The Water Pollution Cover-Up

[Kevin Steele]

You don't have to fish and risk a fine. There was a fishing strike in Ireland in the 80's. That sent a message. If anyone's underwhelmed with the performance of the EA it doesn't take much balls to boycott their rod and line licence tax.

So are you suggesting we go on strike - don't buy a license and don't fish? The Irish strike was a completely different scenario.

If any business faced disruption that risked 1% of their revenue, they would ride it out.

But unlike 'any business', the EA has the powers to fine people who don't comply... and you can bet your life they'll be out in force if there was a boycott. It wouldn't take long before they recouped their 1%. That would certainly send a message... just not the one you hoped for.

Having the balls to send them a message sounds more macho and less common sense. If anyone thinks a boycott would be effective and wants to risk a £2,500.00 fine, then go ahead.
.

 

[Joe Winstanley]

Regardless of cost a licence boycott is sending a message.

I think that voting makes absolutely no difference with the current choice of main stream political incompetents. For this reason, a low voting turnout sends another message.

Introducing a PR system could shakes things up and potentially gets things done. However, the top two incompetents are unlikely to agree to that.

Agree. PR is the only way we will get decent Governance in the UK. FPTP is an undemocratic system designed to maintain the status quo, so yes it won't happen any time soon.

Remember 2010 when the LD's had 23% of the vote share, yet only won 57 seats. Labour on the other hand got 29% of the vote, but won 258 seats. Little wonder so many Labour MPs jumped into bed with the Tories to campaign against the AV referendum in 2011. Naked self-interest.

 

[Ady Brayshaw]

So are you suggesting we go on strike - don't buy a license and don't fish? The Irish strike was a completely different scenario.

If any business faced disruption that risked 1% of their revenue, they would ride it out.

But unlike 'any business', the EA has the powers to fine people who don't comply... and you can bet your life they'll be out in force if there was a boycott. It wouldn't take long before they recouped their 1%. That would certainly send a message... just not the one you hoped for.

Having the balls to send them a message sounds more macho and less common sense. If anyone thinks a boycott would be effective and wants to risk a £2,500.00 fine, then go ahead.
.

If you think that the courts would fine EA licence tax transgressions £2500. I think you're a tad naeve . The EA mobilising 'resources' to catch EA licence tax transgressors will surely demonstrate their non -environmental priorities.

As has been suggested. You don't have to fish. If you can see that the EA are allowing environmental pollution with impunity, why do you see an imperative to pay a tax that gives a green light to that?

 

[Kevin Steele]

If you think that the courts would fine EA licence tax transgressions £2500. I think you're a tad naeve .

Naivety is the expectation that withholding the license fe (ie. 1% of EA revenue) will send any sort of message to the EA - other than, come and fine me. Pie in the sky. Anglers are not as important to the EA as you seem to think they are... we have no clout.

The EA mobilising 'resources' to catch EA licence tax transgressors will surely demonstrate their non -environmental priorities.

Nonsense. Part of the EAs remit is to uphold the law... the one that says fishermen must be in possession of a rod license. If you think that upholding the law shouldn't be a priority, society is in trouble.

As has been suggested. You don't have to fish.

You've suggested it, but not explained it, so I've no idea what you actually mean.
_____

What's also naive to think the state of our rivers is the fault of the EA. They don't have the resources or the teeth to deal with the sheer scale of what the water and waste-water industry is throwing at them. This can only be solved at a political level.
.

 

[Damian Kimmins]

So are you suggesting we go on strike - don't buy a license and don't fish? The Irish strike was a completely different scenario.

If any business faced disruption that risked 1% of their revenue, they would ride it out.

But unlike 'any business', the EA has the powers to fine people who don't comply... and you can bet your life they'll be out in force if there was a boycott. It wouldn't take long before they recouped their 1%. That would certainly send a message... just not the one you hoped for.

Having the balls to send them a message sounds more macho and less common sense. If anyone thinks a boycott would be effective and wants to risk a £2,500.00 fine, then go ahead.
.

I don't think you are looking at the true picture. The monies raised from the licence fee are 100% of the EA budget on fisheries, though I think they do get a government top-up. Nonetheless, the EA's fisheries budget is separate from any other budgets say for like flood defence or monitoring.

 

[Kevin Steele]

I don't think you are looking at the true picture. The monies raised from the licence fee are 100% of the EA budget on fisheries, though I think they do get a government top-up. Nonetheless, the EA's fisheries budget is separate from any other budgets say for like flood defence or monitoring.

You're right, Damian, but if the revenue from licenses is spent on fisheries, it's nonsensical to argue that the EA is doing nothing with the license fee in its efforts to maintain those fisheries.

So I go back to the point that it's not the EA that's to blame for the fate of our rivers, but the water and waste-water companies, and the legislation (or lack of) that allows them to get away with it.
.

 

[Damian Kimmins]

Nonsensical? I don't know about that. You might argue that the success of licence funded work on rivers in improving fisheries is determined by their failures in monitoring elsewhere (not forgetting the fact the some fisheries work will be stillwater based) and if that is so poor then what is the point?
I think it comes down to funding, Kevin, really. The EA used to monitor WWTW every 30 days. If they couldn't get access to monitor the site, then the wastewater company were fined. They didn't know when they would turn up or anything. You would always see EA vans around from one works to another testing. A few years back however (just before these pollution scandals), the EA determined that testing would be done in-house with certain protocols. It saved them bucket loads in costs but meant that individual Operators who knew the in-house testers would know when they would be getting tested and act accordingly.
That said, of all the WWTW I have worked on, and it would number in the hundreds, I might count one hand those that had Operators that worked - the rest? Words fail me to be honest.

 

[Ady Brayshaw]

Naivety is the expectation that withholding the license fe (ie. 1% of EA revenue) will send any sort of message to the EA - other than, come and fine me. Pie in the sky. Anglers are not as important to the EA as you seem to think they are... we have no clout.



Nonsense. Part of the EAs remit is to uphold the law... the one that says fishermen must be in possession of a rod license. If you think that upholding the law shouldn't be a priority, society is in trouble.



You've suggested it, but not explained it, so I've no idea what you actually mean.
_____

What's also naive to think the state of our rivers is the fault of the EA. They don't have the resources or the teeth to deal with the sheer scale of what the water and waste-water industry is throwing at them. This can only be solved at a political level.
.

Sanctimonious and naive. I don't know where to start with breaking the law. The political class seem to have their collective noses in the trough. Corruption abounds in the country. I don't have a problem with not paying the rod and line licence tax. In the scheme of things. It's nothing. It sends a message.

The EA are meant to be the guardians of our waterways. They have failed miserably. I couldn't care less about their constant bleating about the lack of funds. The EA also seems to operate with a conflict of interest. Their pension fund, so I understand, is invested in the Water PLC's. If true, that's not acceptable.

Anglers see little benefit from the EA (Calverton being one acception). I'd gladly see a nationwide boycott of the EA tax and I hope that one is organised.

 

[Kevin Steele]

Sanctimonious and naive.

At least I've taught you how to spell naive.
.

 

[Ady Brayshaw]

At least I've taught you how to spell naive.
.

Have a gold star on me