- Joined
- Feb 26, 2009
- Messages
- 277,087
- Reaction score
- 8
This is a dedicated thread for discussing article: Thames Water Guilty of Negligence over River Crane Fish Kill
Thames Water Guilty of Negligence over River Crane Fish Kill
- Thread starter FishingMagic
- Start date
So, their fine was £75k plus £94k in costs, giving total of £169k
This would be in a financial year where their pre-tax profits were £208,500,000 . . . . . . . and remember that is after they had discounted all their investments etc.
So, in real terms the cost of this incident was in the region of 0.081% of their total profits . . . . . . .
That seems rather a mild result to me
This would be in a financial year where their pre-tax profits were £208,500,000 . . . . . . . and remember that is after they had discounted all their investments etc.
So, in real terms the cost of this incident was in the region of 0.081% of their total profits . . . . . . .
That seems rather a mild result to me
Last edited:
theartist
Well-known member
It does seem rather paltry and hardly a deterrent to others. I'm guessing it the fine would have been a lot higher were it to have flooded a few nearby homes rather than the 15km of river it totally destroyed.
Good old cheap option flush it down the river
Good old cheap option flush it down the river
thecrow
Well-known member
Its a piddling fine for what amounts to wiping out the whole environment of this stretch of river, 2 engineering faults at the same time is no excuse there should always be failsafe systems in place, thank god they don't control a chemical plant.
Will they be the chosen sponser of the ATr match on the Wye again this year?
Will they be the chosen sponser of the ATr match on the Wye again this year?
stu_the_blank
Well-known member
I think that it's 0.008%!
Mr Cholmondeley-Corker (PaSC)
Senior Member
How strange
I get 0.081%
(169,000/208,500,000) x 100
I get 0.081%
(169,000/208,500,000) x 100
stu_the_blank
Well-known member
Chumley, I think that you may be correct!
I think that we can all agree though, that it's a very small%!
Trouble is, they will simply either get it back through higher prices or lower investment. I assume that they are insured against the possible civil liability.
Crow, did Thames Water really sponser the Wye match? Don't they know their own catchment area!
On a more serious note, reading what David Harvey had to say, if you haven't already, have a look at the Thames Anglers Conservancy
Thames Anglers' Conservancy
Or better still join (don't panic, it's free). They really are a fantastic bunch of enthusiasts. A few more like them and we might just have a future.
Stu
chub_on_the_block
Well-known member
I seem to remember after the Axford Public Inquiry into Thames Water abstraction from the upper Kennet in the late 1990s, the inquiry valued the ecology, wildlife and recreation value of that river at that time to be about the same value as a detached house. In the case of the Crane it is valued about the same as a London flat. Totally pathetic.
thecrow
Well-known member
Chumley, I think that you may be correct!
I think that we can all agree though, that it's a very small%!
Trouble is, they will simply either get it back through higher prices or lower investment. I assume that they are insured against the possible civil liability.
Crow, did Thames Water really sponser the Wye match? Don't they know their own catchment area!
On a more serious note, reading what David Harvey had to say, if you haven't already, have a look at the Thames Anglers Conservancy
Thames Anglers' Conservancy
Or better still join (don't panic, it's free). They really are a fantastic bunch of enthusiasts. A few more like them and we might just have a future.
Stu
Do keep up dear boy, they were the sponsor for a 2 day match on the Wye last year, a match organised by the ATr. Talk about dropping a clanger
Have been a members for around 4 years.
stu_the_blank
Well-known member
They could now sponsor one on the Crane, a guaranteed draw!
Good to hear that you are a member of TAC.
Stu
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2004
- Messages
- 3,906
- Reaction score
- 4
Thames Water ... Conservation Awards ... "stakeholders" ' bunfight / awards ceremony at the Savile Club in the autumn...
WTT Thames Water Conservation Awards | The Wild Trout Trust
Conservation Awards | The Wild Trout Trust
Hmm.
I really must try and board this train ... from which station and platform does it leave? ... will I have to meet the right people and make the right noises? ... walk the corporate walk, talk the top-end conservationist talk, not rock the Thames fishing punt or frighten any awfully naice flyboys etc...?
Decisions, decisions....
WTT Thames Water Conservation Awards | The Wild Trout Trust
Conservation Awards | The Wild Trout Trust
Hmm.
I really must try and board this train ... from which station and platform does it leave? ... will I have to meet the right people and make the right noises? ... walk the corporate walk, talk the top-end conservationist talk, not rock the Thames fishing punt or frighten any awfully naice flyboys etc...?
