Record Fine

[Graham Elliott 1]

Absolutely right Crow.

Australian Pension Company Funding Share. Who probably are not too concerned with our water quality but concerned with Profit taken.
.

 

[Nobby C (ACA)]

Their profits will be greater than any fine they receive so will be considered a reasonable operating cost. And of course the customer will end up with higher bills which won't go down after the loss is recouped.
I would suggest a rivery bath for all directors ,right in the muddy waters of their outflow pipes,every day until it stops.

 

[Jeff Woodhouse]

And of course the customer will end up with higher bills which won't go down after the loss is recouped.

You obviously didn't read my comment - they cannot charge customers any more for their fines, it must come out of dividends. Did you get that this time?

I would suggest a rivery bath for all directors ,right in the muddy waters of their outflow pipes,every day until it stops

And I take it you mean these muddy waters. The stream is 90+% outflow from a STW. Watch carefully...https://youtu.be/0e7-_2gaBsQ
The first fish you see are roach followed by some chub and lastly young barbel. Sorry I don't have an underwater camera = as yet.

 

[binka]

You obviously didn't read my comment - they cannot charge customers any more for their fines, it must come out of dividends.

But...

If lack of spending on infrastructure to prevent pollution incidents is of greater gain to the shareholder than that of a reduced dividend by way of fine then where is the motivation to invest?

Eg. Required infrastructure spending to correct shortfalls is £20 million whereas fines deducted for pollution are two million on an annual scale, each of which are deducted from profits and dividends.

Simple maths tells me that continuing to pollute is the way to go from a business perspective.

That's a question, not a statement and is brought about by my own experience of dealing with large businesses, they worship one God and that God is money irrespective of the ethics.

Many have been found out and appear apologetic after the event but the only thing they are sorry about, imo, is the fact that they got found out.

 

[thecrow]

You obviously didn't read my comment - they cannot charge customers any more for their fines, it must come out of dividends. Did you get that this time?

Yes they could what is there to stop them? obviously prices wouldn't be increased merely to pay a fine but there is nothing to stop them increasing prices just as they have in the past even when their profits have risen and paying the fine from the increase.

Maybe if the directors were made to pay the fine it would have more effect than fining the company that they are willing to take the rewards from but not the responsibility.

Of course they could always stop giving money to the wangling truss and they could stop being so hypocritical and stop taking it.

---------- Post added at 21:22 ---------- Previous post was at 21:16 ----------

But...

If lack of spending on infrastructure to prevent pollution incidents is of greater gain to the shareholder than that of a reduced dividend by way of fine then where is the motivation to invest?

Eg. Required infrastructure spending to correct shortfalls is £20 million whereas fines deducted for pollution are two million on an annual scale, each of which are deducted from profits and dividends.

Simple maths tells me that continuing to pollute is the way to go from a business perspective.

That's a question, not a statement and is brought about by my own experience of dealing with large businesses, they worship one God and that God is money irrespective of the ethics.

Many have been found out and appear apologetic after the event but the only thing they are sorry about, imo, is the fact that they got found out.

Why isn't there a "like button" on this post? if there was one I would have clicked it its back and clicked....... weird.

 

[Nobby C (ACA)]

You obviously didn't read my comment - they cannot charge customers any more for their fines, it must come out of dividends. Did you get that this time?
And I take it you mean these muddy waters. The stream is 90+% outflow from a STW. Watch carefully...https://youtu.be/0e7-_2gaBsQ
The first fish you see are roach followed by some chub and lastly young barbel. Sorry I don't have an underwater camera = as yet.

Are you suggesting that they intend to play fair? Of course the customer (us) will pay,they've managed to get away with it so far and will just dress it up in another fashion. You sound like a shareholder or a director.
You go swimming in a ton of s***e and tell me how many species you saw.mg:

 

[The bad one]

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.

Oh well I see a return to public ownership coming over the hill...Just to get it over it’s little difficulty you see. Then the benevolent government of ours will sell it back to the private sector at a knockdown price. One must always privatise the profit and socialise the debt

 

[Nobby C (ACA)]

I was on Teddington Weir when torrential Summer rain fell for 20 minutes. According to Keith Arthur,writing in AnglIng Times stated IIRC that hundreds of thousands of tons were flushed in to prevent back up through the man holes and into the streets.

Now if the population of Greater London was 8 million then,how many in the Teddington catchment area and how much were those people eating on a daily basis.? So TW flushed out their holding tanks at an opportune moment then. It made bigger news once the rowing teams started getting sick.
And to misquote the bad one , profits for us,***** for you.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp....-prospect-multimillion-pound-eu-fines-1532945

 

[Tee-Cee]

The fine is £86 million - is that right?

