Just hit 500, keep it going!
Trent Pollution - Petition the Prime Minister
- Thread starter MarkTheSpark
- Start date
Up to 707 now.
Come on, sign up, you know it makes sense . . . . . . . . . .
Come on, sign up, you know it makes sense . . . . . . . . . .
708 Now 
It really is a discrace that companies are allowed to get away with such wantant neglect of laws and cause such damage that takes years to ever recover and in many cases never does. I know if it was me personally who had commited such a crime I would be made to pay for it, look at speeding fines and the charge levied there and then compare to this offence. Mind Boggles at the crazy world in which we live.
It really is a discrace that companies are allowed to get away with such wantant neglect of laws and cause such damage that takes years to ever recover and in many cases never does. I know if it was me personally who had commited such a crime I would be made to pay for it, look at speeding fines and the charge levied there and then compare to this offence. Mind Boggles at the crazy world in which we live.
Stealph Viper
Well-known member
I agree totally that the punishments don't always fit the crime, however, what has to be taken in to account by the Law is, who and what was responsible for the offence.
Was it avoidable, why did it happen, what can be done to prevent it happening again.
Although the fine, can seem and usually is rediculous, a lot of the time, it is the preventive measurements that end up costing these companies and offenders a lot more money, the safety checks they have to perform, the safe gaurds they have to put in place, the training that they have to provide etc etc etc.
One of the main contributing factors of offenders is that they govern their own procedures instead of being independently auditted on a regular basis.
A company committing a 1st offence in this magnatude and scale should be hit with a set fine (say £100,000), and then they should be tasked with setting up and providing a set of safety clauses and checks, if that company commits a similar offence after these guidelines have been set up and implememnted then the set fine should be doubled and the directors of the company should have to go to court to explain why this reoccured and what was their objective to prevent this from happening again, any further reoccurances of the same nature should result in the company being closed down while it is independtly investigated and that safety guidelines are implemented.
It would be easy to implement as independent auditors could check their training records against the personnel performing the duites / tasks at any given time.
Time scales would be set for safety implimentations to be completed and independent checks done on completion of standards.
Their are 2,500,000 people unemployed in britain, train some of them to carry out audits and safety checks for companies like this and you will have less unemployed people and less companies willing to take short cuts as they know that they will be auditted regularly.
This is Preventive instead of Reactive and a lot more positive outlook for the environment.
To often we React to enviromental disasters that cost us a fortune to put right if and when they can, instead of preventing it from happening in the beginning.
OOOOOOOOOOOOO, Rant over
Was it avoidable, why did it happen, what can be done to prevent it happening again.
Although the fine, can seem and usually is rediculous, a lot of the time, it is the preventive measurements that end up costing these companies and offenders a lot more money, the safety checks they have to perform, the safe gaurds they have to put in place, the training that they have to provide etc etc etc.
One of the main contributing factors of offenders is that they govern their own procedures instead of being independently auditted on a regular basis.
A company committing a 1st offence in this magnatude and scale should be hit with a set fine (say £100,000), and then they should be tasked with setting up and providing a set of safety clauses and checks, if that company commits a similar offence after these guidelines have been set up and implememnted then the set fine should be doubled and the directors of the company should have to go to court to explain why this reoccured and what was their objective to prevent this from happening again, any further reoccurances of the same nature should result in the company being closed down while it is independtly investigated and that safety guidelines are implemented.
It would be easy to implement as independent auditors could check their training records against the personnel performing the duites / tasks at any given time.
Time scales would be set for safety implimentations to be completed and independent checks done on completion of standards.
Their are 2,500,000 people unemployed in britain, train some of them to carry out audits and safety checks for companies like this and you will have less unemployed people and less companies willing to take short cuts as they know that they will be auditted regularly.
This is Preventive instead of Reactive and a lot more positive outlook for the environment.
To often we React to enviromental disasters that cost us a fortune to put right if and when they can, instead of preventing it from happening in the beginning.
OOOOOOOOOOOOO, Rant over
Mr Cholmondeley-Corker (PaSC)
Senior Member
Here's something to consider.
It was the waste disposal company Red Industries that discharged the cyanide into the sewage system.
BUT
It was Sever Trent Water Authority that discharged it into the river.
