were sold when the mill closed down:
>
> 130 ft x 17 ft. I remember seeing them at Tewkesbury four years ago. What
> was their capacity? You wouldn't want to meet one in a narrowboat.
>

A while ago we were on the G&S in out little 33ft narrowboat
Arrived at Purton when the Bridge keeper was at lunch so rather than tying
up we just hung about above the bridge and had a sandwich.
After about 5 minutes waiting ( slap in the middle of his lunch break ) the
bridge began to open. Oh good I thought we can go on, just started to move
again when round the corner of the bridge appeared one of these barges fully
laden. Much heavy reverse in our case to get out of the way however a barge
of that size moves a lot of water when in the confines of the G&S and we
just floated round like a cork being pushed very which way by the water
movement.

Quite an interesting experience but not one I would like to repeat often.

J

On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 18:53:57 +0100, Steve Atty <nospam@tty.org.uk> wrote:

>On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 16:54:55 -0700, JP <junkmailhere@dodgeit.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On 23 Jul, 15:07, Prepair Ltd <prep...@easynet.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 14:50:49 +0100, Malcolm Nixon <malc...@mgnixon.org.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >The major problem is that most of our towns were built beside rivers -
>>> >and many major cities are vulnerable - not least London.
>>>
>>> >or is that too extreme ?
>>>
>>> How many of these river courses get dredged?
>>>
>>> Peter
>>> --
>>> Peter A Forbes
>>> Prepair Ltd, Rushden, UK
>>> prep...@easynet.co.ukhttp://www.prepair.co.uk
>>
>>
>>So are you saying dredging rivers would have stopped this flooding?
>>
>
>Baroness whatsit today stated that dredging wouldn't help as it would
>just make the water flow faster and move the problem down stream.

Downstream below Gloucester are fields and the sea.

>
>That may be true.

Yeah it would cause sea levels to rise. Scary! :-)

>
>The BBC also showed some shots from a helicopter panning up from the
>Severn Bridges upto Gloucester. There is hardly any flooding below
>Gloucester - I assume this is because it widens just enough to take
>the flow (or is it because its below the fixed wiers?)
>
>So maybe if the river had been dredged properly then the water would
>have moved faster down stream to the part of the river that isn't
>currently flooded and the whole problem could have been significantly
>reduced.

Doesn't the whole river need widening and/or deepening below Gloucester?

The Dutch ministry that looks after flood prevention is giving New Orleans
advice, maybe UK could do with some too?
--

Martin

Pete Stockdale wrote:

> I regret to say that in my opinion dredging or the lack of it is only a
> secondary cause.
> Non flow- through locks and fixed weirs are the primary cause of backing
> up the water, which causes flooding.

Depends what type of flooding you are speaking of.

On R4 today (The You and Yours Segment) there was one caller who phoned to
say that they had been flooded out because a 6" drain had not been replaced
with a much larger one despite promises that it would and lots of new
development up hill of her having taken place and plumbing itself into the
aformentioned 6" drain. Seems she and her neighbours had been waiting quite
a long time for this improvement. Seems quite a lot of the flooding could
have been avoided if government agencies had decided to act more promptly
on their plans.

--
************************************************** ******************
Paul E. Bennett ....................<email://peb@amleth.demon.co.uk>
Forth based HIDECS Consultancy .....<http://www.amleth.demon.co.uk/>
Mob: +44 (0)7811-639972
Tel: +44 (0)1235-811095
Going Forth Safely ..... EBA. www.electric-boat-association.org.uk..
************************************************** ******************

On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 21:19:28 +0100, "Paul E. Bennett" <peb@amleth.demon.co.uk>
wrote:

>Pete Stockdale wrote:
>
>> I regret to say that in my opinion dredging or the lack of it is only a
>> secondary cause.
>> Non flow- through locks and fixed weirs are the primary cause of backing
>> up the water, which causes flooding.
>
>Depends what type of flooding you are speaking of.
>
>On R4 today (The You and Yours Segment) there was one caller who phoned to
>say that they had been flooded out because a 6" drain had not been replaced
>with a much larger one despite promises that it would and lots of new
>development up hill of her having taken place and plumbing itself into the
>aformentioned 6" drain. Seems she and her neighbours had been waiting quite
>a long time for this improvement. Seems quite a lot of the flooding could
>have been avoided if government agencies had decided to act more promptly
>on their plans.

I blame God for sending down abnormal amount of rain. Anything else is 20/20
hindsight.
--

Martin

In article <80fca35hg9cnipdn9cmeta57hk069u6de6@4ax.com>, Steve Atty
<nospam@tty.org.uk> writes
>On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 16:54:55 -0700, JP <junkmailhere@dodgeit.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On 23 Jul, 15:07, Prepair Ltd <prep...@easynet.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 14:50:49 +0100, Malcolm Nixon <malc...@mgnixon.org.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >The major problem is that most of our towns were built beside rivers -
>>> >and many major cities are vulnerable - not least London.
>>>
>>> >or is that too extreme ?
>>>
>>> How many of these river courses get dredged?
>>>
>>> Peter
>>> --
>>> Peter A Forbes
>>> Prepair Ltd, Rushden, UK
>>> prep...@easynet.co.ukhttp://www.prepair.co.uk
>>
>>
>>So are you saying dredging rivers would have stopped this flooding?
>>
>
>Baroness whatsit today stated that dredging wouldn't help as it would
>just make the water flow faster and move the problem down stream.
>
>That may be true.
>
>The BBC also showed some shots from a helicopter panning up from the
>Severn Bridges upto Gloucester. There is hardly any flooding below
>Gloucester - I assume this is because it widens just enough to take
>the flow (or is it because its below the fixed wiers?)
>
>So maybe if the river had been dredged properly then the water would
>have moved faster down stream to the part of the river that isn't
>currently flooded and the whole problem could have been significantly
>reduced.

Or the problem spread wider.
--
Nicholas David Richards -

"Où sont les neiges d'antan?"