Seems a paltry amount compared to the deed and long term affects...............

I need to read more about it...............

 

[thecrow]

The fine is £86 million - is that right?

Seems a paltry amount compared to the deed and long term affects...............

I need to read more about it...............

I don't think the fine has been handed down yet, TWs record fine iirc was £1million, not a lot for a company that was reputed to be making twice that as profit each day.

 

[Jeff Woodhouse]

If lack of spending on infrastructure to prevent pollution incidents is of greater gain to the shareholder than that of a reduced dividend by way of fine then where is the motivation to invest? Eg. Required infrastructure spending to correct shortfalls is £20 million whereas fines deducted for pollution are two million on an annual scale, each of which are deducted from profits and dividends.

You'd have to research the case more closely than that. I'm not in a position to say why the investment wasn't made save to say it is something the judge pointed out on the second day; that a piece of equipment that had a life cycle of 10 years was still in use after 15 years. That is unforgivable and the board have now, I am told, put in place new procedures to prevent this happening again. Since the events, millions of pounds of investment have been put in place, far more than was perhaps necessary. I will get figures in due course.

Yes they could what is there to stop them? obviously prices wouldn't be increased merely to pay a fine but there is nothing to stop them increasing prices just as they have in the past even when their profits have risen and paying the fine from the increase. Maybe if the directors were made to pay the fine it would have more effect than fining the company that they are willing to take the rewards from but not the responsibility.

First of all there's a water industry regulator, OFWAT, who would prevent them doing so. Also, TW supplies over 15million people, any increase (assuming the fine for these cases is around the same, although it could be MUCH more) would hardly be noticeable, most of it being paid by the people living in posh mansions in Beaconsfield and Gerrards Cross.
It's the company that is on trial, not the directors or any other employee. The company is the entity recognised in law (unlike an angling club that is a society of friends and its trustees can be fined/sued). I'll deal in time (maybe an article of two) with the directors, the two I know at least, and how they feel when one of these events occurs. They do not take it lightly, but I don't expect you to believe that yet.

 

[thecrow]

First of all there's a water industry regulator, OFWAT, who would prevent them doing so

Sure about that are you? Hasn't stopped them from raising prices previously even when their profits were up more than 29%.

---------- Post added at 11:50 ---------- Previous post was at 11:42 ----------

I'll deal in time (maybe an article of two) with the directors, the two I know at least, and how they feel when one of these events occurs. They do not take it lightly, but I don't expect you to believe that yet.

Yes your correct I don't/wouldnt otherwise they would not continue being directors of TW would they? that's unless their feeling bad about these events doesn't extend to their bank accounts. They enjoy the benefits and should be held responsible for any wrongdoings by the company

How you can come on here and attempt to defend this company and its directors I don't know that's unless you are a shareholder in TW.

How do you feel as an angler about the self appointed organisation that says it represents anglers taking money from the biggest pooluter in the country as sponsorship because in Mark Lloyds words "there was no one else"?

---------- Post added at 11:53 ---------- Previous post was at 11:50 ----------

Since the events, millions of pounds of investment have been put in place,

And how much of that investment has been offset by the company not paying corporation tax?

 

[Jeff Woodhouse]

Yes your correct I don't/wouldnt otherwise they would not continue being directors of TW would they? that's unless their feeling bad about these events doesn't extend to their bank accounts. They enjoy the benefits and should be held responsible for any wrongdoings by the company

So, you're suggesting they resign leaving the company to be handled by who? Another set of people with no experience of the industry? That's a route to chaos. Better that people learn from experience and make sure the same mistakes don't happen again. With TW, their performance has improved drastically over the past 15 years or so. It's such an industry that no other company would want to take it on.

How you can come on here and attempt to defend this company and its directors I don't know that's unless you are a shareholder in TW.

If you look back over my 24,100 posts on FM over the past 16 years you will see somewhere that I used to demand custodial sentences for the directors when pollutions occurred, but where did that get me? NOWHERE! Now, I work with them (not FOR them) and our group gets financial support for projects that help improve the rivers and environment. It's good for fish, it's good for TW (if people will listen) and it definitely good for anglers.
And NO, I am not a TW shareholder, most of the TWU shareholders are the pension companies, maybe the ones you have or do still pay into.

Oh, and just for your information, Thames Water are not, definitely NOT the biggest polluter in the country. Check your facts.

