Martin wrote in
:


Camp beds in a church hall?

Very funny. I bet you would be the first one to evacuate your bowels if the
roles were reversed.

Baz

"Martin" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 13:12:32 +0100, "Ophelia"
wrote:



"Martin" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 14:21:13 +0100, "Ophelia"
wrote:



"Baz" wrote in message
6...

The rest of the houses on this street are in the same situation, lets
see
how things go. Some of them dont have anything else or another place
to
go
to. Imagine that!

The council will house them, Baz, one way or another, albeit a caravan,
B&B
or other temp acommodation.

Camp beds in a church hall?

People who are flooded out are likely be out of their homes for many
months I don't reckon that would cut it, do you?

It happens.

Possibly, but only for a few days until longer term arrangements can be
made.
--
--

http://www.shop.helpforheroes.org.uk/

On Jul 11, 2:43*pm, Janet wrote:
In article ,
says...

I asked the million dollar question "will you continue to insure me". Yes.
Correct answer.

* At the moment, they have no choice; all insurance co's are obliged, by
the UK govt, to continue insuring properties that have made flood claims.

* Up until 2013. The agreement ends then.

* Janet

Exactly so. If there is no agreement Baz will be out on his ear or
his insurance premiums will be unaffordable.
And we are living in hard times.

On Jul 11, 7:34*pm, Baz wrote:
Martin Brown wrote :



The LSE assessment of the state of the "Gentlemens' Agreement" on
flood insurance in the UK is even more scathing in its assessment. The
government has actually been cutting its spending on flood defences.

Those of us not in serious flood zones will benefit from the removal
of the insurance cross subsidy to seriously at risk homes. People
living in flood prone areas will have to pay a lot more to stay
insured.

Well, not so in my case. I will never get "stitched up" . Erm, unless I
have had surgery, then I will insist upon it.
How many times does one person have to say I DO NOT LIVE IN A FLOOD ZONE.
It is the blah blah....who are responsible....blah * blah *blah.
Bloody hell, the London School of Economics........"Gentlemens' Agreement",
nothing will surprise me.
I am happy with what has gone on today, and if my solicitor is wrong then
we will just have to go along with it and then chase him up too. We will
not lose any sleep until the writing is on the wall. So many scares in the
past when we DID lose sleep about the mortgage, our jobs, schooling, our
medical care etc. etc. etc.
Oh! and by the way thanks for the advice. I mean it and I will first thing
tomorrow clarify this, if I can.

Baz

Doesn't have to be a flood zone. They work on past history and your's
is now bad.

Unless serious engineering changes are made to the drainage sytem, you
will be in the shit. ie No/expensive insurence.

Sorry and all that but you can't bury your head in the sand.

On Jul 11, 10:43*pm, Baz wrote:
Steerpike wrote :



If you have all you have been told denoted in writing with indications
of the statutes covering this, then you can probably feel relatively
assured. If you have nothing in writing, then what you have been told
is pretty much worthless, and it was a waste of time seeking legal
advice in the first place.

If, by any chance, I wanted to hear from an a*sehole, I would have farted..
Now, be a good boy and get the **** to bed, you have school (skool) in the
morning. Nighty Night and dont clean your man bits too fast and mess up
your nice clean jimjams. Mammy wont like that, she will have to send you
off to get scraped again.

Night night
Baz

Baz, he is telling you the (unpalatable) truth. No need to be abusive.

On Jul 12, 1:21*pm, Baz wrote:
Martin Brown wrote :



That way you will at least stand some chance of success in future.

I didn't get where I am today by being somewhere else!
I am not the fool you think I am (translation)

I did not ask for advice on this subject, but accept gladly even so. It
proves to me that people either want to help, or try to insist, without any
qualifications that I can see, that they know best. This is not aimed at
you, Martin Brown.(there is another Martin)

I have been reporting to this group the conditions of my personal and local
circumstances and sometimes I have been very frustrated with all that is
going on around me.
I think it is on topic, borderline I know.
There are people in this group that actually care about this and the
possibilily that it might affect them when the weather turns.

My rant is over and drawn a line under it.

Best wishes .
Baz

Baz, people are telling you the truth. It might be unpalatable but
lies would do you no favours.

On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 16:57:56 +0100, Ophelia wrote:

The council will house them, Baz, one way or another, albeit a
caravan, B&B or other temp acommodation.

Camp beds in a church hall?

People who are flooded out are likely be out of their homes for many
months I don't reckon that would cut it, do you?

It happens.

Possibly, but only for a few days until longer term arrangements can be
made.

They are still living in tents in Hati...

I guess most people given the choice between under a hedge or communal
church hall would go for the latter.

--
Cheers
Dave.

In article o.uk,
says...