On Jul 24, 6:53 pm, Steve Atty <nos...@tty.org.uk> wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 16:54:55 -0700, JP <junkmailh...@dodgeit.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On 23 Jul, 15:07, Prepair Ltd <prep...@easynet.co.uk> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 14:50:49 +0100, Malcolm Nixon <malc...@mgnixon.org.uk>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >The major problem is that most of our towns were built beside rivers -
> >> >and many major cities are vulnerable - not least London.
>
> >> >or is that too extreme ?
>
> >> How many of these river courses get dredged?
>
> >> Peter
> >> --
> >> Peter A Forbes
> >> Prepair Ltd, Rushden, UK
> >> prep...@easynet.co.ukhttp://www.prepair.co.uk
>
> >So are you saying dredging rivers would have stopped this flooding?
>
> Baroness whatsit today stated that dredging wouldn't help as it would
> just make the water flow faster and move the problem down stream.
>
> That may be true.
>
> The BBC also showed some shots from a helicopter panning up from the
> Severn Bridges upto Gloucester. There is hardly any flooding below
> Gloucester - I assume this is because it widens just enough to take
> the flow (or is it because its below the fixed wiers?)

I saw that excellent shot too, and wondered the same thing. I think
both are true. If we muck about with rivers, then we have to take the
consequences when they get busy.

>
> So maybe if the river had been dredged properly then the water would
> have moved faster down stream to the part of the river that isn't
> currently flooded and the whole problem could have been significantly
> reduced.

Makes you wonder whether a lot of what goes on, on the Upper Thames is
to protect London.

Tony H

Interesting that Evesham hasn't featured on the news at all.

Not many images focus on boats, but these are scary:

http://www.bbc.co.uk:80/herefordandw...llery.shtml?31

http://www.bbc.co.uk:80/herefordandw...llery.shtml?35

http://www.bbc.co.uk:80/herefordandw...llery.shtml?49

http://www.bbc.co.uk:80/herefordandw...llery.shtml?80

http://www.bbc.co.uk:80/herefordandw...llery.shtml?31

Tony H

On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 18:53:57 +0100, Steve Atty <nospam@tty.org.uk>
wrote:

>
>Baroness whatsit today stated that dredging wouldn't help as it would
>just make the water flow faster and move the problem down stream.
>
>That may be true.
>
>The BBC also showed some shots from a helicopter panning up from the
>Severn Bridges upto Gloucester. There is hardly any flooding below
>Gloucester - I assume this is because it widens just enough to take
>the flow (or is it because its below the fixed wiers?)
>
>So maybe if the river had been dredged properly then the water would
>have moved faster down stream to the part of the river that isn't
>currently flooded and the whole problem could have been significantly
>reduced.

Looking at those same pictures I saw a meandering River Severn below
Gloucester that seemed full of water until it reached the wider
estuary. Gloucester was flooded. There should be nothing to impede
the clearance of water from Gloucester, but that seems to be where the
pinch point is. It struck me that a flood relief channel constructed
from the weir directly to the estuary would solve a lot of problems,
but I have no idea of the engineering problems that might entail i.e.
geological features. I guess the really urgent matter for the
authorities is to provide permanent flood protection for water supply
facilities and electrical substations.

Mike
nb Nuggler
www.nuggler.co.uk

Martin me@address.invalid wrote:

> I blame God for sending down abnormal amount of rain. Anything else
> is 20/20 hindsight.

Nothing to do with me, mate. I suspect the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

--
"GOD"

In reply to "GOD" (god@privacy.net) who wrote this in
5goev8F3h1i5bU1@mid.individual.net, I, Marvo, say :

> Martin me@address.invalid wrote:
>
>> I blame God for sending down abnormal amount of rain. Anything else
>> is 20/20 hindsight.
>
>
> Nothing to do with me, mate. I suspect the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Well done, Larrington.

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 09:14:59 +0100, "Uncle Marvo"
<paul.r@deletethisbitfortescue.org.uk> wrote:

>In reply to "GOD" (god@privacy.net) who wrote this in
>5goev8F3h1i5bU1@mid.individual.net, I, Marvo, say :
>
>> Martin me@address.invalid wrote:
>>
>>> I blame God for sending down abnormal amount of rain. Anything else
>>> is 20/20 hindsight.
>>
>>
>> Nothing to do with me, mate. I suspect the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
>
>Well done, Larrington.
>

"He's fallen in the water!"
--

Martin

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 09:12:19 +0100, "\"GOD\"" <god@privacy.net> wrote:

>Martin me@address.invalid wrote:
>
>> I blame God for sending down abnormal amount of rain. Anything else
>> is 20/20 hindsight.
>
>
>Nothing to do with me, mate. I suspect the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

"20/20 hindsight" not blind drunk again, Larrington

--

Martin

In reply to Martin (me@address.invalid) who wrote this in
0a3ea3hhimkd3qc8so56v6btq9ta1jl0tl@4ax.com, I, Marvo, say :

> On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 09:12:19 +0100, "\"GOD\"" <god@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>> Martin me@address.invalid wrote:
>>
>>> I blame God for sending down abnormal amount of rain. Anything else
>>> is 20/20 hindsight.
>>
>>
>> Nothing to do with me, mate. I suspect the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
>
> "20/20 hindsight" not blind drunk again, Larrington

I wish people wouldn't say 20/20.It's so American.

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 09:50:19 +0100, "Uncle Marvo"
<paul.r@deletethisbitfortescue.org.uk> wrote:

>In reply to Martin (me@address.invalid) who wrote this in
>0a3ea3hhimkd3qc8so56v6btq9ta1jl0tl@4ax.com, I, Marvo, say :
>
>> On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 09:12:19 +0100, "\"GOD\"" <god@privacy.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Martin me@address.invalid wrote:
>>>
>>>> I blame God for sending down abnormal amount of rain. Anything else
>>>> is 20/20 hindsight.
>>>
>>>
>>> Nothing to do with me, mate. I suspect the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
>>
>> "20/20 hindsight" not blind drunk again, Larrington

>
>I wish people wouldn't say 20/20.It's so American.
>

It's optician speak everywhere.
--

Martin

In reply to Martin (me@address.invalid) who wrote this in
p54ea31n9tp8qkf1a878u23q6bv37cg10m@4ax.com, I, Marvo, say :

> On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 09:50:19 +0100, "Uncle Marvo"
> <paul.r@deletethisbitfortescue.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> In reply to Martin (me@address.invalid) who wrote this in
>> 0a3ea3hhimkd3qc8so56v6btq9ta1jl0tl@4ax.com, I, Marvo, say :
>>
>>> On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 09:12:19 +0100, "\"GOD\"" <god@privacy.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Martin me@address.invalid wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I blame God for sending down abnormal amount of rain. Anything
>>>>> else is 20/20 hindsight.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nothing to do with me, mate. I suspect the Flying Spaghetti
>>>> Monster.
>>>
>>> "20/20 hindsight" not blind drunk again, Larrington

>>
>> I wish people wouldn't say 20/20.It's so American.
>>
>
> It's optician speak everywhere.

