relaxing pollution enforcement, with fishy update

Home Page

Articles

links

Downsizer

FAQ

Memberlist

View Latest Posts

Who's Online

Join FREE!

Private Messages: Log in to check private messages

Login Log in

Latest Articles

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

Post new topic

Reply to topic

Downsizer Forum Index -> Conservation and Environment

Author

Message

Slim

Joined: 05 Mar 2006
Posts: 6711
Location: New England (In the US of A)

Posted: Thu May 09, 24 9:55 pm Post subject:
Betcha good money this is PFAS related: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c043yl5vn0ro

dpack

Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 44440
Location: yes

Posted: Fri May 10, 24 6:44 am Post subject:
it does have the look of fire truck foam, could be a variety of stuff , the aquatic wildlife will be seriously reduced whatever it was the local obvious is multiple sewage facilities conducting discharges in several upstream catchments with towns and villages, at an informed guess the load is further forced by the other catchments that join this one before they mess up the sea

dpack

Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 44440
Location: yes

Posted: Wed May 15, 24 5:03 am Post subject:
i floated neither lonely nor a cloud

dpack

Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 44440
Location: yes

Posted: Mon May 20, 24 10:00 am Post subject:
dante had some special plans for such folk

Mistress Rose

Joined: 21 Jul 2011
Posts: 16520

Posted: Tue May 21, 24 7:30 am Post subject:

Reply with quote

Ofwat has made some bizarre decisions over the years. Our water supply has always come from a private company that hasn't been involved in all this mess and has always been pretty good. They planned to build a new reservoir in the 1960s and purchased the land ahead of what they saw as a lot of new houses in the area. Ofwat told them they couldn't build it until they had solved their leak problem, which isn't particularly bad, and is always dealt with promptly and well. The reservoir is finally being built now after several thousand houses have been built with several thousand more planned.

On the other hand, our sewage supplier hasn't had such a good record and has got involved in this mess. Selling shares and lumbering the company with debts seems to be the main problem and Ofwat haven't, as stated in the article, done much about that.

dpack

Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 44440
Location: yes

Posted: Wed May 28, 25 9:03 am Post subject:
thames crims a start, yorkshire should be up for similar rewards, ditto most of the others i would just take what infrastructure is left with no compensation in exchange for not going after individuals at board, shareholder and functionary levels and bankrupting them while we are at it there are quite a few other polluters that need stopping by whatever means required

Mistress Rose

Joined: 21 Jul 2011
Posts: 16520

Posted: Thu May 29, 25 7:07 am Post subject:

Reply with quote

I think it was the way that these were set up and allowed to profit in the past. Sadly the money has gone and will be hard to get back from the 10th person back or whoever. Some of the investors in these companies are pension schemes, who should never have been allowed or encouraged to invest in such things. A total mess.

Overall I agree the utilities should be renationalised. I remember before privatisation, so having seen both, nationalised works better, but only with the right political will and inverstment.

dpack

Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 44440
Location: yes

Posted: Sat May 31, 25 1:34 pm Post subject:
a start, plenty more where that came from no personal animosity to any staff member, vicious hatred of the firm who have reversed decades of river regeneration for profit if it was not critical infrastructure .....

dpack

Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 44440
Location: yes

Posted: Thu Jul 17, 25 2:55 pm Post subject:
not a fishy update an brief summary of what is wrong and what should be done the water companies have a corrupt business model, nationalize with no payments to them and the price of water will more than cover the required modernization and future proofing etc they were forced into private hands by thatcher, time to reclaim them

Mistress Rose

Joined: 21 Jul 2011
Posts: 16520

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

Reply with quote

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: 44440
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: 44440
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: 44440
Location: yes

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

Reply with quote

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

Archive
Powered by php-BB © 2001, 2005 php-BB Group
Style by marsjupiter.com, released under GNU (GNU/GPL) license.

Copyright © 2004 marsjupiter.com