Record Fine

[thecrow]

Thames Water are just a few days from being landed with what will be the biggest fine they have ever received, this is in relation to the releasing of 1.4 billion litres of raw sewage into river systems.

After the court heard that Thames's record fine for pollution was £1 million paid in January 2016, Judge Sheridan said: "The fine in this case is certainly in excess of that."

Time after time this water company has failed to protect the environment and yet the Wangling Trust still take money from them in the form of sponsorship for their riverfest matches. How much longer will these self appointed guardians of angling keep taking this money? their reason "because there was no one else"

Oh but that's ok because we are launching operation clampdown doing the EAs job Angling Trust more like angling disgrace, they should be ashamed but they are not they are only interested in press releases their own comfortable lucrative and seemingly safe positions within this unelected group who continue to pontificate about what they do for angling.................. well how about not taking money from Thames Water any more?????

Rant over (perhaps)

 

[trotter2]

Well said crow. Nice one mate.

 

[cassey]

Out of ignorance, where does the 'fine' money go to.? Will there be compensation to help restore the affected river systems?

 

[thames mudlarker]

Thames Water are just a few days from being landed with what will be the biggest fine they have ever received, this is in relation to the releasing of 1.4 billion litres of raw sewage into river systems.

After the court heard that Thames's record fine for pollution was £1 million paid in January 2016, Judge Sheridan said: "The fine in this case is certainly in excess of that."

Time after time this water company has failed to protect the environment and yet the Wangling Trust still take money from them in the form of sponsorship for their riverfest matches. How much longer will these self appointed guardians of angling keep taking this money? their reason "because there was no one else"

Oh but that's ok because we are launching operation clampdown doing the EAs job Angling Trust more like angling disgrace, they should be ashamed but they are not they are only interested in press releases their own comfortable lucrative and seemingly safe positions within this unelected group who continue to pontificate about what they do for angling.................. well how about not taking money from Thames Water any more?????

Rant over (perhaps)

Well I truly think that you've hit the nail on the head with that one Crow, well said mate :thumbs:

 

[thecrow]

Out of ignorance, where does the 'fine' money go to.? Will there be compensation to help restore the affected river systems?

It will go wherever any fines go the government? who will pay for it is more pertinent, that's the whole environment.

 

[theartist]

Until water companies are fined yearly until the water course affected is restored to it's original biomass then these incidents will still occur.

This is the 21st century we really shouldn't be letting sewerage enter river systems should we ffs. Those who compromise the environment to the extent of totally killing a water should hang their heads in shame, sure go back to your big houses, your share dividends, your wonderfully 'educated' kids and your nice car but hang your head again, we're all going to be carbon again sometime so what excatly is the point!

Rant over

 

[sagalout]

I assume the water company recovers the fine from the water rate so really it's you and me that has been fined for the fat cats not doing their job, it should be the directors that are fined personally not the company.

 

[Graham Elliott 1]

Foreign owned companies, like Thames Water are happy to take out money to enrich themselves.

It will end up as an operating cost weighed against tax.
We sold off too many assets. If you looked you would be amazed how many Water /Energy suppliers are owned by overseas companies without home based responsibilities.

As Crow says. Where's the ethics in AT being sponsored by a major polluter. And having people who do consultancy work for TW. You couldn't make it up.

Maybe we should ask Rod Sturdy.

 

[mikench]

I assume the water company recovers the fine from the water rate so really it's you and me that has been fined for the fat cats not doing their job, it should be the directors that are fined personally not the company.

Correct Mr Lout!

 

[Peter Jacobs]

The decision will be handed down on Tuesday next week at the earliest by Judge Sheridan.

The current "record" finestands at £2 million issued in January 2016, although that was for a sigle incident.

The current case concerns 6 incidents and the Judge did make a comment that any fine should be born by the share holders and not the users. While that is a fine ideal it is also one that is probably impossible to institute.

Even though Thames Water have held their hands up and admitted liability you can expect the obvious eventual appeal against the size of the fine.

A sizable fine is one thing, but what is actually needed, in fact essential, is a complete revamp of the old facilities and replacements of old plants with new, and with enough spare capacity to cover these rare instances where release into the water courses is the only alternative.

 

[rayner]

A sizable fine is one thing, but what is actually needed, in fact essential, is a complete revamp of the old facilities and replacements of old plants with new, and with enough spare capacity to cover these rare instances where release into the water courses is the only alternative.