Decisions, decisions....
you is right . . . . I typed in 0.081 but somehow it was switched to 8
wierd!
---------- Post added at 09:41 ---------- Previous post was at 09:37 ----------
I remember commenting at the time about the sponsorship by Thames Water of an Angling Trust Event, it just didn't sit well with me; accepting sponsorship from the worst polluter in England?
IF a large number of ATr members were to protest to the Trust and lobby them to pursue punitive damages against Thames Water for this incident - would it be pursued by the Trust?
At least it would demonstrate to one and all that they can't be bought off by a bit of sponsorship!
thecrow
Well-known member
IF a large number of ATr members were to protest to the Trust and lobby them to pursue punitive damages against Thames Water for this incident - would it be pursued by the Trust?
At least it would demonstrate to one and all that they can't be bought off by a bit of sponsorship!
One would think so considering they started a none participating debate about the closed season on here with the lobbying of only a few members.
david harvey1
Member
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2009
- Messages
- 19
- Reaction score
- 0
Gents
Thanks for the TAC comments, is appreciated
To cover a few points here, Fish Legal don't cover the free fishing lower Thames, so highly unlikely they would want to get involved. Its a shame but from what I understand they act for riparian owners/clubs and the lower river is the EA and councils. ( and way too big) .
The fine was not enough, that is for sure, the legal argument was that as Thames stumped up a voluntary Contribution £400k which was agreed in principle a few days after the pollution in 2011. Then taking the Wandle case into account where they appealed citing a vc in mitigation. Looking at the overall sum it is in excess of 1/2 million quid and the majority of it rather than going to George Osborne, went towards the river
Must say that its the first time I have been in court and did sit through most of the day, was interesting. The EA did a good and comprehensive job, what sickened me was the Thames counsel arguing points after they had already pleaded guilty at a magistrates court some months ago. Guess thats what they do but its like, shut up, take your medicine and accept Thames Water are guilty.
This is from their latest Annual report:
The Environment Agency categorises pollution incidents on a scale from one (most serious) to four (no
significant environmental impact). They maintain the official database of all reported pollution incidents and
confirm numbers for each calendar year.
For the calendar year ended 31 December 2013, the total number of
Category One and Two pollution incidents was 22, an increase of six from the previous year. The number of
Category Three pollution incidents increased by 28% to 590 incidents. ‘Amber’ status has given where the
number is within a defined range, around the historic water industry average for 2008-2010. For the current
financial year this was:
• For all sewerage incidents: 50-130 incidents
• For serious sewerage incidents: 1.5-4.0
The increase was partly due to the heavy rainfall at both the start and end of the year, which in some areas
breached the capacity of sewers and flooded pumping stations. We continue to work hard to prevent pollution
taking place and to improve our response when it does. Every Category One and Two pollution incident is
thoroughly investigated and is subject to a thorough review with our Chief Executive Officer and Operations
Director.
Our aim is to understand the cause, whether the incident was predictable (and therefore preventable)
and whether our response could have been improved. We share the lessons learnt from these reviews with
other operational teams, to prevent similar incidents occurring in a different location.
During the calendar year ended 31 December 2013, our average response time reduced and we focused on
priority activities. By the end of the year, we were attending 79% of incidents within an hour, a significant
increase from 48% in April 2013 despite the exceptionally heavy winter rainfall.
From here http://www.thameswater.co.uk/tw/com...atements-for-the-year-ended-31-march-2014.pdf
As for Thames having green credentials, for me its a load of smoke and mirrors, they seem to take every opportunity to sponsor stuff but why, its just PR nothing more. Thats not saying they are not doing some good stuff such as the academy at Walthamstow and have some good people working for them.
As for the ATr, they need to keep their distance from Thames Water, no one in angling or conservation should be associated with a regular polluter.
Dance with the Devil and one day you will get burnt....
We have a relationship with Thames which gives us visibility of pollution events but thats it. We support the Thames Tunnel and want to see the Tidal river cleaned up, the extent of the problem is illustrated here. Thames Sewage Events | Thames Anglers' Conservancy
cheers
Thanks for the TAC comments, is appreciated
To cover a few points here, Fish Legal don't cover the free fishing lower Thames, so highly unlikely they would want to get involved. Its a shame but from what I understand they act for riparian owners/clubs and the lower river is the EA and councils. ( and way too big) .