Wrong.

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 10:26:45 +0100, "Uncle Marvo"
<paul.r@deletethisbitfortescue.org.uk> wrote:

>In reply to Martin (me@address.invalid) who wrote this in
>p54ea31n9tp8qkf1a878u23q6bv37cg10m@4ax.com, I, Marvo, say :
>
>> On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 09:50:19 +0100, "Uncle Marvo"
>> <paul.r@deletethisbitfortescue.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> In reply to Martin (me@address.invalid) who wrote this in
>>> 0a3ea3hhimkd3qc8so56v6btq9ta1jl0tl@4ax.com, I, Marvo, say :
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 09:12:19 +0100, "\"GOD\"" <god@privacy.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Martin me@address.invalid wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I blame God for sending down abnormal amount of rain. Anything
>>>>>> else is 20/20 hindsight.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Nothing to do with me, mate. I suspect the Flying Spaghetti
>>>>> Monster.
>>>>
>>>> "20/20 hindsight" not blind drunk again, Larrington

>>>
>>> I wish people wouldn't say 20/20.It's so American.
>>>
>>
>> It's optician speak everywhere.
>
>Wrong.

You are wrong.

The Indy and I are right
http://news.independent.co.uk/health/article2614899.ece

Even in the right context
http://www.ukwir.org/content/default.asp?PageId=47537

>
>

Has your boat sunk yet?
--

Martin

In reply to Martin (me@address.invalid) who wrote this in
8d6ea3ppc5qtoc4d293fobbjt44914dlst@4ax.com, I, Marvo, say :

> On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 10:26:45 +0100, "Uncle Marvo"
> <paul.r@deletethisbitfortescue.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> In reply to Martin (me@address.invalid) who wrote this in
>> p54ea31n9tp8qkf1a878u23q6bv37cg10m@4ax.com, I, Marvo, say :
>>
>>> On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 09:50:19 +0100, "Uncle Marvo"
>>> <paul.r@deletethisbitfortescue.org.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In reply to Martin (me@address.invalid) who wrote this in
>>>> 0a3ea3hhimkd3qc8so56v6btq9ta1jl0tl@4ax.com, I, Marvo, say :
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 09:12:19 +0100, "\"GOD\"" <god@privacy.net>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Martin me@address.invalid wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I blame God for sending down abnormal amount of rain. Anything
>>>>>>> else is 20/20 hindsight.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nothing to do with me, mate. I suspect the Flying Spaghetti
>>>>>> Monster.
>>>>>
>>>>> "20/20 hindsight" not blind drunk again, Larrington

>>>>
>>>> I wish people wouldn't say 20/20.It's so American.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It's optician speak everywhere.
>>
>> Wrong.
>
> You are wrong.
>
> The Indy and I are right
> http://news.independent.co.uk/health/article2614899.ece
>
> Even in the right context
> http://www.ukwir.org/content/default.asp?PageId=47537
>
>>
>>
>
> Has your boat sunk yet?

Blimey, the Indy is an optometrist, like my mate wot tells me that in
Engerland it's 6/6?

I'm not sure a newspaper is the right vehicle for "proof". And the internet
certainly isn't.

Not sunk. Fully floating. I'm working on building a gangplank four feet
higher than the current one, and a means of getting the pairs of animals to
walk up it later in the year, just in case.

A good way to get time on your hands is to test a bluetooth interface for
timeouts. Gives you about half a day per day to post gubbins on newsfroups.
It's either that or retire, and I'd be bored if I did that. I'd also get
old, I think :-)

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 11:30:09 +0100, "Uncle Marvo"
<paul.r@deletethisbitfortescue.org.uk> wrote:

>In reply to Martin (me@address.invalid) who wrote this in
>8d6ea3ppc5qtoc4d293fobbjt44914dlst@4ax.com, I, Marvo, say :
>
>> On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 10:26:45 +0100, "Uncle Marvo"
>> <paul.r@deletethisbitfortescue.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> In reply to Martin (me@address.invalid) who wrote this in
>>> p54ea31n9tp8qkf1a878u23q6bv37cg10m@4ax.com, I, Marvo, say :
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 09:50:19 +0100, "Uncle Marvo"
>>>> <paul.r@deletethisbitfortescue.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In reply to Martin (me@address.invalid) who wrote this in
>>>>> 0a3ea3hhimkd3qc8so56v6btq9ta1jl0tl@4ax.com, I, Marvo, say :
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 09:12:19 +0100, "\"GOD\"" <god@privacy.net>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Martin me@address.invalid wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I blame God for sending down abnormal amount of rain. Anything
>>>>>>>> else is 20/20 hindsight.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nothing to do with me, mate. I suspect the Flying Spaghetti
>>>>>>> Monster.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "20/20 hindsight" not blind drunk again, Larrington

>>>>>
>>>>> I wish people wouldn't say 20/20.It's so American.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's optician speak everywhere.
>>>
>>> Wrong.
>>
>> You are wrong.
>>
>> The Indy and I are right
>> http://news.independent.co.uk/health/article2614899.ece
>>
>> Even in the right context
>> http://www.ukwir.org/content/default.asp?PageId=47537
>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Has your boat sunk yet?
>
>Blimey, the Indy is an optometrist, like my mate wot tells me that in
>Engerland it's 6/6?

"I wish people wouldn't say 20/20.It's so American."

Time he and you would both catch up.