Could the cyanide have been contained if they had a system to prevent such a thing?
Are STWA just as guilty?
It was the waste disposal company Red Industries that discharged the cyanide into the sewage system.
BUT
It was Sever Trent Water Authority that discharged it into the river.
Could the cyanide have been contained if they had a system to prevent such a thing?
Are STWA just as guilty?
Stealph Viper
Well-known member
All parties are guilty, if this could have been prevented at any stage, then why wasn't it ?
If guidelines are in place, why weren't they adhered to ?
What will be done to prevent a catastrophe like this from happening again ?
Who, will take responsibility to ensure that no further such catastrophes will be allowed to occur ?
Is it cheaper, to take the fine and bad press, that will eventually blow over, than it is to follow the proper procedures ?
Far to many if's and why's and who's to be asking for a company that handles potentially lethal concoctions and for treatment plants that are their to regulate what is released in to our environment.
WAKE UP FAT CATS, GET YOUR ******* HOUSES IN ORDER OR PAY THE CONSEQUENCES.
If guidelines are in place, why weren't they adhered to ?
What will be done to prevent a catastrophe like this from happening again ?
Who, will take responsibility to ensure that no further such catastrophes will be allowed to occur ?
Is it cheaper, to take the fine and bad press, that will eventually blow over, than it is to follow the proper procedures ?
Far to many if's and why's and who's to be asking for a company that handles potentially lethal concoctions and for treatment plants that are their to regulate what is released in to our environment.
WAKE UP FAT CATS, GET YOUR ******* HOUSES IN ORDER OR PAY THE CONSEQUENCES.
flyingmilehi
New member
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2009
- Messages
- 4
- Reaction score
- 0
Count me in already signed.
A
alan whittington
Guest
Sorry Viper but the company is totally at fault,it is in the waste disposal business and that doesnt mean pouring it down the drain,this company should have the capacity to cope and i take it they have,but it wasnt used on this occasion,there must be a signing process to prove all safety criteria are reached,im sorry but this smells of a 'pikey' type operation and a £100.000 is taking the p**s,first offence or not,with the magnitude of the offence a custodial sentance is the only just outcome,and if it isnt achieved then the AT will think it has failed miserably.
The bad one
Well-known member
I agree totally that the punishments don't always fit the crime, however, what has to be taken in to account by the Law is, who and what was responsible for the offence.
Was it avoidable, why did it happen, what can be done to prevent it happening again.
Although the fine, can seem and usually is rediculous, a lot of the time, it is the preventive measurements that end up costing these companies and offenders a lot more money, the safety checks they have to perform, the safe gaurds they have to put in place, the training that they have to provide etc etc etc.
One of the main contributing factors of offenders is that they govern their own procedures instead of being independently auditted on a regular basis.
A company committing a 1st offence in this magnatude and scale should be hit with a set fine (say £100,000), and then they should be tasked with setting up and providing a set of safety clauses and checks, if that company commits a similar offence after these guidelines have been set up and implememnted then the set fine should be doubled and the directors of the company should have to go to court to explain why this reoccured and what was their objective to prevent this from happening again, any further reoccurances of the same nature should result in the company being closed down while it is independtly investigated and that safety guidelines are implemented.
It would be easy to implement as independent auditors could check their training records against the personnel performing the duites / tasks at any given time.
Time scales would be set for safety implimentations to be completed and independent checks done on completion of standards.
Their are 2,500,000 people unemployed in britain, train some of them to carry out audits and safety checks for companies like this and you will have less unemployed people and less companies willing to take short cuts as they know that they will be auditted regularly.
This is Preventive instead of Reactive and a lot more positive outlook for the environment.
To often we React to enviromental disasters that cost us a fortune to put right if and when they can, instead of preventing it from happening in the beginning.
OOOOOOOOOOOOO, Rant over
SV RED industries is not only a waste disposal Co, it is a Toxic waste disposer and as such has to compile with all the regs around that Toxicity, To get a licence to deal with toxic waste and Grade 1 poisons they have to have, and show physically they have, total system cover. And that includes full intensive training for all staff handling, using and disposing of such waste.
This was not an accident or a mishap given all the systems that have to be in place for dealing with Grade 1 poisons. It was a flouting of them by a person or persons unknown who worked for the Co at the moment.
