relaxing pollution enforcement, with fishy update

Latest Articles

relaxing pollution enforcement, with fishy update
Page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 10, 11, 12

Downsizer Forum Index -> Conservation and Environment

Author

Message

Mistress Rose

Joined: 21 Jul 2011
Posts: 16520

Posted: Fri Jul 18, 25 7:58 am Post subject:

I agree that water needs to be generally privatised again, but it is a bit more complicated than that. Some companies; the one that supplies our water (but doesn't deal with sewage) has always been private and they are very good. We didn't even have a water shortage in 1976, and in fact they were exporting water to Gibraltar in new unused tankers. The only reason for a hosepipe ban if we have one is so that we are in line with the rest of the country. Another problem is who has invested in the water companies. It should never have been allowed to happen, but some pension companies own quite large blocks of shares, and privatisation without any compensation would affect their pensioners, who would have no way of preventing it. No utility should be privately owned as we need them to keep the country running, and if the shareholding owners suddenly decided they were going to pull out of this country, someone, almost certainly the government, would have to step in at a moments notice.

dpack

Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 44438
Location: yes

Posted: Fri Jul 18, 25 1:17 pm Post subject:
dont care, they have robbed us since 1990 and are at the late stage of asset stripping by debt no compensation for rogue traders

Florence

Joined: 15 Mar 2025
Posts: 148

Posted: Sat Jul 19, 25 5:41 am Post subject:
Looking at the NHS and HS2, am not sure government will do better with water.

dpack

Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 44438
Location: yes

Posted: Sat Jul 19, 25 10:43 am Post subject:
different government, the last ones were deeply corrupt ,arrogant and incompetent it would be hard not to do better but there is a lot of damage and neglect to repair the full hs2 would make sense in a national rail network if it did passengers and the existing lines did freight, double win

gz

Joined: 23 Jan 2009
Posts: 9271
Location: Ayrshire, Scotland

Posted: Sun Jul 20, 25 6:17 pm Post subject:
That was the original intention of HS2...but would have been more realistic and likely to succeed if they'd started from North and worked south...and reduced the aimed speed slightly so that they didn't have to ride roughshod over trees , history etc. But then that would have been common sense and not financially benefitted some,...

dpack

Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 44438
Location: yes

Posted: Mon Jul 21, 25 11:42 am Post subject:

i listened to the report chap's verbal summary and agree with much of it

ofwat, a corrupt revolving door and no teeth, gone

EA to get staff and teeth

promises to be kept, good luck with that

120bil input for infrastructure from long term low return investors, umm
if the shares crash, as they might due to the asset strippers bailing out, that would be the ideal time to avoid the N word by setting up a publicly owned company(GBR, GBE etc) to buy shares and invest for the future

overall it is catch up after less than 5 bil was used for infrastructure replacement and future proofing and 85 bil was extracted from customer charges and debts that could be abandoned at no cost to the debtors

my feeling is seize, sue and prosecute while using charges monies and long term investment to asap modernise a victorian system built for half the population and more predictable weather
we might need a few french, german, chinese, japanese engineers etc as brits have had no worklife experience of reservoirs/transfer systems, at least not any with uk geology etc (1990 til now no new major uk infrastructure. pre 1990 it was a new res about every 4 yrs since bazalgette )

	Downsizer Forum Index -> Conservation and Environment	All times are GMT Page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 10, 11, 12
Page 12 of 12

View Latest Posts