Again it's a case for

None of this would have ever happened if Britain had legislation on the use of catch basin inserts as are used in the USA.

I have spoken to people on the EA in the past and all they can tell me is that compared to the USA, we are a poor country and do not have the wealth to institute procedures on oil and hydrocarbon clean up the way they do it in the USA.

So that's it. We ARE a third world country!!

Third Rate too.

And a 9 thousand quid fine!

It's a bloody joke chaps.

If this was the USA it would be a ?9m fine!!

And the CEO of the company would have to do at least 3 years in the State Penitentiary.

Ron, who is responsible for the re-stocking or cost of restocking a river when a river has been polluted.

As far as I know, the polluters are.

Dont mean to hijack the thread but i spent many years getting up to mischief on the river Ash its less than 5 mins from my house is there much in there in the Ashford area?

Ron
I think I?m right in saying 9K is the maximum a magistrates court can fine polluters who come before them.
The unlimited fines are if they appear before the Crown Court.
However, the EA appear to only take the majority of river polluters before the lower court.
The reasons for this could well be, one of several reasons.

More likely to secure a conviction in the lower court.

Polluter is more likely to plead guilty, as their brief knows the Max fine they can get.

Cost of taking a case to the higher court and failing EA then are likely to have to pay all costs.

I have no doubt that a cost benefit analysis of each case is done before a case is brought.

The polluter?s ability to pay is probably taken into account as well.

No doubt many polluters are laughing all the way to the bank, when taken through the lower courts and convicted.

I?ve heard it said the shaming of the publicity to a company?s reputation and name is worth much more than any fine can do. But yet there are those who continue to pollute time and time again. Water Cos, a factory just up the road from the Monk, a farmer local to me, there must be hundreds up and down the country who just don?t give a shit. Proper disposal of the substance costs say 15K, tipping it in the river cost nowt, and if we?re caught it?ll cost us 9K in fines plus costs 11K, we?re still quids in.

Ok they might just get a few more frequent visits than they did before, but hey they can?t watch us 24/7.

Perhaps Tony Rocca will make comment on this, as he was an EA Pollution Control Officer at one time.

"The polluter?s ability to pay is probably taken into account as well."

Especially with small Limited companies, riddled with debt. They'll just go into liquidation before paying a really heavy fine and the directors will set up a new company, with many of the same assets, a few weeks later - free of all debts and fines!

Jeff not sure what you mean by your comment.
Are you arguing against any case being brought on the Cos you mention Or is it a sarcastic jibe at the way they riddle out of their responsibilities?

It does sound a bit harsh on the business. To be fair if vandals get in and steal their fuel, then leave oil spilling onto the ground its not entirely the business's fault. As no fish were killed its seems a lucky escape.

Admitadly their security sounds like it could have been better, but you just can't account to the lengths these vandals and theives will go to these days to get their hands on the loot.