Your fine scale is low based on the last Co that did something similar. Fined (first offence)240K and costs of 75K.
Re the WA - the licence RED operate under, does not allow them to put anything to sewer carrying toxic chemicals or poisons....they did. And because the sewage works relies on live microbial action to clean the water up (which are adequate and reliable for cleaning up the normal sewage water presented to them), the cyanide killed them off and therefore stopped the cleansing process of the follow on sewage water. That untreated water then went into the river. To put any of the blame this time on the WA is harsh.
richiekelly
Well-known member
signed it , i was late cus ive been away
Stealph Viper
Well-known member
The Bad One and Alan,
Let me first say, that the 100,000 was just an example, it was not by any means me stating what should be set as a presidence.
Secondly, i do not condone what they have done, i was just trying to point out, that what led to the final pollution of the Trent was perhaps not just the incompetence of the Red Company, although they started the chain reaction.
Do i agree that they should be punished, yes i do.
But it is not for me to pass that judgement on to them it is for the courts.
Let me first say, that the 100,000 was just an example, it was not by any means me stating what should be set as a presidence.
Secondly, i do not condone what they have done, i was just trying to point out, that what led to the final pollution of the Trent was perhaps not just the incompetence of the Red Company, although they started the chain reaction.
Do i agree that they should be punished, yes i do.
But it is not for me to pass that judgement on to them it is for the courts.
A
alan whittington
Guest
It is not for me to pass judgement either Viper,but you,me and most people on this forum have seen the diabolical cover ups and this must not be allowed to happen on this occasion,enoughs enough,companies cannot be allowed to dump rubbish let alone highly toxic materials and get away with a fine,no matter how large,for this is cruelty to animals/wildlife/fish and the river itself on an extrordinary scale,lets be certain of one thing,major pollution of our rivers is becoming more common and widespread,the general public heard about this disaster for two days on the media,now what do you hear sod all,nobody gives a hoot,well we bloody do.
Morespiders
Senior Member
Standing down?.
Has he paid the money back he stole.
How much did you have to pay him to pass it on.
Do you know the name of his mistress?
Ask him, has he ever done anything for society
The bad one
Well-known member
SV accept what you say about the fine. Just pointing out the real value in fines of this type of pollution when it was last tested through the courts.
I don't think I was suggesting you in some way condoned the pollution by the illegal action(S) that happened at RED Industries site. But I was questioning how the WA could be blamed this time and gave an explanation how the chain reaction came about.
RED industries not only caused the chain reaction, it destroyed, by an illegal act, the chain and all the safety measures for putting cleaned up water in the river.
An understanding of how the sewage and drain system works perhaps is needed.
It starts with us, water users putting soiled water into the drainage system. It goes into a combined sewer, which also carries "permitted" industrial waste effluent. The main drain, that's usually the ones in the middle of the road with large round and square manhole covers, carries the effluent to the treatment works.
Where it's processed by various screening process to take out solids and other garbage that's found its way into the drains. It goes through agitators and other short settlement process, then through the filter beds, all the processes, have after solid stripping, live microbial action taking place. It's those microbes that do the cleaning up process of the H2O. At the end of the clean up process the H2O is returned to the river.
And here is the most important point, there's little or no capacity to hold water up anywhere in the drainage system, other than the diameter of the bore of the drain and the odd sump.You should also remember STW are processing 1000s of gallons of sewage an hour. You can not turn a valve off to stop it coming into the treatment works, because it backs up and explodes out of every orifice in the street, in peoples houses and anywhere else it's connect to that system.
Now given this explanation of the sewage system and how it works, explain to me how the WA could have stopped the illegally dumped cyanide getting into the treatment works killing the microbes and then into river?
Stealph Viper
Well-known member
Well, as a start perhaps some sort of alarm that goes off at the water treatment plants when levels arise above a nominal level, which would trigger certain safety precautions to be automatically implemented so that someone could investigate it.
I don't know how it works as in safety features at either of the 2 plants mentioned.
But this is not the first time that Severn Trent Water or other Treatment plants have allowed potentially seriously hazardous waste to pass through their systems unchecked and it won't be the last.
Ok, by sending the head of the companies to prison, what will that achieve ?
