Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

[News] Water companies an apology of sorts.



Leekbrookgull

Well-known member
Jul 14, 2005
16,278
Leek
Simply from my POV pretty meaningless as actions speak louder than words, been allowed to get away with this for years and happy to pay a cheaper fine than resolve any issues.
 




chickens

Intending to survive this time of asset strippers
NSC Patron
Oct 12, 2022
1,994
River sewage: England's water firms issue apology https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-65626241

Yup, they say sorry but intend to carry on doing it. Then they promise that by 2030 they’ll only pump raw sewage into our rivers and seas 536 times a day.

Apology not accepted. There should be no dividends and senior management should be on minimum wage until pumping raw sewage into our waterways is either not done at all, or is absolutely the action of last resort during extreme flooding events.
 


Nobby Cybergoat

Well-known member
Jul 19, 2021
7,289
Apology not accepted from me either.

What I would have wanted to hear is what they are apologising for. If they had apologised for viewing fines for polluting as a cheaper business expense than investing, for knowingly doing the bare minimum the regulators will allow and knowingly paying large dividends when they knew performance was poor.

What they are saying is they have a vague intention to improve, and that bills will go up. They are issuing a general apology, for nothing in particular.

But i'm not angry with the water companies. They are run by career chief executives who want to show they can make a profit in the short term, which will look great on their CV for the next CE job they go for in a couple of years. We know what these people are like. My anger is reserved for the government. It's them who have chosen to deregulate, to defund the Environment Agency and other similar government agencies. It's why this country is going to the dogs. Maybe when people hear the government claim that they are reducing red tape and shrinking the size of the state, they will engage their brains to what this actually means before entering the ballot box.
 


B-right-on

Living the dream
Apr 23, 2015
6,298
Shoreham Beaaaach
Ridiculous.

I'm sorry I dented your nice shiny car even though it was parked legally, safely and I should have been able to miss it, but I'm such a terrible driver that I kept hitting it and I'll carry on hitting it even though you get the dents removed.

I do hope you accept my apologies.
 


Harry Wilson's tackle

Harry Wilson's Tackle
NSC Patron
Oct 8, 2003
51,389
Faversham
Apology not accepted from me either.

What I would have wanted to hear is what they are apologising for. If they had apologised for viewing fines for polluting as a cheaper business expense than investing, for knowingly doing the bare minimum the regulators will allow and knowingly paying large dividends when they knew performance was poor.

What they are saying is they have a vague intention to improve, and that bills will go up. They are issuing a general apology, for nothing in particular.

But i'm not angry with the water companies. They are run by career chief executives who want to show they can make a profit in the short term, which will look great on their CV for the next CE job they go for in a couple of years. We know what these people are like. My anger is reserved for the government. It's them who have chosen to deregulate, to defund the Environment Agency and other similar government agencies. It's why this country is going to the dogs. Maybe when people hear the government claim that they are reducing red tape and shrinking the size of the state, they will engage their brains to what this actually means before entering the ballot box.
This.

We have had whole swathes of beaches closed here for swimming, some of my favourites, sometimes months on end, all because the water companies have designed their system to run off raw sewage into the sea every time it rains a bit hard.
 




nicko31

Well-known member
Jan 7, 2010
17,702
Gods country fortnightly
Remember water companies are only part of the problem.

The environment agency has been cut to the bone and is incapable of providing enforcement. Plus the Tories seem incapable of tightening regulation, their voting record speaks volumes.
 








portlock seagull

Why? Why us?
Jul 28, 2003
17,377
A pox on the politicians and fat cats that run this country. Water Industry is simply another example of why hell is too good for them as they continue to fail and profit enormously from their failure whilst we, the peasantry, are powerless to do anything about.
 


KZNSeagull

Well-known member
Nov 26, 2007
20,023
Wolsingham, County Durham
As a slight aside, Politics Live today was the best episode I have seen for ages - not the usual party politics bollocks but a serious discussion for a change. They discussed this issue briefly, migration, obesity and space. Stewart Jackson, Jenny Chapman, Ailbhe Rea and Tim Marshall were on. Was very interesting if you are that way inclined.

On this issue one suggestion was to make the dumping of sewage a criminal act to focus the minds of the water company bosses.
 






BrightonCottager

Well-known member
Sep 30, 2013
2,242
Brighton
If you feel strongly about this , and many of you do, please sign the Surfers Against Sewage Dirty Money Petition and maybe go out on their Paddle Out on Saturday near the West Pier 12-1pm . All the details on the Facebook page @sasinbrighton.

Southern Water's plans for our area don't include any extra hard infrastructure (bigger tanks, more sewage treatment) until the 2045-50 period. The Peacehaven, Shoreham and Newhaven works are already overloaded because of under investment for decades (ie paying shareholders and bonuses). The first two of those were bypassed with storm outfalls for nearly 300 hours last year. Imagine how many more homes there'll be on the system by 2045-50!
 

