- Joined
- Feb 26, 2009
- Messages
- 277,087
- Reaction score
- 8
Fish Legal wins important case against Scottish Water
- Thread starter FishingMagic
- Start date
B
binka
Guest
I'm pleased about the victory but I doubt the £15k compensation would even get close to covering the polluter's legal costs for a dispute which has rumbled on for seven years.
I often wonder if the 'big boys of pollution' tactically do this on purpose knowing that relatively small associations that don't have the backing of Fish Legal are unlikely to have the funds to secure justice.
As eluded to let's hope it sets a precedent and these issues can be dealt with much more swiftly and on a much more level playing field.
10,000 litres of sulphuric acid...
Jeez!
I often wonder if the 'big boys of pollution' tactically do this on purpose knowing that relatively small associations that don't have the backing of Fish Legal are unlikely to have the funds to secure justice.
As eluded to let's hope it sets a precedent and these issues can be dealt with much more swiftly and on a much more level playing field.
10,000 litres of sulphuric acid...
Jeez!
thecrow
Well-known member
"SEPA investigators established that the cause of the spill was a poorly tightened bolt that leaked and caused the containment system to fail. Nevertheless, the company argued that their maintenance regime at the plant was “reasonable and reactive”.
Shouldn't their maintenance regime be proactive? it would prevent this kind of incident, they should be forced by law to keep chemicals behind a bund.
No wonder they pollute if they are reactive.
Shouldn't their maintenance regime be proactive? it would prevent this kind of incident, they should be forced by law to keep chemicals behind a bund.
No wonder they pollute if they are reactive.