>
>I'm not sure a newspaper is the right vehicle for "proof". And the internet
>certainly isn't.
>
>Not sunk. Fully floating. I'm working on building a gangplank four feet
>higher than the current one, and a means of getting the pairs of animals to
>walk up it later in the year, just in case.
>
>A good way to get time on your hands is to test a bluetooth interface for
>timeouts. Gives you about half a day per day to post gubbins on newsfroups.
>It's either that or retire, and I'd be bored if I did that. I'd also get
>old, I think :-)
>
--

Martin

In reply to Martin (me@address.invalid) who wrote this in
t8aea3hbom8sa1bnmv8beeia4m4td5iqv3@4ax.com, I, Marvo, say :

> On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 11:30:09 +0100, "Uncle Marvo"
> <paul.r@deletethisbitfortescue.org.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>> Blimey, the Indy is an optometrist, like my mate wot tells me that in
>> Engerland it's 6/6?
>
> "I wish people wouldn't say 20/20.It's so American."
>
> Time he and you would both catch up.
>
'Tis the opposite of catch up. 6/6 is metric, 20/20 is Imperial. The only
people AFAIK who still use Imperial for this are the Americans, because they
can.

FYI the 6 represents 6 metres, the 20 represents 20 feet. I doubt that even
the Dutch use feet (apart from walking on).

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 11:55:33 +0100, "Uncle Marvo"
<paul.r@deletethisbitfortescue.org.uk> wrote:

>In reply to Martin (me@address.invalid) who wrote this in
>t8aea3hbom8sa1bnmv8beeia4m4td5iqv3@4ax.com, I, Marvo, say :
>
>> On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 11:30:09 +0100, "Uncle Marvo"
>> <paul.r@deletethisbitfortescue.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Blimey, the Indy is an optometrist, like my mate wot tells me that in
>>> Engerland it's 6/6?
>>
>> "I wish people wouldn't say 20/20.It's so American."
>>
>> Time he and you would both catch up.
>>
>'Tis the opposite of catch up. 6/6 is metric, 20/20 is Imperial. The only
>people AFAIK who still use Imperial for this are the Americans, because they
>can.
>
>FYI the 6 represents 6 metres, the 20 represents 20 feet. I doubt that even
>the Dutch use feet (apart from walking on).

Dutch eye surgeons use 20/20 and rows of tulip bulbs are planted one foot apart.
You don't really know everything do you? :-)
--

Martin

"Martin" <me@address.invalid> wrote in message
news:lubea3l0nlvbnrrqgs2s7rpp9ju02anbvs@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 11:55:33 +0100, "Uncle Marvo"
> <paul.r@deletethisbitfortescue.org.uk> wrote:
>
>>In reply to Martin (me@address.invalid) who wrote this in
>>t8aea3hbom8sa1bnmv8beeia4m4td5iqv3@4ax.com, I, Marvo, say :
>>
>>> On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 11:30:09 +0100, "Uncle Marvo"
>>> <paul.r@deletethisbitfortescue.org.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Blimey, the Indy is an optometrist, like my mate wot tells me that in
>>>> Engerland it's 6/6?
>>>
>>> "I wish people wouldn't say 20/20.It's so American."
>>>
>>> Time he and you would both catch up.
>>>
>>'Tis the opposite of catch up. 6/6 is metric, 20/20 is Imperial. The only
>>people AFAIK who still use Imperial for this are the Americans, because
>>they
>>can.
>>
>>FYI the 6 represents 6 metres, the 20 represents 20 feet. I doubt that
>>even
>>the Dutch use feet (apart from walking on).
>
> Dutch eye surgeons use 20/20 and rows of tulip bulbs are planted one foot
> apart.
> You don't really know everything do you? :-)
> --
Did I ever say I did? I know an awful lot about a very few things.

One thing I'm rather good at is saying when I'm wrong, as I am it so very
often. But not in this case.

I'm amazed that Dutch eyedoctors use Imperial measurements. They must have
stolen them from us noble Britons when they had it away with the bits of the
world that we were so busy trying to steal at the time :-)

In article <5gotjkF3i9hu9U1@mid.individual.net>, Uncle Marvo <paul.r@del
etethisbitfortescue.org.uk> writes
>
>"Martin" <me@address.invalid> wrote in message
>news:lubea3l0nlvbnrrqgs2s7rpp9ju02anbvs@4ax.com.. .
>> On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 11:55:33 +0100, "Uncle Marvo"
>> <paul.r@deletethisbitfortescue.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>In reply to Martin (me@address.invalid) who wrote this in
>>>t8aea3hbom8sa1bnmv8beeia4m4td5iqv3@4ax.com, I, Marvo, say :
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 11:30:09 +0100, "Uncle Marvo"
>>>> <paul.r@deletethisbitfortescue.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Blimey, the Indy is an optometrist, like my mate wot tells me that in
>>>>> Engerland it's 6/6?
>>>>
>>>> "I wish people wouldn't say 20/20.It's so American."
>>>>
>>>> Time he and you would both catch up.
>>>>
>>>'Tis the opposite of catch up. 6/6 is metric, 20/20 is Imperial. The only
>>>people AFAIK who still use Imperial for this are the Americans, because
>>>they
>>>can.
>>>
>>>FYI the 6 represents 6 metres, the 20 represents 20 feet. I doubt that
>>>even
>>>the Dutch use feet (apart from walking on).
>>
>> Dutch eye surgeons use 20/20 and rows of tulip bulbs are planted one foot
>> apart.
>> You don't really know everything do you? :-)
>> --
>Did I ever say I did? I know an awful lot about a very few things.
>
>One thing I'm rather good at is saying when I'm wrong, as I am it so very
>often. But not in this case.
>
>I'm amazed that Dutch eyedoctors use Imperial measurements. They must have
>stolen them from us noble Britons when they had it away with the bits of the
>world that we were so busy trying to steal at the time :-)
>
Probably not. Maybe we stole it from the Romans. Prior to Napoleon
(spit) most countries in Europe seem to have had a length measurement
that was approximately 1 foot in length. Possibly because it is a
useful length?
--
Nicholas David Richards -

"Où sont les neiges d'antan?"