Attachments

  • 20230518_083648.jpg
    20230518_083648.jpg
    2 MB · Views: 28


Leekbrookgull

Well-known member
Jul 14, 2005
16,278
Leek
Personally we would like to know what land locked water companies (Seven Trent) are up to regarding sewage it just doesn't seem possible that they are doing everything by the book?
 






Guy Fawkes

The voice of treason
Sep 29, 2007
8,251

A very good article and well worth the read, it covers a lot of the issues around the industry, the challenges faced, OFWAT, why it was sold off, and why taking it into public ownership again would be unlikely to work
Covering:
*OFWAT prioritised tackling leaks and raising drinking water standards for decades, not tackling sewage, a problem that has always existed and is not something that has only happened since privatisation (but reading most ill-informed comments on this emotive subject would lead you to believe (wrongly) that it is something that only started to occur after privatisation...)
*Impact of population growth, especially in the Southern Water region
*Why, when it will cost £56bn to solve, that £10bn is concidered the limit which is achievable in the next 5 years
*The issue of where the money comes from
*That Thames and Southern haven't been paying dividends to shareholders for quite some time
* Why nationisation is a red herring and why it was sold off in the first place
and so on......
 


Guy Fawkes

The voice of treason
Sep 29, 2007
8,251
Water nationalisation - another thing Corbyn was right about and another policy that was branded ''hard left''
Is it?

It was sold off because the Government of the day simply realised it could not afford the level of investment needed, and selling it off was the only way to secure that investment

So if it is to be nationalised now, where does that extra money to pay for the required investments come from? NHS budgets? how about the Police budget? Education? Defence?

In a time when we have health service workers, and so on striking for higher wages, and the Government saying the treasury simply can't afford their demands, where does all that money extra money to invest in and deliver the sewage systems to eliminate the issue come from? and over what sort of time frame would you expect it to be delivered if it was back in their hands?

And that is before you start to examine if state investment would be managed as effectively if it went back to public ownership as it is at present in private hands?

Since privatisation, 'more has been invested in drinking and wastewater infrastucture per inhabitant than any country in the EU' - Would that have happened if nationalised? (if anything it shows that we have and had an aging system, not fit for purpose and requiring vast investment which clearly demonstrates that the preceeding years of state ownership failed to deliver it to allow it to fall into such a state in the first place)
 


chickens

Intending to survive this time of asset strippers
NSC Patron
Oct 12, 2022
1,994

A very good article and well worth the read, it covers a lot of the issues around the industry, the challenges faced, OFWAT, why it was sold off, and why taking it into public ownership again would be unlikely to work
Covering:
*OFWAT prioritised tackling leaks and raising drinking water standards for decades, not tackling sewage, a problem that has always existed and is not something that has only happened since privatisation (but reading most ill-informed comments on this emotive subject would lead you to believe (wrongly) that it is something that only started to occur after privatisation...)
*Impact of population growth, especially in the Southern Water region
*Why, when it will cost £56bn to solve, that £10bn is concidered the limit which is achievable in the next 5 years
*The issue of where the money comes from
*That Thames and Southern haven't been paying dividends to shareholders for quite some time
* Why nationisation is a red herring and why it was sold off in the first place
and so on......
I’m sorry, but are you arguing that water companies, who paid dividends to their directors and shareholders were previously unaware of their responsibility to not piss raw sewage into our rivers and seas?

Guy Fawkes? A straw man?
 


Guy Fawkes

The voice of treason
Sep 29, 2007
8,251
I’m sorry, but are you arguing that water companies, who paid dividends to their directors and shareholders were previously unaware of their responsibility to not piss raw sewage into our rivers and seas?

Guy Fawkes? A straw man?
I'm sorry or have you forgotten that the issue of dumping raw sewage predates privatisation, that many rivers in this country were devoid of life since the inductrial revolution but have seen wildlife return, thanks to the efforts of water companies since privatisation?

how about this as another good article that mentions how bad the water industry was pre-privatisation as there seems to be a lot of rose tinted glasses wearing when it comes to how things were under state ownership
https://www.ciwem.org/the-environme...t-firms-tap,-retain-and-promote-female-talent

There were some rotten eggs who should have the book thrown at them for their actions (like those responsible for the deliberate act that led to Southern water being fined) but don't assume because of a few like that, that the whole industry is the same and will always be.
 
Last edited:




Weststander

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Aug 25, 2011
64,910
Withdean area
With Royal Mail, the industry should be nationalised.

The water companies have failed, despite 34 years in the seat, to end the unacceptable pollution of OUR rivers and coastal waters. It’s not a philosophical thing for me, dividends if the companies had succeeded, would be fine. But they failed.

I wish Starmer had a firm plan and vocalised it.
 




Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here