I don't disagree with your comment but who will pay for any revamp. The end user no doubt, we will with hiked prices.

 

[Peter Jacobs]

I don't disagree with your comment but who will pay for any revamp. The end user no doubt, we will with hiked prices.

Even if the water company facilities were still within public ownership then the end user (or the tax payer) would still pay the costs; the only difference being how that is achieved.

The fact remains that in the 21st century we simply cannot continue with 19th century water treatment facilities that cannot cope with these occasional surges which result in releases of untreated sewage into our rivers and streams.

 

[thecrow]

A sizable fine is one thing, but what is actually needed, in fact essential, is a complete revamp of the old facilities and replacements of old plants with new, and with enough spare capacity to cover these rare instances where release into the water courses is the only alternative.

Absolutely but while companies such as this one are handed fines that don't amount to much more that 1 days profit it wont happen, legislation is needed to make company directors legally responsible for these incidents which are not that rare where this company in concerned.

The population of this country is ever increasing along with the amount of houses being built in it, developers are liable to pay a levy to local authorities for improving environmental necessaries, unfortunately while it is mandatory this levy be paid it isn't that the money must be spent in that area.

Water companies and their plants that are not fit for purpose should be legally forced to improve them to an acceptable standard from their profits and if this means shareholders loose out so be it, they are happy enough to take the profits from their captive customers.

Maybe one way that Thames Water could improve their plants would be to stop bribing the Wangling Truss with sponsorship money, the Wangling Truss could even help by not taking money from the biggest pooluter (not a typo) in the country

 

[theartist]

Maybe one way that Thames Water could improve their plants would be to stop bribing the Wangling Truss with sponsorship money, the Wangling Truss could even help by not taking money from the biggest pooluter (not a typo) in the country

Dude that is [sic]

I for one have been educated by the 'pecking' Crow about the inconsistencies regarding Thames Water and the association with the Angling trust.

The obvious conclusion is whilst both may have best intentions at heart it would be beneficial to all and sundry that there would be no pollution for a number of years before we could assume that the water companies and angling bodies are working together.

C'mon Thames water, C'mon angling trust lets have say ten years where we keep it clean and work together. That's what we really want. Then lets do twenty and then.... so on.

Profits can be made the right way

 

[lutra]

I assume the water company recovers the fine from the water rate so really it's you and me that has been fined for the fat cats not doing their job, it should be the directors that are fined personally not the company.

I wouldn't like to think water rates go up and down depending on how much a water company has been fined and do have an effect on what is left to be creamed off.

 

[Mark Wintle]

The fine will just be added to the massive debt!

https://www.ft.com/content/2db37112-2309-11e6-9d4d-c11776a5124d

 

[thecrow]

The fine will just be added to the massive debt!

https://www.ft.com/content/2db37112-2309-11e6-9d4d-c11776a5124d

The link takes you to an advertisement for the Financial Times.

 

[Mark Wintle]

Just Google Thames Water debt and look for the FT article then I won't breach copyright but in essence TW has a debt of £10billion.

 

[Jeff Woodhouse]

I assume the water company recovers the fine from the water rate so really it's you and me that has been fined

Let's kill that one straight away. TWU are not allowed to increase the rates to pay any fines, the fines MUST come from the dividends.

Out of ignorance, where does the 'fine' money go to.? Will there be compensation to help restore the affected river systems?

It goes into the Treasury to be spent on missiles, foreign aid, benefits, whatever. It may even help out Philip Hammond after his NI debacle last week.
TWU may be ordered to pay some compensation, but the Judge's concern is how much to fine them first and foremost. However, it has been promised that a really decent amount has been set aside by Thames Water to provide improvements to the environment, this is in addition to compensation paid to angling clubs and a 'fisherman' who is said to have lost his earnings.
More to come on this later after the judgement. However, one of the allegation was that the river was flowing with "...sanitary towels, condoms, and nappies." I'm pretty sure that Thames Water don't put these in the sewage. That's down to the public who should remember that toilets are for toilet paper and bowel movements ONLY!

 

[thecrow]

Just Google Thames Water debt and look for the FT article then I won't breach copyright but in essence TW has a debt of £10billion.

They may be in that debt however it is no excuse for the environmental disasters caused by them, it would seem that this level of debt is down to those that have just cut and run after selling their stake in TW.