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 13:48:48 +0100, "Nicholas D. Richards"
<nicholas@salmiron.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>In article <5gotjkF3i9hu9U1@mid.individual.net>, Uncle Marvo <paul.r@del
>etethisbitfortescue.org.uk> writes
>>
>>"Martin" <me@address.invalid> wrote in message
>>news:lubea3l0nlvbnrrqgs2s7rpp9ju02anbvs@4ax.com. ..
>>> On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 11:55:33 +0100, "Uncle Marvo"
>>> <paul.r@deletethisbitfortescue.org.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In reply to Martin (me@address.invalid) who wrote this in
>>>>t8aea3hbom8sa1bnmv8beeia4m4td5iqv3@4ax.com, I, Marvo, say :
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 11:30:09 +0100, "Uncle Marvo"
>>>>> <paul.r@deletethisbitfortescue.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Blimey, the Indy is an optometrist, like my mate wot tells me that in
>>>>>> Engerland it's 6/6?
>>>>>
>>>>> "I wish people wouldn't say 20/20.It's so American."
>>>>>
>>>>> Time he and you would both catch up.
>>>>>
>>>>'Tis the opposite of catch up. 6/6 is metric, 20/20 is Imperial. The only
>>>>people AFAIK who still use Imperial for this are the Americans, because
>>>>they
>>>>can.
>>>>
>>>>FYI the 6 represents 6 metres, the 20 represents 20 feet. I doubt that
>>>>even
>>>>the Dutch use feet (apart from walking on).
>>>
>>> Dutch eye surgeons use 20/20 and rows of tulip bulbs are planted one foot
>>> apart.
>>> You don't really know everything do you? :-)
>>> --
>>Did I ever say I did? I know an awful lot about a very few things.
>>
>>One thing I'm rather good at is saying when I'm wrong, as I am it so very
>>often. But not in this case.
>>
>>I'm amazed that Dutch eyedoctors use Imperial measurements. They must have
>>stolen them from us noble Britons when they had it away with the bits of the
>>world that we were so busy trying to steal at the time :-)

>>
>Probably not. Maybe we stole it from the Romans. Prior to Napoleon
>(spit) most countries in Europe seem to have had a length measurement
>that was approximately 1 foot in length. Possibly because it is a
>useful length?

Machines used to do something with tulip bulbs were imperial because they were
imported from UK originally.

When a local military airfield shut down and stuff was sold off in govt. surplus
places none of the tools on sale were metric.
--

Martin

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 13:20:13 +0100, "Uncle Marvo"
<paul.r@deletethisbitfortescue.org.uk> wrote:

>In that case, and since you are in the UK, you will have had an optician's,
>optometrist's, or ophthalmologist's prescription, and I bet you five earth
>pounds that it was metric.

metric or imperial pounds?
--

Martin

"Martin" <me@address.invalid> wrote in message
news

hiea3tutds2momh7d4f4247rsegg1q5l7@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 13:20:13 +0100, "Uncle Marvo"
> <paul.r@deletethisbitfortescue.org.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>In that case, and since you are in the UK, you will have had an
>>optician's,
>>optometrist's, or ophthalmologist's prescription, and I bet you five earth
>>pounds that it was metric.
>
> metric or imperial pounds?
> --
>
Size doesn't matter.

	#1
Andrew Instone-Cowie	Fwd: Evesham Pictures From elsewhere, links to some pictures of the Avon in Evesham last night and early this morning... Andrew -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: Whether the weather be rain or fine Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 10:05:09 +0100 Newsgroups: uk.media.radio.archers On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 23:57:08 -0700, Mike <mruddock@toucansurf.com> scrawled in the dust... >Somerats will know that we live within a short (1) distance of the >Avon in Evesham a town which is being described this morning as an >island. We are fine, though further along the road there is a small >lake. After breakfast i will stroll (paddle?) down to the river to see >how high it is. (Mem to self: take camers) A Geograph-er has beaten you to it, being marooned in a riverside hotel he recorded the rising waters http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/500151 http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/500152 http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/500153 http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/500156 Pleased to hear you are home and dry. -- Penny Laughter is the dance of the spirit and the music of the soul. umra Nicknames & Abbreviations http://www.umra.freeuk.com/nicks.html

	#2
Andrew Instone-Cowie	Re: Fwd: Evesham Pictures Brian Dominic wrote: > On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 15:30:08 +0100, Andrew Instone-Cowie > <address-not-read@datagram.co.uk> finished tucking into their plate of > fish, chips and mushy peas. Wiping their mouths, they swiggged the > last of their cup of tea, paid the bill and wrote:: >> >> Pleased to hear you are home and dry. > > Regrettably that's not the case. Misattributed quotation there, Brian - I was forwarding what someone else had written on UMRA (Lest anyone think I was being tactless). Andrew

	#3
Jonathan Morton	Re: Fwd: Evesham Pictures "Pete Stockdale" <peter.jeanne@btopenworld.com> wrote in message news:W-OdnZYEUu6M-D_bRVnytAA@bt.com... > > According to the beeb 5.15 news tonite - [Upton upon Severn's] flood > protection barriers were still on the motorway it was claimed. > > Heads should roll very far. You didn't see the state of the M5 on Friday afternoon, then? I doubt if any barriers on earth could have saved Upton - and if they could, it was not unreasonable to try to transport them by motorway. I've been in Worcester this afternoon. Browns Restaurant seems to have copped a packet and New Road and the racecourse are a right mess - again. With the bridge closed to vehicular traffic there was a rather surreal atmosphere, with everyone wandering around eating ice cream and taking in the view. Regards Jonathan

	#4
Zeke	Re: Fwd: Evesham Pictures On 22 Jul, 17:41, "Jonathan Morton" <jonat...@jonathanmortonbutignorethisbit.co.uk> wrote: > "Pete Stockdale" <peter.jea...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message > > news:W-OdnZYEUu6M-D_bRVnytAA@bt.com... > > > > > According to the beeb 5.15 news tonite - [Upton upon Severn's] flood > > protection barriers were still on the motorway it was claimed. > > > Heads should roll very far. > > You didn't see the state of the M5 on Friday afternoon, then? I doubt if any > barriers on earth could have saved Upton - and if they could, it was not > unreasonable to try to transport them by motorway. > > Jonathan Of course it's not unreasonable to transport the flood defences by motorway, and Upton would in all probability not have been saved by them. Point is, theose barriers were stuck on the M5 motorway on Friday. The floods were forecast on Wednesday!!

