• You need to be a registered member of Barbel Fishing World to post on these forums. Some of the forums are hidden from non-members. Please refer to the instructions on the ‘Register’ page for details of how to join the new incarnation of BFW...

BBC programme tonight, 7.40pm

My local sewage works Maple Lodge dumped raw sewage into the Colne for 1109.9 hours over 83 days last year. Last month I was advised by WASP (Windrush against Sewage pollution) on how to ask the correct questions under the freedom of information act. I sent the questions via Emails to Thames Water and the EA and 20 working days later the results came back. Vast amounts of data was produced and to be honest it was way beyond my understanding. Peter Hammond (WASP) who was highlighting all the illegal dumping on the Panorama program is looking into the data for us. I cannot thank WASP and this man enough for their help.
 
Well - it didn't highlight anything we don't already know, neither did it have anyone meaningful from the industry to answer the awkward questions. Panorama, seemingly, no longer has the clout it once had, in persuading/cajoling people to appear, or holding an industry to account. The woman from Water UK was woefully ignorant, I thought.

The one plus was it brought the scandal to the notice of the wider public.
 
Richard Parsons said:
Panorama, seemingly, no longer has the clout it once had, in persuading/cajoling people to appear, or holding an industry to account.
Click to expand...
How do you defend the indefensible though Richard. It's a 'poison chalice' that no one would wish to 'drink' from (a bit fitting that). This matter appears to be going to the House and, hopefully it will be actioned there with some urgency. Water companies are great at saying what they intend to do in the future, but things only appear to get worse (increased housing stock obviously doesn't help). But if the BBC/Media keep on it then maybe the water companies will slip up a gear (i.e. out of neutral/reverse).
 
Richard Parsons said:
Well - it didn't highlight anything we don't already know, neither did it have anyone meaningful from the industry to answer the awkward questions. Panorama, seemingly, no longer has the clout it once had, in persuading/cajoling people to appear, or holding an industry to account. The woman from Water UK was woefully ignorant, I thought.

The one plus was it brought the scandal to the notice of the wider public.
Click to expand...

I was pretty shocked at the wet-wipe/excrement beach which had formed on the Thames - I've personally never seen anything that bad!

Hopefully it will have reached a wider audience, every little helps. And yes the lady from Water UK was pretty appalling, clueless and seemingly completely out of her depth. I wonder how some people can do to bed at night after a days work that consists of nothing other than trying to defend the indefensible.
 
One of our local Sewage works (we really should never call them treatment works ) Chesham was dumping hundreds of wet wipes, pads and raw sewage into the River Chess a local chalk stream. The local River Chess association were picking up hundreds from the river. Thames denied everything , but they were eventually shamed into admitting the issue. With photos of over 300 pads etc downstream of the outflow every day the volunteers litter picked, it was hard to deny. They still pump out raw sewage but fitted massive nets to catch the pads, wipes etc. The grey sludge is not as visible as the white flags the pads and wipes became hooked in the river bank trees and bushes.
 
I was told ( by and insider in the EA) the reason why the EA encouraged farmers to allow contractors to remove bank side trees on the river Severn (I presume elsewhere also) was to stop the build up of flotsam and jetsam of wipes, sanitary towels and other shit items catching in the branches during times of sewage discharge i.e. flood etc., the EA know its happening, activists know its happening, the BBC knows its happening, DEFRA knows its happening, we know its happening, but in essence nothing is happening, just waffle.

But let us not forget that the Angling Trust has a fully functional well resourced fish legal team that are very capable and adept in taking action against those that pollute SSI's with illegal sewage discharges and the like, but they wont because the EA wont allow them to and its the EA that pay the Angling Trust bills, so why are we not lobbying the Angling Trust to take action and do more against the water companies in a more robust manner?

By the way, remember those bankside trees those unsupervised chainsaw vandal contractors removed, the farmers were then paid £12 per tree to be replanted on other parts of their land so the carbon balance and neutrality was maintained or improved...yeah right.

So, who is doing what or anything?
 
Since 2003 I have found myself unblocking the drains which run behind some of the houses in my street. It's a most unpleasant task and happens three or four times a year. Every time the blockage is caused by wet wipes, sanitary towels, and nappies. The occasional toy or item of clothing appears which nobody admits to owning. I have tried in vain to set up a rota - offering to put my drain rods in a readily accessible place. When it happened last month I persuaded someone else to do it. He has since written to the affected residents saying he will fill their drains with concrete if they do not cooperate.
 
Lawrence Breakspear said:
I was told ( by and insider in the EA) the reason why the EA encouraged farmers to allow contractors to remove bank side trees on the river Severn (I presume elsewhere also) was to stop the build up of flotsam and jetsam of wipes, sanitary towels and other shit items catching in the branches during times of sewage discharge i.e. flood etc., the EA know its happening, activists know its happening, the BBC knows its happening, DEFRA knows its happening, we know its happening, but in essence nothing is happening, just waffle.

