Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

interestrateripoff

Govt Considered Plan To Flood Essex And Kent To Save London

Recommended Posts

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23518587

From 1983

Government officials considered deliberately flooding Essex and Kent to prevent London being swamped by a tidal surge as it waited for the Thames Barrier to be completed

Just think what that would have done for house prices.

Still nice to know that Essex/Kent are considered expendable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still nice to know that Essex/Kent are considered expendable.

To be fair the key word is considered, it was considered as an option then rejected.

Also the question is how much damage would Essex/Kent have actually suffered. Were they talking about a bit of farmland or the entire county? Probably the former.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/418900/Secret-documents-reveal-government-planned-to-FLOOD-Kent-and-Essex-to-save-London

...

The official papers conceded such incredible action would result in 'major political difficulty' for the Government.

...

It was also noted the plan could result in looting, civil disorder and a 'mass evacuation' making certain areas virtually uninhabitable.

It said: "It is generally accepted that there would be casualties, resulting from such causes as collapse of buildings, open manholes in flooded roads and individual failure to heed warnings and that, depending on the severity of the flood, deaths could be numbered in the hundreds rather than dozens."

The Government said explosive charges would need to be laid in advance for the plan to work.

However, it noted the cost of the action and the legal ramifications made the plan a problem.

Like why is the capital more important than the little people?

I do like the last line, that the plan had a few problems...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like why is the capital more important than the little people?

I do like the last line, that the plan had a few problems...

Dock dispute. Do you smell unions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair the key word is considered, it was considered as an option then rejected.

Also the question is how much damage would Essex/Kent have actually suffered. Were they talking about a bid of farmland or the entire county? Probably the former.

Essex is at least 10 ft above MSL in many areas.

IIRC, the sea likes to stay level, so yes, maybe parts of Essex would have flooded, but the sea would continue inland until it reached land too high...the new temporary coast....London would still have been flooded, but saved by all the bottomless holes found in Threadneedle Street and other EC1 addresses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there a problem with this???

What, flooding farmland which provides food in order to avoid flooding the type of parasites that can afford to live in London? (admittedly probably not as many back then).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Essex is at least 10 ft above MSL in many areas.

Reading between the lines this is the crux of the matter.

Previously any kind of storm surge would've flooded the plains around the river but would've had no effect on London, for this reason the plains were largely unoccupied and used as farmland.

By 1980 there were lots of lovely flood defences around the river so they were sure that the farmland wouldn't flood but this did have the minor side effect of ensuring that the capital city would be destroyed costing hundreds of lives.

The debate was therefore really about whether to return to the status quo that'd existed for hundreds of years.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok. So, just Essex then?

we still produce essex girl jokes dontchaknow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   212 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.