	#5
Jonathan Morton	Re: Fwd: Evesham Pictures "Zeke" <tarnishedvent@aol.com> wrote in message news:1185140523.952419.255650@22g2000hsm.googlegro ups.com... > Of course it's not unreasonable to transport the flood defences by > motorway, and Upton would in all probability not have been saved by > them. Point is, theose barriers were stuck on the M5 motorway on > Friday. The floods were forecast on Wednesday!! Looking at the pictures on the news a few minutes ago, the phrase that springs to mind involves deckchairs and the Titanic. Tewkesbury looks absolutely horrible - they've got all the stuff we're sending down from Worcester, and the Avon as well this time. The last time, a few weeks ago, the main rain was in Wales rather than the Midlands, so the Severn was up but the Avon was relatively OK. Regards Jonathan

	#7
toad	Re: Fwd: Evesham Pictures On 23 Jul, 09:27, Zeke <tarnishedv...@aol.com> wrote: > Never mind though, we will no doubt be > told that 'lessons wil be learned' as usual. I sailed on the Avon in the area for Donkey's years. I think it's too late to learn lessons. About 10-15 years ago in Tewkesbury they built a Safeways store and garage plus a housing estate on the flood plains and blocked off a huge area of flood plain with a causeway carrying a bypass. Everyone said at the time it was a crazy thing to do and almost immediately flooding became worse. Similar in Evesham. They built an Estate known as "Four Pools" in a large depression with a natural spring. You'ld think the name would have said it all. You simply can't 'unbuild' these kind of developments and flood defences are all but useless. (Sedgeberrow and Waterside in Evesham already have flood defences and there proved useless.) The news coverage is a joke. A female news reporter was standing on Workman Bridge, apparently under the impression it was Abbey Bridge. This much mentioned "weak bridge" was weak long before the flood. It's had a 5 ton limit for a few months now. Talk of panic buying are true but in very localized areas. Someone prepared to drive half an hour will have no problem getting supplies, and those cut off completely aren't going to be worried about panic buying!

	#8
Malcolm Nixon	Re: Fwd: Evesham Pictures On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 05:58:15 -0700, toad <toad_oftoadhall@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >You simply can't 'unbuild' these kind of developments and flood >defences are all but useless. (Sedgeberrow and Waterside in Evesham >already have flood defences and there proved useless.) > Without wishing to be alarmist - just how much do we have to spend to protect areas - if they are indeed incapable of protection. Do we put Huge walls down the banks of rivers. This will just make things worse further downstream; natures way is to allow the flood plain to absorb the water and let it drain in its own time. Even behind a high wall - there is still the matter of heavy rainfall falling on covered surfaces - where does the water drain to without enormous pumps - and where would these pumps push the water - into the already narrow river channel ?. If this is the result of climate change and will only get worse - we may have to face the inevitable - and not only avoid building in low lying areas - but actually move towns and villages back away from the waters edge. The major problem is that most of our towns were built beside rivers - and many major cities are vulnerable - not least London. or is that too extreme ? -- ~Malcolm N.... ~

	#9
Prepair Ltd	Re: Fwd: Evesham Pictures On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 14:50:49 +0100, Malcolm Nixon <malcolm@mgnixon.org.uk> wrote: >The major problem is that most of our towns were built beside rivers - >and many major cities are vulnerable - not least London. > >or is that too extreme ? How many of these river courses get dredged? Peter -- Peter A Forbes Prepair Ltd, Rushden, UK prepair@easynet.co.uk http://www.prepair.co.uk

	#12
Don Aitken	Re: Fwd: Evesham Pictures On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 17:18:19 +0100, Steve Atty <nospam@tty.org.uk> wrote: >On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 08:28:27 -0700, toad <toad_oftoadhall@yahoo.co.uk> >wrote: > >>On 23 Jul, 15:07, Prepair Ltd <prep...@easynet.co.uk> wrote: >>> On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 14:50:49 +0100, Malcolm Nixon <malc...@mgnixon.org.uk> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >The major problem is that most of our towns were built beside rivers - >>> >and many major cities are vulnerable - not least London. >>> >>> >or is that too extreme ? >>> >>> How many of these river courses get dredged? >> >>It's an interesting point. AFAIK the Gloucester to Tewkesbury section >>of the Severn is still a commercial waterway carrying Flour for the >>Allied Mill at Tewkesbury. > >Its not done that for years. The only commercial traffic down to >Gloucester was a couple of test runs of a gravel barge and boats like >the Oliver Cromwell The grain barges were still moored by the mill when I last passed that way, although they didn't seem to be there in the BBC's aerial photos taken today. -- Don Aitken Mail to the From: address is not read. To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"

	#13
Jonathan Morton	Re: Fwd: Evesham Pictures "Steve Atty" <nospam@tty.org.uk> wrote in message news:n04aa3djfodopba7hfci8ep6k2rsit2qnq@4ax.com... >>The grain barges were still moored by the mill when I last passed that >>way, although they didn't seem to be there in the BBC's aerial photos >>taken today. > > They were sold when the mill closed down: 130 ft x 17 ft. I remember seeing them at Tewkesbury four years ago. What was their capacity? You wouldn't want to meet one in a narrowboat. Regards Jonathan

	#16
toad	Re: Fwd: Evesham Pictures On 24 Jul, 00:54, JP <junkmailh...@dodgeit.com> wrote: > On 23 Jul, 15:07, Prepair Ltd <prep...@easynet.co.uk> wrote: > > > On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 14:50:49 +0100, Malcolm Nixon <malc...@mgnixon.org.uk> > > wrote: > > > >The major problem is that most of our towns were built beside rivers - > > >and many major cities are vulnerable - not least London. > > > >or is that too extreme ? > > > How many of these river courses get dredged? > > > Peter > > -- > > Peter A Forbes > > Prepair Ltd, Rushden, UK > > prep...@easynet.co.ukhttp://www.prepair.co.uk > > So are you saying dredging rivers would have stopped this flooding? I think he's posing that question. Are you saying it wouldn't?