The fine was not enough, that is for sure, the legal argument was that as Thames stumped up a voluntary Contribution £400k which was agreed in principle a few days after the pollution in 2011. Then taking the Wandle case into account where they appealed citing a vc in mitigation. Looking at the overall sum it is in excess of 1/2 million quid and the majority of it rather than going to George Osborne, went towards the river
Must say that its the first time I have been in court and did sit through most of the day, was interesting. The EA did a good and comprehensive job, what sickened me was the Thames counsel arguing points after they had already pleaded guilty at a magistrates court some months ago. Guess thats what they do but its like, shut up, take your medicine and accept Thames Water are guilty.
This is from their latest Annual report:
The Environment Agency categorises pollution incidents on a scale from one (most serious) to four (no
significant environmental impact). They maintain the official database of all reported pollution incidents and
confirm numbers for each calendar year.
For the calendar year ended 31 December 2013, the total number of
Category One and Two pollution incidents was 22, an increase of six from the previous year. The number of
Category Three pollution incidents increased by 28% to 590 incidents. ‘Amber’ status has given where the
number is within a defined range, around the historic water industry average for 2008-2010. For the current
financial year this was:
• For all sewerage incidents: 50-130 incidents
• For serious sewerage incidents: 1.5-4.0
The increase was partly due to the heavy rainfall at both the start and end of the year, which in some areas
breached the capacity of sewers and flooded pumping stations. We continue to work hard to prevent pollution
taking place and to improve our response when it does. Every Category One and Two pollution incident is
thoroughly investigated and is subject to a thorough review with our Chief Executive Officer and Operations
Director.
Our aim is to understand the cause, whether the incident was predictable (and therefore preventable)
and whether our response could have been improved. We share the lessons learnt from these reviews with
other operational teams, to prevent similar incidents occurring in a different location.
During the calendar year ended 31 December 2013, our average response time reduced and we focused on
priority activities. By the end of the year, we were attending 79% of incidents within an hour, a significant
increase from 48% in April 2013 despite the exceptionally heavy winter rainfall.
From here http://www.thameswater.co.uk/tw/com...atements-for-the-year-ended-31-march-2014.pdf
As for Thames having green credentials, for me its a load of smoke and mirrors, they seem to take every opportunity to sponsor stuff but why, its just PR nothing more. Thats not saying they are not doing some good stuff such as the academy at Walthamstow and have some good people working for them.
As for the ATr, they need to keep their distance from Thames Water, no one in angling or conservation should be associated with a regular polluter.
Dance with the Devil and one day you will get burnt....
We have a relationship with Thames which gives us visibility of pollution events but thats it. We support the Thames Tunnel and want to see the Tidal river cleaned up, the extent of the problem is illustrated here. Thames Sewage Events | Thames Anglers' Conservancy
cheers
Last edited:
thecrow
Well-known member
The ATr are to busy publishing the names of a few licence evaders when in fact these are the sort of figures that they should be publishing, any answers why not ATr? sickening that this company are used to sponsor a fishing match organised by the very organisation they should be fighting.
Its a damn disgrace, and they wonder why their membership (even with under the counter offers) is no where near what they thought it would be, the ATr are no where near in touch with most anglers and never will be.
Its a damn disgrace, and they wonder why their membership (even with under the counter offers) is no where near what they thought it would be, the ATr are no where near in touch with most anglers and never will be.
stu_the_blank
Well-known member
I think that you will find in civil law that you have to have suffered a loss before you can sue for damages. Thus, a club or riparian owner, if a member of Fish Legal, could approach them for help. The case would be on their behalf though, not the ATr or Fish Legal. Dave has covered the problem with the lower Thames above, my understanding is that they just haven't got the resources to deal with the very regular problems on the lower Thames and Tideway. If more people joined of course, this might be different but the ACA only ever had 17,000 members at it's height. With that number, no chance.
No, I'm not trying to badger anybody into joining, that's entirely your choice. Little people have to join together to have any voice. Individually, we are invisible.
Stu
To cover a few points here, Fish Legal don't cover the free fishing lower Thames, so highly unlikely they would want to get involved. Its a shame but from what I understand they act for riparian owners/clubs and the lower river is the EA and councils. ( and way too big) .
The fine was not enough, that is for sure .......
As for the ATr, they need to keep their distance from Thames Water, no one in angling or conservation should be associated with a regular polluter.
Dance with the Devil and one day you will get burnt....
Thanks for the response Dave - a really good and informative post - as an ex ACA life-member (I thought!
) this reminds me of the corporate polluter shenanigans that were all too prevalent in the mid-70s!Keep up the good work lads! :thumbs: