As many of you know I'm keen Angler and with that like most a keen amateur enviromentalist. A little hiccup last year saw 1.5km of river polluted and a large hit on the wildlife. Mostly fish based life due to the rapid drop in disolved oxygen content.

http://www.fish-on-friday.com/2015/02/thames-water-fined-220000-for-river-pollution/?utm_source=dragoncarp-150227&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=FishOnFriday150227

So do you think less than quater or a million is a big enough fine for a company that size for that problem. Bearing in mind how many years it will take for the river to recover. I don't personally think that fine would even cover the market value of the fish stocks killed if it was a commercial site, fish arnt cheap.

No, they should have a bigger fine and have to pay to clean it up and restock the river with the fish and wildlife they killed off.........

Something like that yeah. Certainly the fine should be larger and an agreed portion should be paid directly towards improvements to the stretch of river they damaged. Ie ground up improvements to improve ecosystem as a whole.

A £220k fine is not exactly going to hurt Thames Water; but is the fine of key relevance considering the damage caused? The most important thing would be for TW to have been ordered to put everything right - to pre-incident conditions, at their cost, in reasonable time; and to the satisfaction of the court passing the verdict (and/or the court's advisors).

 

What I'm getting at, is would even a £220 million fine have been adequate if the damage done, remains done.....?

With my experience of water companies causing damage..... I would have fined them a couple of mil

Big services companies have very high powered lawyers. Unless the state is to intervene, it's unlikely that a big fine would be imposed. In addition, that fine would then get passed back to the consumer.

 

You're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't.

 

On a plus note of 'justice', Gary Glitter has now been sent to jail and will hopefully die there. Let's hope they don't put him in segregation (unlikely however)!

Edited February 28, 201510 yr by Funkysi

All very good points. You can hammer them but it's the consumer that will pay, so maybe financial punishment isn't the way forward. I just find it annoying that had this been a terrestrial event one that effected avian and mammalian life they would be crucified. Yet despite the fact that it will effect both longer term the public interest to prosecute and damn them isn't there due to the aquatic mature of the incident. The truth is if cod had fur there would be riots, but they don't so sod it....