	#17
Tim Leech	Re: Fwd: Evesham Pictures On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 21:55:24 +0100, "Jonathan Morton" <jonathan@jonathanmortonbutignorethisbit.co.uk> wrote: >"Steve Atty" <nospam@tty.org.uk> wrote in message >news:n04aa3djfodopba7hfci8ep6k2rsit2qnq@4ax.com.. . >>>The grain barges were still moored by the mill when I last passed that >>>way, although they didn't seem to be there in the BBC's aerial photos >>>taken today. >> >> They were sold when the mill closed down: > >130 ft x 17 ft. I remember seeing them at Tewkesbury four years ago. What >was their capacity? >You wouldn't want to meet one in a narrowboat. Whyever not? It keeps you awake knowing there might be something bigger just around the corner <g> It shouldn't be a problem if the navigation is big enough, though. Tim

	#19
Julian	Re: Fwd: Evesham Pictures "Jonathan Morton" <jonathan@jonathanmortonbutignorethisbit.co.uk> wrote in message news:hd6dnfc9S60hiDjbnZ2dnUVZ8qKvnZ2d@bt.com... > "Steve Atty" <nospam@tty.org.uk> wrote in message > news:n04aa3djfodopba7hfci8ep6k2rsit2qnq@4ax.com... >>>The grain barges were still moored by the mill when I last passed that >>>way, although they didn't seem to be there in the BBC's aerial photos >>>taken today. >> >> They were sold when the mill closed down: > > 130 ft x 17 ft. I remember seeing them at Tewkesbury four years ago. What > was their capacity? You wouldn't want to meet one in a narrowboat. > A while ago we were on the G&S in out little 33ft narrowboat Arrived at Purton when the Bridge keeper was at lunch so rather than tying up we just hung about above the bridge and had a sandwich. After about 5 minutes waiting ( slap in the middle of his lunch break ) the bridge began to open. Oh good I thought we can go on, just started to move again when round the corner of the bridge appeared one of these barges fully laden. Much heavy reverse in our case to get out of the way however a barge of that size moves a lot of water when in the confines of the G&S and we just floated round like a cork being pushed very which way by the water movement. Quite an interesting experience but not one I would like to repeat often. J

	#20
Martin	Re: Fwd: Evesham Pictures On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 18:53:57 +0100, Steve Atty <nospam@tty.org.uk> wrote: >On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 16:54:55 -0700, JP <junkmailhere@dodgeit.com> >wrote: > >>On 23 Jul, 15:07, Prepair Ltd <prep...@easynet.co.uk> wrote: >>> On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 14:50:49 +0100, Malcolm Nixon <malc...@mgnixon.org.uk> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >The major problem is that most of our towns were built beside rivers - >>> >and many major cities are vulnerable - not least London. >>> >>> >or is that too extreme ? >>> >>> How many of these river courses get dredged? >>> >>> Peter >>> -- >>> Peter A Forbes >>> Prepair Ltd, Rushden, UK >>> prep...@easynet.co.ukhttp://www.prepair.co.uk >> >> >>So are you saying dredging rivers would have stopped this flooding? >> > >Baroness whatsit today stated that dredging wouldn't help as it would >just make the water flow faster and move the problem down stream. Downstream below Gloucester are fields and the sea. > >That may be true. Yeah it would cause sea levels to rise. Scary! :-) > >The BBC also showed some shots from a helicopter panning up from the >Severn Bridges upto Gloucester. There is hardly any flooding below >Gloucester - I assume this is because it widens just enough to take >the flow (or is it because its below the fixed wiers?) > >So maybe if the river had been dredged properly then the water would >have moved faster down stream to the part of the river that isn't >currently flooded and the whole problem could have been significantly >reduced. Doesn't the whole river need widening and/or deepening below Gloucester? The Dutch ministry that looks after flood prevention is giving New Orleans advice, maybe UK could do with some too? -- Martin

	#21
Paul E. Bennett	Re: Fwd: Evesham Pictures Pete Stockdale wrote: > I regret to say that in my opinion dredging or the lack of it is only a > secondary cause. > Non flow- through locks and fixed weirs are the primary cause of backing > up the water, which causes flooding. Depends what type of flooding you are speaking of. On R4 today (The You and Yours Segment) there was one caller who phoned to say that they had been flooded out because a 6" drain had not been replaced with a much larger one despite promises that it would and lots of new development up hill of her having taken place and plumbing itself into the aformentioned 6" drain. Seems she and her neighbours had been waiting quite a long time for this improvement. Seems quite a lot of the flooding could have been avoided if government agencies had decided to act more promptly on their plans. -- ************************************************ ************** Paul E. Bennett ....................<email://peb@amleth.demon.co.uk> Forth based HIDECS Consultancy .....<http://www.amleth.demon.co.uk/> Mob: +44 (0)7811-639972 Tel: +44 (0)1235-811095 Going Forth Safely ..... EBA. www.electric-boat-association.org.uk.. ********************************************** ****************

	#23
Nicholas D. Richards	Re: Fwd: Evesham Pictures In article <80fca35hg9cnipdn9cmeta57hk069u6de6@4ax.com>, Steve Atty <nospam@tty.org.uk> writes >On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 16:54:55 -0700, JP <junkmailhere@dodgeit.com> >wrote: > >>On 23 Jul, 15:07, Prepair Ltd <prep...@easynet.co.uk> wrote: >>> On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 14:50:49 +0100, Malcolm Nixon <malc...@mgnixon.org.uk> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >The major problem is that most of our towns were built beside rivers - >>> >and many major cities are vulnerable - not least London. >>> >>> >or is that too extreme ? >>> >>> How many of these river courses get dredged? >>> >>> Peter >>> -- >>> Peter A Forbes >>> Prepair Ltd, Rushden, UK >>> prep...@easynet.co.ukhttp://www.prepair.co.uk >> >> >>So are you saying dredging rivers would have stopped this flooding? >> > >Baroness whatsit today stated that dredging wouldn't help as it would >just make the water flow faster and move the problem down stream. > >That may be true. > >The BBC also showed some shots from a helicopter panning up from the >Severn Bridges upto Gloucester. There is hardly any flooding below >Gloucester - I assume this is because it widens just enough to take >the flow (or is it because its below the fixed wiers?) > >So maybe if the river had been dredged properly then the water would >have moved faster down stream to the part of the river that isn't >currently flooded and the whole problem could have been significantly >reduced. Or the problem spread wider. -- Nicholas David Richards - "Où sont les neiges d'antan?"

