11-07-2021, 08:45 PM
21
Re: Destruction of our chalk streams …
Originally Posted by Baz46
->
A £90 million fine after a water company was prosecuted for pollution had to be paid out of the company's operating profits."Southern Water has today (Friday 9 July) been handed a record £90 million fine after pleading guilty to thousands of illegal discharges of sewage which polluted rivers and coastal waters in Kent, Hampshire and Sussex."
The Environment Agency’s successful prosecution secured the largest fine for environmental pollution by a water company to date, which will be paid out of company operating profits – protecting customers from having to pick up the tab for illegal pollution."
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/r...ea-prosecution
11-07-2021, 09:01 PM
22
Re: Destruction of our chalk streams …
Originally Posted by The Artful Todger
->
Means nothing. The reality is that a sharp account would ensure that within 2 to 3 years max this could be "washed". There is always a way.
11-07-2021, 09:16 PM
23
Re: Destruction of our chalk streams …
Originally Posted by Baz46
->
Yes, there probably is. However, once this is known to happen it should be treated like those who are now forced to pay back the proceeds of their crimes. Directors should pay out of their personal assets and if they refused then an act, similar to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, should be introduced and used to ensure payments are made. If the Courts, HMRC and police were to be involved this would happen, as I believe it should.
Much better would be to sanction licenses and contracts. Very much easier to do, less /no damage to the business environment, no resultant impact on the customer base, just progressive choking off what the at fault company needs in order to trade leaving them free to continue to trade but with an enforced close down suspended for a period depending on the nature and extent of their misconduct.
11-07-2021, 09:53 PM
24
Re: Destruction of our chalk streams …
Originally Posted by The Artful Todger
->
Wouldn't happen. Dividends are a sweetener, it's the share price that counts. In any case the customer ALWAYS pays the fine.
11-07-2021, 09:57 PM
25
Re: Destruction of our chalk streams …
Originally Posted by Ripple
->
Well we all know that …my comment was what I’d rather see happen
12-07-2021, 09:36 AM
26
Re: Destruction of our chalk streams …
Originally Posted by The Artful Todger
->
There would have to be massive and extensive changes to UK law to even get started down the road to enable such laws to be introduced. Before even then capital would have fled this country across the board.Much better would be to sanction licenses and contracts. Very much easier to do, less /no damage to the business environment, no resultant impact on the customer base, just progressive choking off what the at fault company needs in order to trade leaving them free to continue to trade but with an enforced close down suspended for a period depending on the nature and extent of their misconduct.
"The case, which is the largest criminal investigation in the Environment Agency’s 25-year history, saw pollution offences from 16 waste water treatment works and one storm overflow brought together in one prosecution at Canterbury Crown Court."
From this it was a criminal investigation so perhaps there would not need to be any new law so that directors should pay from their personal assets, it was a crime and the verdict was in a Crown Court. Maybe the judge could have ordered that? I am not a lawyer and knowing nothing about the law I cannot say. Had this been possible though, I feel sure that directors having to lose their personal assets would have been far more effective than the fine being paid as ordered.
What you write in your post about sanctioning contracts and licenses might well prevent further offences of this nature, it would be far easier as you comment. Not sure about an enforced close down though, it is after all a water company and as such provides a life-giving necessity to customers?
12-07-2021, 11:48 AM
27
Re: Destruction of our chalk streams …
Originally Posted by Baz46
->
On reading again the report about this, one paragraph stated the following:"The case, which is the largest criminal investigation in the Environment Agency’s 25-year history, saw pollution offences from 16 waste water treatment works and one storm overflow brought together in one prosecution at Canterbury Crown Court."
From this it was a criminal investigation so perhaps there would not need to be any new law so that directors should pay from their personal assets, it was a crime and the verdict was in a Crown Court. Maybe the judge could have ordered that? I am not a lawyer and knowing nothing about the law I cannot say. Had this been possible though, I feel sure that directors having to lose their personal assets wouldut have been far more effective than the fine being paid as ordered.
What you write in your post about sanctioning contracts and licenses might well prevent further offences of this nature, it would be far easier as you comment. Not sure about an enforced close down though, it is after all a water company and as such provides a life-giving necessity to customers?
I agree with all you say BAZ, But getting lawyers Jane judges involved
is not going to change anything imo , as they only apply the laws
that parliament makes, and parliament often makes laws to suit
businesses that pressure them with lobby groups and incentives
etc! That's why we have all these instances of corporate misbehaviour! Grenfell tower is just one such instance !!
And the plundering of national assets such as our water boards
is another !!
Privatisation. does not work in the long term due to the greed of
certain smart Alec businessmen that predate on government
contracts ?
Imo essential services should not be run privately at all !!
Donkeyman! 👎👎👎
|
|