On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 16:57:56 +0100, Ophelia wrote:

The council will house them, Baz, one way or another, albeit a
caravan, B&B or other temp acommodation.

Camp beds in a church hall?

People who are flooded out are likely be out of their homes for many
months I don't reckon that would cut it, do you?

It happens.

Possibly, but only for a few days until longer term arrangements can be
made.

They are still living in tents in Hati...

UK council housing services don't cover Haiti.

Janet

On Jul 12, 1:21*pm, Baz wrote:
Martin Brown wrote :



That way you will at least stand some chance of success in future.

I didn't get where I am today by being somewhere else!
I am not the fool you think I am (translation)

I did not ask for advice on this subject, but accept gladly even so. It
proves to me that people either want to help, or try to insist, without any
qualifications that I can see, that they know best. This is not aimed at
you, Martin Brown.(there is another Martin)

I have been reporting to this group the conditions of my personal and local
circumstances and sometimes I have been very frustrated with all that is
going on around me.
I think it is on topic, borderline I know.
There are people in this group that actually care about this and the
possibilily that it might affect them when the weather turns.

My rant is over and drawn a line under it.

Best wishes .
Baz

"I am not the fool you think I am (translation)"

I wouldnt say you were a fool...............I think the word imbecile
is far more appropriate, as you seem quite unaware of the fact you may
in effect end up with a property which is pretty much worthless, and
you dont seem to have a clue as to how to address this situation!

On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 09:32:00 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:


They have this getout clause called "Actof God".

The concept of "Act of God" is qualified, generally as "an
overwhelming event caused exclusively by forces of nature, without the
possibility of prevention and without intervention by any human
agency."

To establish an "Act of God" it must be conclusively proven that there
is absolutely no human contribution.

For example, allowing houses to be built to such an extent as to
overwhelm existing drainage facilities is a human contribution
(whether or not the person or persons allowing this were aware of the
potential problem). Ditto, defining a flood risk but not doing
anything about it is a human contribution.

It is for the insurer to prove "Act of God" rather than for the
insured to prove otherwise. Ask any insurer and they'll tell you it's
not worth bothering to refute a claim except in the most exceptional
circumstances.

Granted that having paid out on a claim the insurer may then refuse to
accept further risk or load premiums accordingly; this is a different
matter entirely.

I have concerns that, in time, Baz may encounter problems obtaining or
financing insurance cover (and he's thinking of selling and moving, to
get a bigger garden, which will mean other obstacles to be overcome).
However he is "on the ground where he is". He has first hand knowledge
of what people are saying to him and he is thus better placed to judge
the honesty, or otherwise, of what he is being told. It is not for us
to rubbish what he is saying, though we may counsel caution on his
part. The risk is entirely his and he knows and accepts that.

So rather than pontificating let's just offer tea (not, as the wires
won't take it, sorry) and sympathy and let him get on with doing what
he has to do.

Cheers, Jake
=======================================
Urgling from the East End of Swansea Bay where sometimes
it's raining and sometimes it's not.

On Jul 12, 9:33*pm, Jake wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 09:32:00 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

They have this getout clause called "Actof God".

The concept of "Act of God" is qualified, generally as "an
overwhelming event caused exclusively by forces of nature, without the
possibility of prevention and without intervention by any human
agency."

To establish an "Act of God" it must be conclusively proven that there
is absolutely no human contribution.

For example, allowing houses to be built to such an extent as to
overwhelm existing drainage facilities is a human contribution
(whether or not the person or persons allowing this were aware of the
potential problem). Ditto, defining a flood risk but not doing
anything about it is a human contribution.

It is for the insurer to prove "Act of God" rather than for the
insured to prove otherwise. Ask any insurer and they'll tell you it's
not worth bothering to refute a claim except in the most exceptional
circumstances.

Granted that having paid out on a claim the insurer may then refuse to
accept further risk or load premiums accordingly; this is a different
matter entirely.

I have concerns that, in time, Baz may encounter problems obtaining or
financing insurance cover (and he's thinking of selling and moving, to
get a bigger garden, *which will mean other obstacles to be overcome).
However he is "on the ground where he is". He has first hand knowledge
of what people are saying to him and he is thus better placed to judge
the honesty, or otherwise, of what he is being told. It is not for us
to rubbish what he is saying, though we may counsel caution on his
part. The risk is entirely his and he knows and accepts that.

So rather than pontificating let's just offer tea (not, as the wires
won't take it, sorry) and sympathy and let him get on with doing what
he has to do.

Cheers, Jake
=======================================
Urgling from the East End of Swansea Bay where sometimes
it's raining and sometimes it's not.

Baz clearly doesnt have much idea, and bearing in mind whats at stake
here, it might be a very good idea to find someone who can give him
some help.

In article ,
lid says...