	#24
Canaldrifter	Re: Fwd: Evesham Pictures On Jul 24, 6:53 pm, Steve Atty <nos...@tty.org.uk> wrote: > On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 16:54:55 -0700, JP <junkmailh...@dodgeit.com> > wrote: > > > > >On 23 Jul, 15:07, Prepair Ltd <prep...@easynet.co.uk> wrote: > >> On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 14:50:49 +0100, Malcolm Nixon <malc...@mgnixon.org.uk> > >> wrote: > > >> >The major problem is that most of our towns were built beside rivers - > >> >and many major cities are vulnerable - not least London. > > >> >or is that too extreme ? > > >> How many of these river courses get dredged? > > >> Peter > >> -- > >> Peter A Forbes > >> Prepair Ltd, Rushden, UK > >> prep...@easynet.co.ukhttp://www.prepair.co.uk > > >So are you saying dredging rivers would have stopped this flooding? > > Baroness whatsit today stated that dredging wouldn't help as it would > just make the water flow faster and move the problem down stream. > > That may be true. > > The BBC also showed some shots from a helicopter panning up from the > Severn Bridges upto Gloucester. There is hardly any flooding below > Gloucester - I assume this is because it widens just enough to take > the flow (or is it because its below the fixed wiers?) I saw that excellent shot too, and wondered the same thing. I think both are true. If we muck about with rivers, then we have to take the consequences when they get busy. > > So maybe if the river had been dredged properly then the water would > have moved faster down stream to the part of the river that isn't > currently flooded and the whole problem could have been significantly > reduced. Makes you wonder whether a lot of what goes on, on the Upper Thames is to protect London. Tony H

	#25
Canaldrifter	Re: Fwd: Evesham Pictures Interesting that Evesham hasn't featured on the news at all. Not many images focus on boats, but these are scary: http://www.bbc.co.uk:80/herefordandw...llery.shtml?31 http://www.bbc.co.uk:80/herefordandw...llery.shtml?35 http://www.bbc.co.uk:80/herefordandw...llery.shtml?49 http://www.bbc.co.uk:80/herefordandw...llery.shtml?80 http://www.bbc.co.uk:80/herefordandw...llery.shtml?31 Tony H

	#26
Mike Fisher	Re: Fwd: Evesham Pictures On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 18:53:57 +0100, Steve Atty <nospam@tty.org.uk> wrote: > >Baroness whatsit today stated that dredging wouldn't help as it would >just make the water flow faster and move the problem down stream. > >That may be true. > >The BBC also showed some shots from a helicopter panning up from the >Severn Bridges upto Gloucester. There is hardly any flooding below >Gloucester - I assume this is because it widens just enough to take >the flow (or is it because its below the fixed wiers?) > >So maybe if the river had been dredged properly then the water would >have moved faster down stream to the part of the river that isn't >currently flooded and the whole problem could have been significantly >reduced. Looking at those same pictures I saw a meandering River Severn below Gloucester that seemed full of water until it reached the wider estuary. Gloucester was flooded. There should be nothing to impede the clearance of water from Gloucester, but that seems to be where the pinch point is. It struck me that a flood relief channel constructed from the weir directly to the estuary would solve a lot of problems, but I have no idea of the engineering problems that might entail i.e. geological features. I guess the really urgent matter for the authorities is to provide permanent flood protection for water supply facilities and electrical substations. Mike nb Nuggler www.nuggler.co.uk

	#27
\GOD\	Re: Fwd: Evesham Pictures Martin me@address.invalid wrote: > I blame God for sending down abnormal amount of rain. Anything else > is 20/20 hindsight. Nothing to do with me, mate. I suspect the Flying Spaghetti Monster. -- "GOD"

	#28
Uncle Marvo	Re: Fwd: Evesham Pictures In reply to "GOD" (god@privacy.net) who wrote this in 5goev8F3h1i5bU1@mid.individual.net, I, Marvo, say : > Martin me@address.invalid wrote: > >> I blame God for sending down abnormal amount of rain. Anything else >> is 20/20 hindsight. > > > Nothing to do with me, mate. I suspect the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Well done, Larrington.

	#29
Martin	Re: Fwd: Evesham Pictures On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 09:14:59 +0100, "Uncle Marvo" <paul.r@deletethisbitfortescue.org.uk> wrote: >In reply to "GOD" (god@privacy.net) who wrote this in >5goev8F3h1i5bU1@mid.individual.net, I, Marvo, say : > >> Martin me@address.invalid wrote: >> >>> I blame God for sending down abnormal amount of rain. Anything else >>> is 20/20 hindsight. >> >> >> Nothing to do with me, mate. I suspect the Flying Spaghetti Monster. > >Well done, Larrington. > "He's fallen in the water!" -- Martin

	#39
Uncle Marvo	Re: Fwd: Evesham Pictures "Martin" <me@address.invalid> wrote in message news:lubea3l0nlvbnrrqgs2s7rpp9ju02anbvs@4ax.com... > On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 11:55:33 +0100, "Uncle Marvo" > <paul.r@deletethisbitfortescue.org.uk> wrote: > >>In reply to Martin (me@address.invalid) who wrote this in >>t8aea3hbom8sa1bnmv8beeia4m4td5iqv3@4ax.com, I, Marvo, say : >> >>> On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 11:30:09 +0100, "Uncle Marvo" >>> <paul.r@deletethisbitfortescue.org.uk> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Blimey, the Indy is an optometrist, like my mate wot tells me that in >>>> Engerland it's 6/6? >>> >>> "I wish people wouldn't say 20/20.It's so American." >>> >>> Time he and you would both catch up. >>> >>'Tis the opposite of catch up. 6/6 is metric, 20/20 is Imperial. The only >>people AFAIK who still use Imperial for this are the Americans, because >>they >>can. >> >>FYI the 6 represents 6 metres, the 20 represents 20 feet. I doubt that >>even >>the Dutch use feet (apart from walking on). > > Dutch eye surgeons use 20/20 and rows of tulip bulbs are planted one foot > apart. > You don't really know everything do you? :-) > -- Did I ever say I did? I know an awful lot about a very few things. One thing I'm rather good at is saying when I'm wrong, as I am it so very often. But not in this case. I'm amazed that Dutch eyedoctors use Imperial measurements. They must have stolen them from us noble Britons when they had it away with the bits of the world that we were so busy trying to steal at the time :-)