- 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
I think that it's 0.008%!So, in real terms the cost of this incident was in the region of 8% of their total profits . . . . . . .
Chumley, I think that you may be correct!How strange
I get 0.081%
(169,000/208,500,000) x 100
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
They could now sponsor one on the Crane, a guaranteed draw!Do keep up dear boy, they were the sponsor for a 2 day match on the Wye last year
How strange
I get 0.081%
(169,000/208,500,000) x 100
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!
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.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?
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....
Undead?