But let us not forget that the Angling Trust has a fully functional well resourced fish legal team that are very capable and adept in taking action against those that pollute SSI's with illegal sewage discharges and the like, but they wont because the EA wont allow them to and its the EA that pay the Angling Trust bills, so why are we not lobbying the Angling Trust to take action and do more against the water companies in a more robust manner?

By the way, remember those bankside trees those unsupervised chainsaw vandal contractors removed, the farmers were then paid £12 per tree to be replanted on other parts of their land so the carbon balance and neutrality was maintained or improved...yeah right.

So, who is doing what or anything?
Click to expand...
Do you have anything to back up your claim that the Angling Trust are deliberately not taking action against polluters because ‘the EA won’t allow them’?

It is quite an accusation. And one that seems an odds with the fact I can think of several recent instances where the AT have dragged the EA into court. Most recently with regard to the EA/Defra’s approach to tackling diffuse pollution from agriculture (https://anglingtrust.net/2021/03/05...nd-ea-back-to-court-over-pollution-of-rivers/)
 
I agree, that’s quite an accusation to make, and not a particularly helpful one, given the AT, through Fish Legal, would appear to be the only defenders of our rivers at the present time. The present government has instructed the EA to approach all pollution incidences with a light touch where business is responsible, which when combined with the approximate 50% reduction in their budget has made them unable to uphold their legal responsibility to protect the environment. More anglers need to get behind the AT, if only for the great work Fish Legal do. Casting doubt on the integrity of its work, without hard evidence, is damaging to the future of angling. The AT, especially under Jamie Cook, has done some great work and still anglers look for the negatives.
 
Nick Coulthurst said:
I agree, that’s quite an accusation to make, and not a particularly helpful one, given the AT, through Fish Legal, would appear to be the only defenders of our rivers at the present time. The present government has instructed the EA to approach all pollution incidences with a light touch where business is responsible, which when combined with the approximate 50% reduction in their budget has made them unable to uphold their legal responsibility to protect the environment. More anglers need to get behind the AT, if only for the great work Fish Legal do. Casting doubt on the integrity of its work, without hard evidence, is damaging to the future of angling. The AT, especially under Jamie Cook, has done some great work and still anglers look for the negatives.
Click to expand...
Where have you found that the government have asked the EA to take a light approach to tackling pollution from business?
 
Damian Kimmins said:
Where have you found that the government have asked the EA to take a light approach to tackling pollution from business?
Click to expand...

The 'light touch' enforcement has unquestionably been implemented in the agricultural sector. But that started back in 2008-2009 under the Labour Govt and has been carried on by successive Govts. Made worse, as Nick points outs, by the 50% cut in funding since 2014.
 
Joe Winstanley said:
The 'light touch' enforcement has unquestionably been implemented in the agricultural sector. But that started back in 2008-2009 under the Labour Govt and has been carried on by successive Govts. Made worse, as Nick points outs, by the 50% cut in funding since 2014.
Click to expand...
Might it just be the situation that the lack of funding is making that appear to be the case?
If the CPS had a lack of funding the first thing that would be seen would be a lack of prosecution cases.
 
Damian Kimmins said:
Might it just be the situation that the lack of funding is making that appear to be the case?
If the CPS had a lack of funding the first thing that would be seen would be a lack of prosecution cases.
Click to expand...
I can only say that my experience in agriculture is that the policy has been deliberate 'light-touch' enforcement. A good example being the enforcement of the Nitrates Directive. Lots of failures recorded, but as yet not one prosecution. EA staff adopting an 'advisory' role in farm inspections with few enforcement notices served - generally warning letters advising they will be visiting again in 12-months time and if issues ( e.g. insufficient slurry storage etc) are not rectified, then they will take action. Sometimes this approach is the right way to go about things and by working with people and getting them to take ownership of problems you get better compliance in the long term. And it can take into account individual circumstances etc. But I know many farmers get really hacked off by the way some rogues appear to get away with murder..
 
Fair play Joe!
The thing is though is the EA no longer monitor WWTWs.
Is anyone aware of the Angling Trust's steps, after collecting signatures, on the issue?
 
Terry Simner said:
How do you defend the indefensible though Richard. It's a 'poison chalice' that no one would wish to 'drink' from (a bit fitting that). This matter appears to be going to the House and, hopefully it will be actioned there with some urgency. Water companies are great at saying what they intend to do in the future, but things only appear to get worse (increased housing stock obviously doesn't help). But if the BBC/Media keep on it then maybe the water companies will slip up a gear (i.e. out of neutral/reverse).
Click to expand...
Well, yes, Terry. There have, however, been quite a few of those down the years. My point about Panorama is that in bygone days the BBC would have asked your question to the powers that be ("how do you defend the indefensible") rather than merely nodding and accepting the answer - which is how I interpreted the presenter's expressions. The programme exists so that the 'difficult' questions are asked.
Your hope is no more than a trial of hope over experience., as 'going to the House' means absolutely sweet FA when members of the ruling majority will either 'advise' or have friends on the board of the water companies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top