1, A clear message to other heads that these actions will not be tolerated and that a prison sentence will be served.
2, How long should they get ?
3, Who pays for it ?
4, The company goes bust, the people lose their jobs, the company can't pay the fines that have been passed on to them. How does that help ?
5, The tax payer not only pays to fix the problem the company created, we also have to pay for their stay in prison and potentially more people join the growing queues of unemployment.
6, Who do you send to Prison if the original culprit is not found ?
I agree whole heartedly, that repeat offenders of what is nothing short of deliberate sabotage to the environment need to punished and punished severely, what i do not agree with is that a short term prison sentence (because that is all it will be) is a severe punishment.
Perhaps a Factory community service and a fine should be the punishment, were everyone at the factory is ordered to work on the water that they polluted for say 250 hours to help clean it up and re stock fish etc that would get them more involved with the environment and might even teach them something.
I don't know how it works as in safety features at either of the 2 plants mentioned.
But this is not the first time that Severn Trent Water or other Treatment plants have allowed potentially seriously hazardous waste to pass through their systems unchecked and it won't be the last.
Ok, by sending the head of the companies to prison, what will that achieve ?
1, A clear message to other heads that these actions will not be tolerated and that a prison sentence will be served.
2, How long should they get ?
3, Who pays for it ?
4, The company goes bust, the people lose their jobs, the company can't pay the fines that have been passed on to them. How does that help ?
5, The tax payer not only pays to fix the problem the company created, we also have to pay for their stay in prison and potentially more people join the growing queues of unemployment.
6, Who do you send to Prison if the original culprit is not found ?
I agree whole heartedly, that repeat offenders of what is nothing short of deliberate sabotage to the environment need to punished and punished severely, what i do not agree with is that a short term prison sentence (because that is all it will be) is a severe punishment.
Perhaps a Factory community service and a fine should be the punishment, were everyone at the factory is ordered to work on the water that they polluted for say 250 hours to help clean it up and re stock fish etc that would get them more involved with the environment and might even teach them something.
Just fine the head honcho, and ensure he is not able to recover the cost from company funds.
If he declares bankrupt, stop him staying with the company, no time limit, until debt paid
Prison is not the answer, community service cleaning sounds good though.
If he declares bankrupt, stop him staying with the company, no time limit, until debt paid
Prison is not the answer, community service cleaning sounds good though.
Graham Marsden
Editor Emeritus
795 signatures to date.
Right, I'm off fishing and will spread the word about the petition some more.
Right, I'm off fishing and will spread the word about the petition some more.
klik2change
Well-known member
This explanation makes a big difference. It is difficult to see what can be done if there is no storage capacity. And how much storage would be needed? Even tanks the size of a whole fleet of gasometers have a finite size. We have all seen a river in spate. The amount of water passing through is truly phenomenal. However that is the kind of size of installation needed if we are to prevent a repeat of the event. How much would it cost? Given facts such as those presented by bad one [assuming they are correct as I naturally do] it is very difficult to see a jury convicting any but the most careless water authority manager.
With Red Industries it's a different matter. Having said that nothing I have yet seen convinces me that it was not an accident, however apppalling the consequences may have been. I almost hope it was a deliberate act because if it was an accident there may be no possibility of preventing it happening again!
Weird stuff!
The bad one
Well-known member
Thanks Kilck, at least someone could see the point I was making about the WA and the storage capacity they don't have. They, the WA, also don't have the ability to deal with toxic waste of the nature of Grade 1 poisons in any WTP. It's why Industries like Red are in being as Hazardous waste management co. And why the Environmental Protection Act doesn't allow such substances to go to the sewage system and WTP
The word hazardous in the UK is used rather than the word Toxic as is used in the USA and by their environmental protection Agency. It's sounds less threatening, less nasty! The reality is they are the same substances they use the word toxic for.
Unlike you I don't see this as a tragic accident because if Red Industries were operating to their licence requirements all the fail-safe mechanisms would have prevented it getting into the sewage drainage system. Because it did, it suggests to me corners were being cut, and/or sharp practices were being pulled, thereby they weren't operating to the licence requirements. Ergo a criminal offence was committed!
