This.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.
Not even just when it rains a bit hard.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.
Is it?Water nationalisation - another thing Corbyn was right about and another policy that was branded ''hard left''
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?Despite investors being asked to pay for upkeep, it is inevitable consumers will have to pay to stop sewage spills. The regulator's focus for the best part of the last two decades has been on keeping water bills down.news.sky.com
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
*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 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?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?