 

[thecrow]

So, you're suggesting they resign leaving the company to be handled by who? Another set of people with no experience of the industry? That's a route to chaos. Better that people learn from experience and make sure the same mistakes don't happen again. With TW, their performance has improved drastically over the past 15 years or so. It's such an industry that no other company would want to take it on.

I have no idea how long you have known directors at TW but really "make sure the same mistakes don't happen again" that's just ridiculous considering the amount of times this company have been fined for polluting, the punishments handed out to them in the past obviously haven't been stern enough for them to have the required, are you saying that without these directors being there who care so much for the environment there would have been even more incidents?

"Their performance has improved drastically" it may have improved but it hasn't improved enough to stop polluting has it?

"Another set of people with no experience of the industry" oh you must mean those that have just purchased Macquarie's share of TW what experience do they have seeing as they are also banks?

---------- Post added at 17:40 ---------- Previous post was at 17:37 ----------

If you look back over my 24,100 posts on FM over the past 16 years you will see somewhere that I used to demand custodial sentences for the directors when pollutions occurred, but where did that get me? NOWHERE! Now, I work with them (not FOR them) and our group gets financial support for projects that help improve the rivers and environment. It's good for fish, it's good for TW (if people will listen) and it definitely good for anglers.
And NO, I am not a TW shareholder, most of the TWU shareholders are the pension companies, maybe the ones you have or do still pay into

I care not one jot how many posts you have I gave up measuring things when I grew up.
and no my pension does not rely on TW I know where my fund invests.

Keep working with them and maybe one day you will get somewhere because as far as I can see nothing has changed TW = polluter.

I notice you either didn't want to or couldn't answer 2 questions I posed about corporation tax and the Angling trust taking money from this huge polluter who by the way are the biggest in the country no other water company has released the amount of sh** into rivers as TW,
Any chance you could give your views on taking money from them?

---------- Post added at 18:14 ---------- Previous post was at 17:40 ----------

Yes really improved haven't they?

Pollution[edit]

In the period 2005–13 Thames Water was the most heavily fined water company in the UK for pollution incidents, paying £842,500 for 87 events. In 2016, it paid the largest fine for a single pollution incident of £1 million.[40]

Conversely, in 2014, Thames Water admitted that it had accidentally over-reported the number of properties at high risk of sewage flooding between 2005 and 2010. It agreed a compensation package for customers of £86 million.[41]

Other incidents[edit]

In September 2007, 5 km (3.1 mi) of the River Wandle, Greater London was polluted. In January 2009, Thames Water pleaded guilty and was "fined £125,000 and ordered to pay £21,335 in clean-up and investigation costs".[42] In February 2010, on appeal, the fine was found to be "manifestly excessive" and was reduced to £50,000.[43]

On 5–8 June 2011, more than 230,000 cubic metres (8.1 million cubic feet), or 230,000 tonnes, of sewage were released from Mogden Sewage Treatment works, killing 26,000 fish.[44]

Between 14 and 16 August 2011, Thames Water polluted the Faringdon Stream, in Faringdon, Oxfordshire. The company was fined £10,000 and ordered to pay costs of £4,488 [45]

On 29 October 2011, Thames Water released thousands of tonnes of raw sewage into the River Crane, Greater London killing thousands of fish, when a six-tonne valve jammed during routine maintenance. Despite tankering and alternative routing, the volume of sewage from Heathrow overwhelmed the operations. Thames Anglers Conservancy's Robin Vernon said: “It will take a decade to repair all the damage done by the sewage spill. Everything in there is just dead now.”[46] In 2013, fungus and slime in the River Crane was attributed to runoff of de-icer from Heathrow getting into the river [47] In 2014, Thames Water blamed recent pollution on fat poured down drains by local customers.[48]

On 9 December 2011, Thames Water was fined £60,000 after releasing sewage sludge into the Foudry Brook killing up to 20,000 fish in a three-mile stretch from Silchester, Hampshire.[49]

In September 2012, clogged-up pumps caused sewage to be released into the Chase Brook, near Newbury. A £250,000 fine imposed in August 2014 was adjudged "lenient" on appeal in 2015. The pumps were replaced by improved pumps.[50]

In January 2016, Thames Water was fined a record £1m for polluting the Grand Union Canal between July 2012 and April 2013 in Hertfordshire. In addition, it was required to pay costs of £18,000 and a victim surcharge of £120. In its defence, Thames Water said it had spent £30,000 replacing equipment at Tring.[40]

 

[Jeff Woodhouse]

Keep working with them and maybe one day you will get somewhere because as far as I can see nothing has changed TW = polluter. I notice you either didn't want to or couldn't answer 2 questions I posed about corporation tax and the Angling trust taking money from this huge polluter who by the way are the biggest in the country no other water company has released the amount of sh** into rivers as TW, Any chance you could give your views on taking money from them?

