More pollution= fish kills

Status
Not open for further replies.

Trogg

the bouncer
Staff member
Site Supporter
Joined
Aug 11, 2001
Messages
27,726
Hi All

Take a look at the following link

The Linconshire river Slea has suffered a massive fish kill after something "more deadly than a gallon of paint thinners" has got into the water.

Pike, Dace, Roach, Eels & Trout Have all suffered from this incident.

Lets hope they catch those responcible & sue then to the maximum.



Alan

Datafile3.gif
Just cos i ain't postin, it don't mean i ain't watchin
 
Last edited:

mookie

mookie
Joined
Jan 22, 2002
Messages
701
[:D][:D][:D]

Firstly Al many thanks for your congrats mate......well another disaster due to someone or some firm doing the cheap way of getting rid of unwanted rubbish...[:(!][:(!]

We all know what will happen, a swift slap on the wrists and < dont do it again >....[V][V]...

When will the EA and the courts get the rights to heavier fines even jail terms for the more serious offences...and offenders..[^][^]
Instead of poxy 1 to 2 grand fines for a large firm....

Cheers mate....tightlines wherever and whenever you may roam...[^]

MOOKSTER....[^][^][^]
 

Trogg

the bouncer
Staff member
Site Supporter
Joined
Aug 11, 2001
Messages
27,726
The EA get very little from prosecuting polluters mate.

The courts decide the level of fine etc & most of that goes to.....................yep the government coffers [:(]


Alan


Just cos i ain't postin, it don't mean i ain't watchin
 

Lid

Regular member
Joined
Nov 4, 2002
Messages
2,140
Whoever was responsible should be fined at least 50k. More if they are a big concern. Only then might all the polluters of our heritage actually sit up and take notice!!

Lid [:)]
 
Last edited:

Apache

Regular member
Joined
Dec 11, 2002
Messages
1,611
After reading the same article from Anglersnet, the general consensus there is:
-Any fine handed down will be pathetically small,
-The fine will not reflect the level of compensation and punishment needed,
-It's simply not good enough.

And unhappily I have to agree with those points too.[:(!][:(!]

:) Apache :)
http://www.heathlandsanglingclub.8m.com
http://www.heathlandsanglingclub.8m.com/images/clevr_leather-m2.jpg
 

russjo

Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2002
Messages
27
Trogg

I work for the Agency and its my job to investigate incidents of this nature. Its important not to confuse the Agencys role in bringing a successful prosecution with the level of fines handed out. That is down to the magistrates on the day. The max is 20,000. A good solicitor can make all the difference and firms can plead guilty and do a long and heartfelt mitigation. Cos they go guilty, we have to sit and listen.
We have to apply for our costs in investigating and we quite often dont even get those back.
If this is a cat 1 incident then that is the most serious and i am sure my colleagues in that area are treating it as such.
Regards
Russ
 

chub

Active member
Joined
Jan 23, 2003
Messages
97
i think that the
is responible for this fish kill should be made to pay the full cost of restocking this river and if that means the go bust then they only have themselves to blame .

i love catching chub
 

TINY

Tiny
Joined
Jan 11, 2003
Messages
1,430
I did hear of a company who had to pay for restocking a stretch of river,cleaning and plantlife.Then they had to pay out the same again in fines,administration and costs.
That was a costly little (mishap),I think that was the word they used.
It would have been better to make them pay for a stocking plan for the stretch for the next 5-10 years.

Andy.
 

Trogg

the bouncer
Staff member
Site Supporter
Joined
Aug 11, 2001
Messages
27,726
Russ

I have always been very supportive of the Ea & what they do, hell just take a look at some of the flack i've taken on here for it.

I have always been pi...erm upset at the fact the EA do the work, spend money & time on cases & then the only people who benefit from it are the govement [:(]

Even the pathetic fines licence dodgers are given is sent straight to the goverment coffers to help them pay for their first class flights around the world, the fuel for their two jags & all number of other little "perks" they get while serving the public (well ok they seem to forget they're serving us).


Alan


Just cos i ain't postin, it don't mean i ain't watchin
 

russjo

Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2002
Messages
27
Trogg

To be honest, we hope more to get all our costs back. All investigating time, pollution clean up, fisheries work including restocking etc and all staff involvement is included. However, it is down to the court to say who pays what. We make our application and hope. The total can be a small fortune. Courts usually take this into account when settting any fines! We can recover our costs of dealing with incidents from polluters even if no prosecution is taken. Polluter pays principal. Of course, if we lose, we can end up paying the defendants costs.
I hope the incident to which you refer has a happy outcome.

Regards
Russ
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top