Jump to content

New pollution incident


Recommended Posts

A new pollution incident has occurred on the river Wandle, a chalk stream which flows through south London.

 

It follows a fire at a sewage works at Beddington.

 

It's not the first time it has been hit by pollution from these works. Back in 2007, chemicals leaked into the river, causing a massive loss of fish.

 

The firm running the works was hit with a £50,000 fine and restocking took place which was just starting to show dividends, with people reporting better and better catch reports.

 

Let's just hope that this incident isn't too devastating and that the firm running the sewage works gets another larger fine and puts in place back-ups to prevent this from happening again. And again... :(

 

I enclose a link to a local paper covering the story and also a blog from a keen Wandle angler, which I hope he dosn't mind me linking to:

 

http://www.thisiscroydontoday.co.uk/Beddin...tail/story.html

 

http://www.pikeblog.com/

Edited by tiddlertamer

He was an old man who fished alone in a skiff in the Gulf Stream and he had gone eighty-four days without taking a fish. (Hemingway - The old man and the sea)

Link to post
Share on other sites
A new pollution incident has occurred on the river Wandle, a chalk stream which flows through south London.

 

It follows a fire at a sewage works at Beddington.

 

It's not the first time it has been hit by pollution from these works. Back in 2007, chemicals leaked into the river, causing a massive loss of fish.

 

The firm running the works was hit with a £50,000 fine and restocking took place which was just starting to show dividends, with people reporting better and better catch reports.

 

Let's just hope that this incident isn't too devastating and that the firm running the sewage works gets another larger fine and puts in place back-ups to prevent this from happening again. And again... :(

 

I enclose a link to a local paper covering the story and also a blog from a keen Wandle angler, which I hope he dosn't mind me linking too:

 

http://www.thisiscroydontoday.co.uk/Beddin...tail/story.html

 

http://www.pikeblog.com/

 

 

OK folks - can I suggest it would be slightly more helpful to be discussing ways of combating the polluters that are killing our fish rather than having long drawn out discussions on how to kill them - the fish that is, not the polluters... :rolleyes:

 

Just a thought. :)

Edited by tiddlertamer

He was an old man who fished alone in a skiff in the Gulf Stream and he had gone eighty-four days without taking a fish. (Hemingway - The old man and the sea)

Link to post
Share on other sites

tiddlertamer

 

With a priest?

 

Phone

 

In the US in these circumstances (a fire) the culprit is the fire department. That chemical "goop" removes all the oxygen. For the fire that's a good thing - for the fish - not so good. I doubt the fire was intentional??

 

Phone

Link to post
Share on other sites
OK folks - can I suggest it would be slightly more helpful to be discussing ways of combating the polluters that are killing our fish rather than having long drawn out discussions on how to kill them - the fish that is, not the polluters... :rolleyes:

 

Just a thought. :)

 

But that would spoil all the fun TT :D

 

Polluters do not get any where near the sorts of punishments that they deserve in my opinion. What is £50000 to a big company. To many it is pocket change. They should be made to pay much more and to show that they have put safeguards in place to prevent a further incident. Each time they do it the fine should double.

 

In this case they couldnt really have done much as I doubt the fire was intentional and sometimes these things happen. Of course we all look for someone to blame but an accident is an accident. When pollution is caused by negligence then that is a different matter entirely. I am sure sportsman will be along soon to disagree with me :D

For any web design needs check out http://www.chiptenwebsites.co.uk

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fines for pollution incidents should be large enough that the board are crapping their pants about what they will say at the next shareholders meeting.

Link to post
Share on other sites
OK folks - can I suggest it would be slightly more helpful to be discussing ways of combating the polluters that are killing our fish rather than having long drawn out discussions on how to kill them - the fish that is, not the polluters... :rolleyes:

 

Just a thought. :)

 

In your dreams TT, 15 pages on how to save fish or even catch them, it'll never happen :rolleyes:

 

Poor old Wandle, its only crime - and also its punishment - is being stuck in south London. It's such a wonderful little river. I used to live very near to it in Colliers Wood, I never fished there but used to walk along it a lot spotting fish (between pollution incidents). There was a guy I'd often see down there in waders who I'd talk to, fly fishing fishing for trout.

 

I agree that the fines dished out are paltry, and are no kind of deterrent.

And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music

Link to post
Share on other sites

"accident" is a great way of getting rid of stuff that needs money to process ,a quick hike in bills and the fine has gone ,fine the managers personally downwards it will strangely happen less often ;)

Believe NOTHING anyones says or writes unless you witness it yourself and even then your eyes can deceive you

 

There is only one opinion i listen to ,its mine and its ALWAYS right even when its wrong

 

Its far easier to curse the darkness than light one candle

 

Mathew 4:19

Grangers law : anything i say will  turn out the opposite or not happen at all!

 

"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical." Thomas Jefferson

Link to post
Share on other sites

so fine the magers downwards for air polution from the fire then the water polution.

i find it strange huge piles of tyres that are being disposed of "accidentally" catch fire ,saving disposing of them

huge sums of money paid to store paper on top of the ground instead of under it "accidentally" catch fire because its valueless in reality selling on (the money is made removing for "recycling" the paper not recycling it itself)

lots of strange accidents about especially in private companies that need to spend some of their "green" take on getting rid of it and private water companies charged with cleaning up water are no exception ,we cant have the company spending its vast profits when it can "accidentally" dump it in the outflow ,you will find historically the biggest polluters are those paid to not add to polution ,when its water is in it its usually sewage works "accidentally" polluting !

if they cant blame the wrong sort of rain then they will arrange some other excuse

 

"a fire then there would appear to be no negligence or intent to cause pollution."

 

if i go out in a car and mow down 34 people at a bus stop i don't think "intent" would change the fact people died and it was my fault , i may get a lesser sentence but the blame would still be on my head or is it the fault of those naughty people (or stream) getting in the way?

just fine the staff 1 million quid instead of ten million ,it wont happen again i promise

Edited by chesters1

Believe NOTHING anyones says or writes unless you witness it yourself and even then your eyes can deceive you

 

There is only one opinion i listen to ,its mine and its ALWAYS right even when its wrong

 

Its far easier to curse the darkness than light one candle

 

Mathew 4:19

Grangers law : anything i say will  turn out the opposite or not happen at all!

 

"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical." Thomas Jefferson

Link to post
Share on other sites

chesters1,

 

The polluters were the fire department(s)!!. (???)

 

Use your example - If you set my factory on fire - should the factory owners be fined for the actions of the fire department? - or for your actions?

 

Phone

 

Maybe you just wanted a "rant"- - - sort of catching up are you - we've had so many rants recently. Protecting your reputation is, after all, important. I like your rant stuff best because it always makes the least sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...