For a start, I cannot comment on the Angling Trust. I don't work for them, but if they take money from TWU, so what?
You seem to be such an expert in pollution matters, can you give us an idea of when a STW can legally discharge untreated effluent into a river? How many customers does TW serve? How many tonnes of effluent does it treat each and every day? How many STWs does it operate? Please, I'd like to hear your thoughts seeing as you're so good at figures....
You keep on calling them and getting nowhere. They aren't listening to you, that's for sure. I have got somewhere and it has done and will do the environment a lot of good.
I've known one of the board for maybe 12-13 years now, he's also a fellow angler and an ambassador of the WWF. The other person is very new to the board, but a thoroughly nice chap and I'm sure we will benefit from him in the long term.
I'm not going any further with you on any of your other points because you're obviously very convinced that you are right.

 

[thecrow]

For a start, I cannot comment on the Angling Trust. I don't work for them, but if they take money from TWU, so what?

So what? so what? they take money from TW who have been responsible for countless pollution incidents and you say "so what? if that's how you think there is little hope that you understand the average angler moving as you do in different circles to most.

They take the money to sponsor fishing matches when they have killed countless thousands of fish with their pollution the reason given by Mark Lloyd on this very Forum because there was no none else, your comment is just astounding.

---------- Post added at 19:28 ---------- Previous post was at 19:22 ----------

You keep on calling them and getting nowhere. They aren't listening to you, that's for sure. I have got somewhere and it has done and will do the environment a lot of good.
I've known one of the board for maybe 12-13 years now, he's also a fellow angler and an ambassador of the WWF. The other person is very new to the board, but a thoroughly nice chap and I'm sure we will benefit from him in the long term.
I'm not going any further with you on any of your other points because you're obviously very convinced that you are right.

"A thoroughly nice chap" he may be as is the one you have known for 12/13 years I would imagine, it doesn't affect the amount of pollutionsTW are responsible for and you don't need to be any sort of an expert to sort $H!T from bull$h!t they both stink.

---------- Post added at 19:29 ---------- Previous post was at 19:28 ----------

I have got somewhere and it has done and will do the environment a lot of good.

Not according to the fine that is about to be handed to them eh?

 

[binka]

The fine has just been confirmed, it's £20 Million.

 

[Jeff Woodhouse]

Yes, £20.3million. That covers all 6 cases, previous fines have been for one case only.
Thames Water hit with record £20.3 million fine over huge sewage incident (From Bucks Free Press)

You will note Richard Aylard's comment "“We have failed in our responsibility to the environment and that hurts both personally and professionally because we do care." And yes, they do.

I can tell you that they also spent over £25m on upgrading plant and machinery and also software systems. In all these 6 cases, it was the same local management team that were responsible and they have now been replaced and further measures put in place to keep upper management more aware of any problems. They have also spent £18m on better screening to remove rag (toilet wipes, sanitary towels, nappies and other rubbish) people push down their loos. They have also almost doubled the staff at the waste operational report centre including a new 24/7 shift manager to oversee the entire operations. That's just the beginning, I'm sure.

They have also set aside a further £1.5m in their Community Trust and will be taking 'expert advice' on how this is spent to make reparations and improvements in the areas affected. Over £400,000 was paid to clubs and others who were affected at the time.

The Judge said he want to convey a message to the the company. I do believe the company got the message before this case. The number of incidents since 2013 has halved and hopefully is falling yet further.

I have to say that I am a realist and I don't believe any water company can eradicate ALL the problems simply because - mechanical things do break down and for this industry, it's usually pretty dreadful when it does happen.

I believe they will be holding some 'open days' at their STWs this year. If anyone is that interested and keen on finding out how an STW operates and the problems it faces, it really is worthwhile going to an open day. I will try and keep you posted when these are, you will learn a lot, I promise.

 

[103841]

I'd like to see the EA be brought to court for their contribution towards needless destruction of habitat along our rivers throughout GB. Mind you if they received a hefty fine they would most probably pass it onto the anglers licence.

 

[thecrow]

The fine has just been confirmed, it's £20 Million.

Should get their attention I think

---------- Post added at 13:35 ---------- Previous post was at 13:31 ----------

I'd like to see the EA be brought to court for their contribution towards needless destruction of habitat along our rivers throughout GB. Mind you if they received a hefty fine they would most probably pass it onto the anglers licence.

I believe that the Angling trust are involved and are asking for evidence in the form of before and after photographs, Ray Waltons facebook page has details of where to send them.