The infantilisation of the Nation progresses. Now we have calls for people who did not take out contents insurance but who could have to be "compensated".
Did anyone ask me if I wanted to pay?
Surely if you had anything of value in your home you would have the means to pay insurance.
A flat panel TV is about 5 years cover. We have one "hard luck story" about somebody putting in a £15,000 kitchen extension but not bothering to spend 1% p.a. of that value insuring it against damage...and yet the implication is that we need to compensate people.
If people are compensated or see that other are compensated then they will become ever more dependent, irrational, irritable, grasping and feckless - just where the Sociofascists want them.
In this case we see a classic example of why the Welfare State is so often a form of outsourced theft. Why rob from people when you can get the State to so it for you as a willing partner?
As for people who could NOT get insurance, like in Hull, it begs the question how can they benefit on one had from lower house prices as a result of living in a flood plain, NOT have the cost of insurance to pay, yet get compensation? If you choose not to live in a flood plain you have to pay more for your house AND pay insurance.
I am sorry that flooding happens to anyone, but the argument against compensation still holds.
p.s. Countries that have regular flooding tend to build their homes on stilts. That is the answer for anyone in a flood plain.