SV as to who should be prosecuted the EPA is very clear, it is the Environmental Manager on shift, the Director with Environmental responsibility and the MD and/or CEO. The line of responsibility in the EPA is the same as it is in the Health & Safety Act.
Nor do I agree with your suggestion about first time offences or bankrupting companies and closing them down if and when they found guilty for indulging in a criminal act or environmental bad practice.
Companies that do this drive down standards across the whole industry because they skew the market by such practices. They, because unlike the others, aren't playing by the rules and can always undercut the price on contracts of those that are.
Thereby for reputable companies to compete, they have to get up to bending and breaking the rules.......End result, standards go down pollution rates go up!
As for workers losing their jobs, All employees have to be trained in safe working systems in this industry. They have a legal responsibility, as well as a moral one, to report breaches of the law and regulations. Given the training they have, and if the Co is breaking the law/regs are they not complicit in that action by not reporting it?
And before you ask, would I? Yes! and have done on six occasions in the past re breaches of the Health & Safety Act. I even told the MD that I would on 4 of those occasions.
The word hazardous in the UK is used rather than the word Toxic as is used in the USA and by their environmental protection Agency. It's sounds less threatening, less nasty! The reality is they are the same substances they use the word toxic for.
Unlike you I don't see this as a tragic accident because if Red Industries were operating to their licence requirements all the fail-safe mechanisms would have prevented it getting into the sewage drainage system. Because it did, it suggests to me corners were being cut, and/or sharp practices were being pulled, thereby they weren't operating to the licence requirements. Ergo a criminal offence was committed!
SV as to who should be prosecuted the EPA is very clear, it is the Environmental Manager on shift, the Director with Environmental responsibility and the MD and/or CEO. The line of responsibility in the EPA is the same as it is in the Health & Safety Act.
Nor do I agree with your suggestion about first time offences or bankrupting companies and closing them down if and when they found guilty for indulging in a criminal act or environmental bad practice.
Companies that do this drive down standards across the whole industry because they skew the market by such practices. They, because unlike the others, aren't playing by the rules and can always undercut the price on contracts of those that are.
Thereby for reputable companies to compete, they have to get up to bending and breaking the rules.......End result, standards go down pollution rates go up!
As for workers losing their jobs, All employees have to be trained in safe working systems in this industry. They have a legal responsibility, as well as a moral one, to report breaches of the law and regulations. Given the training they have, and if the Co is breaking the law/regs are they not complicit in that action by not reporting it?
And before you ask, would I? Yes! and have done on six occasions in the past re breaches of the Health & Safety Act. I even told the MD that I would on 4 of those occasions.
Stealph Viper
Well-known member
It won't happen, they will not be sent to Prison.
They will only get sent to prison, if they don't comply to guidelines set out by the EA and the Courts.
I understand your anger at them, and i agree sentences of this nature of offense should be tougher and a lot stricter, but, they aren't.
They will reprimand them, Fine them and Threaten them with prison if they don't put measures in to prevent it from happening again, but they will not imprison them unless they refuse to meet these requirements.
Yes, the prosecutors could prove negligence but they couldn't prove it was deliberate, ergo, no prison sentence.
I tell you what hasn't helped the cause in my eyes, is the pictures i have seen of the dead fish, perhaps 2 dozen fish lying on a bankside, to the general public this is not classed as a catastrophe or a disaster, there should have been pictures of 100's of fish if not 1000's of fish lying dead on the river, the public would have been horrified and i bet a lot more of a fuss would have been made of it.
They will only get sent to prison, if they don't comply to guidelines set out by the EA and the Courts.
I understand your anger at them, and i agree sentences of this nature of offense should be tougher and a lot stricter, but, they aren't.
They will reprimand them, Fine them and Threaten them with prison if they don't put measures in to prevent it from happening again, but they will not imprison them unless they refuse to meet these requirements.
Yes, the prosecutors could prove negligence but they couldn't prove it was deliberate, ergo, no prison sentence.
I tell you what hasn't helped the cause in my eyes, is the pictures i have seen of the dead fish, perhaps 2 dozen fish lying on a bankside, to the general public this is not classed as a catastrophe or a disaster, there should have been pictures of 100's of fish if not 1000's of fish lying dead on the river, the public would have been horrified and i bet a lot more of a fuss would have been made of it.