On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 09:32:00 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:


They have this getout clause called "Actof God".

The concept of "Act of God" is qualified, generally as "an
overwhelming event caused exclusively by forces of nature, without the
possibility of prevention and without intervention by any human
agency."

To establish an "Act of God" it must be conclusively proven that there
is absolutely no human contribution.

For example, allowing houses to be built to such an extent as to
overwhelm existing drainage facilities is a human contribution
(whether or not the person or persons allowing this were aware of the
potential problem). Ditto, defining a flood risk but not doing
anything about it is a human contribution.

It is for the insurer to prove "Act of God" rather than for the
insured to prove otherwise.

You've gone off course. The "act of god get out" was proposed as an
excuse by the waterboard, should the flooded neighbourhood try to sue for
negligence.

Ask any insurer and they'll tell you it's
not worth bothering to refute a claim except in the most exceptional
circumstances.

??? Insurers often refuse claims by their clients . But the "act of
god" suggestion was not about insurance claims; it was a discussion of a
potential legal defence by the water authority .

I have concerns that, in time, Baz may encounter problems obtaining or
financing insurance cover (and he's thinking of selling and moving, to
get a bigger garden, which will mean other obstacles to be overcome).
However he is "on the ground where he is". He has first hand knowledge
of what people are saying to him and he is thus better placed to judge
the honesty, or otherwise, of what he is being told.

I think that assessment by you is an error which disregards Baz's most
basic problem; he said he has dyslexia; a learning disability which makes
it very difficult to organise and assimilate information. He has
repeatedly demonstrated that problem on group, so there is every reason to
suppose the same applies IRL. To his interpretation, of what insurers or
solicitors say.

When someone with dyslexia gets it wrong, patting him on the head and
telling him he knows best is absolutely no help to him.


Janet.

On Jul 13, 12:42*am, Janet wrote:
In article ,
says...











On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 09:32:00 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

They have this getout clause called "Actof God".

The concept of "Act of God" is qualified, generally as "an
overwhelming event caused exclusively by forces of nature, without the
possibility of prevention and without intervention by any human
agency."

To establish an "Act of God" it must be conclusively proven that there
is absolutely no human contribution.

For example, allowing houses to be built to such an extent as to
overwhelm existing drainage facilities is a human contribution
(whether or not the person or persons allowing this were aware of the
potential problem). Ditto, defining a flood risk but not doing
anything about it is a human contribution.

It is for the insurer to prove "Act of God" rather than for the
insured to prove otherwise.

* You've gone off course. *The "act of god get out" was proposed as an
excuse by the waterboard, should the flooded *neighbourhood try to sue for
negligence.

Ask any insurer and they'll tell you it's
not worth bothering to refute a claim except in the most exceptional
circumstances.

* ??? Insurers often refuse claims by their clients . But the "act of
god" suggestion was not about insurance claims; it was a discussion of a
potential legal defence by the water authority .

I have concerns that, in time, Baz may encounter problems obtaining or
financing insurance cover (and he's thinking of selling and moving, to
get a bigger garden, *which will mean other obstacles to be overcome)..
However he is "on the ground where he is". He has first hand knowledge
of what people are saying to him and he is thus better placed to judge
the honesty, or otherwise, of what he is being told.

* I think that assessment by you is an error which disregards Baz's most
basic problem; he said he has dyslexia; a learning disability which makes
it very difficult to organise and assimilate information. He has
repeatedly demonstrated that problem on group, so there is every reason to
suppose the same applies IRL. To his interpretation, of what insurers or
solicitors *say.

* *When someone with dyslexia gets it wrong, patting him on the head and
telling him he knows best is absolutely no help to him.

* * Janet.

Whether he has dyslexia or not shouldnt prevent him for asking for
those advising him to put what they have advised in writing. If they
refuse to do so, then the advice is worthless and should be ignored.

Janet wrote in
:

In article ,
lid says...

On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 09:32:00 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:


They have this getout clause called "Actof God".

The concept of "Act of God" is qualified, generally as "an
overwhelming event caused exclusively by forces of nature, without
the possibility of prevention and without intervention by any human
agency."

To establish an "Act of God" it must be conclusively proven that
there is absolutely no human contribution.

For example, allowing houses to be built to such an extent as to
overwhelm existing drainage facilities is a human contribution
(whether or not the person or persons allowing this were aware of the
potential problem). Ditto, defining a flood risk but not doing
anything about it is a human contribution.

It is for the insurer to prove "Act of God" rather than for the
insured to prove otherwise.

You've gone off course. The "act of god get out" was proposed as an
excuse by the waterboard, should the flooded neighbourhood try to sue
for negligence.

Ask any insurer and they'll tell you it's
not worth bothering to refute a claim except in the most exceptional
circumstances.

