Scrutiny of local and national flood-mitigation plans appears to be poor and investments have been too low or have sometimes been made in plans with clear flaws. Communication of flood-mitigation plans is often flawed and one-sided, with critical questions being ignored and remaining unanswered. If a team of (international) scientists and citizens communicates flaws, at first multiple times directly with the professionals involved (so expressly not publicly), then this communication is ignored and/or met with threats once reports are in the end put in public and official online archives, and their archiving is pointed out on social media. (De facto such threats are a breach of intellectual, and academic freedom.) Subsequently these reports have been published in International journals, subject to full international peer-review scrutiny and their results have to date been used in France, Slovenia and Netherlands but expressly not in the UK. Further studies (as undergraduate projects) also reveal that combined water level and discharge data in the UK appear to be lacking (and/or shared) for many crucial (and flooded) spots, which must hamper making flood-mitigation plans proper. Altogether, a serious discussion and scrutiny of flood mitigation aimed at publicness and making improvements appears to be hampered by politicking, and thus discussion and scrutinising lack 21st-century levels of quality control, openness and funding. Further, critical attitudes and scrutinising of flood matters have been met with exclusion. The above-described atmosphere of interaction is not amusing with possibly as result that more citizens than necessary seem to have become flood victims in the last few/two decades.