??? Insurers often refuse claims by their clients . But the "act of
god" suggestion was not about insurance claims; it was a discussion of
a potential legal defence by the water authority .

I have concerns that, in time, Baz may encounter problems obtaining
or financing insurance cover (and he's thinking of selling and
moving, to get a bigger garden, which will mean other obstacles to
be overcome). However he is "on the ground where he is". He has first
hand knowledge of what people are saying to him and he is thus better
placed to judge the honesty, or otherwise, of what he is being told.

I think that assessment by you is an error which disregards Baz's
most
basic problem; he said he has dyslexia; a learning disability which
makes it very difficult to organise and assimilate information. He has
repeatedly demonstrated that problem on group, so there is every
reason to suppose the same applies IRL. To his interpretation, of what
insurers or solicitors say.

When someone with dyslexia gets it wrong, patting him on the head
and
telling him he knows best is absolutely no help to him.


Janet.


For your information, Janet, dyslexia is not a disease, and it does not
affect my judgement. Mine is a reading and writing disorder. It does not
make me "thick" or uneducated, I just have to try harder to understand
the written word. My IQ is not an issue here as much as your delusions of
grandeur. Patting me on the head would only result in a verbal, but
polite volley from me, and possibly an allegation of assault.. Then it
would be up to the courts to decide who is an imbecile.

For you information, my IQ has been tested many times during my life
because of my dyslexia. average over the years is 124 peaking at 133 when
I was 18 years old.
I can read music, play the piano and a few other stringed instruments,
play Bridge, oh yes! write music. I am dextrous which is essential being
a carpenter and joiner, and my hobby which is restoring post war
motorcycles. My main hobby now is gardening but I find time for all of
the above.
But, of course anyone can say that in a newsgroup. I am being sincere.

Baz

On Jul 13, 11:45*am, Baz wrote:
Janet wrote :









In article ,
says...

On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 09:32:00 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

They have this getout clause called "Actof God".

The concept of "Act of God" is qualified, generally as "an
overwhelming event caused exclusively by forces of nature, without
the possibility of prevention and without intervention by any human
agency."

To establish an "Act of God" it must be conclusively proven that
there is absolutely no human contribution.

For example, allowing houses to be built to such an extent as to
overwhelm existing drainage facilities is a human contribution
(whether or not the person or persons allowing this were aware of the
potential problem). Ditto, defining a flood risk but not doing
anything about it is a human contribution.

It is for the insurer to prove "Act of God" rather than for the
insured to prove otherwise.

* You've gone off course. *The "act of god get out" was proposed as an
excuse by the waterboard, should the flooded *neighbourhood try to sue
for negligence.

Ask any insurer and they'll tell you it's
not worth bothering to refute a claim except in the most exceptional
circumstances.

* ??? Insurers often refuse claims by their clients . But the "act of
god" suggestion was not about insurance claims; it was a discussion of
a potential legal defence by the water authority .

I have concerns that, in time, Baz may encounter problems obtaining
or financing insurance cover (and he's thinking of selling and
moving, to get a bigger garden, *which will mean other obstacles to
be overcome). However he is "on the ground where he is". He has first
hand knowledge of what people are saying to him and he is thus better
placed to judge the honesty, or otherwise, of what he is being told.

* I think that assessment by you is an error which disregards Baz's
* most
basic problem; he said he has dyslexia; a learning disability which
makes it very difficult to organise and assimilate information. He has
repeatedly demonstrated that problem on group, so there is every
reason to suppose the same applies IRL. To his interpretation, of what
insurers or solicitors *say.

* *When someone with dyslexia gets it wrong, patting him on the head
* *and
telling him he knows best is absolutely no help to him.

* * Janet.

For your information, Janet, dyslexia is not a disease, and it does not
affect my judgement. Mine is a reading and writing disorder. It does not
make me "thick" or uneducated, I just have to try harder to understand
the written word. My IQ is not an issue here as much as your delusions of
grandeur. Patting me on the head would only result in a verbal, but
polite volley from me, and possibly an allegation of assault.. Then it
would be up to the courts to decide who is an imbecile.

For you information, my IQ has been tested many times during my life
because of my dyslexia. average over the years is 124 peaking at 133 when
I was 18 years old.
I can read music, play the piano and a few other stringed instruments,
play Bridge, oh yes! write music. I am dextrous which is essential being
a carpenter and joiner, and my hobby which is restoring post war
motorcycles. My main hobby now is gardening but I find time for all of
the above.
But, of course anyone can say that in a newsgroup. I am being sincere.

Baz

Very strange how some people seem to think that those with dyslexia
are thick! But then again those same idiots also probably thought that
corp media fairy stories about Iraqi WMD's, bore some relationship to
fact.......................lol