Water Disgrace

Avatar Image
Canary42 | 12:56 Tue 26th Oct 2021 | News
14 Answers
I see that last week Boris bullied his Party into voting against compelling the (Privatised and Foreign-owned) Water Companies to treat raw sewage before pumping it into the sea around our lovely shores.

Taking back Control !

Trust a Tory to drop us in the ship [typo]


1 to 14 of 14rss feed

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by Canary42. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
There's more to this than you're letting on, Canary. Perhaps that's why you didn't post a link.
Is there a link? Where is this raw sewage being dumped?
Its acomplex problem. Thered no way to enforce it as its storm overflow pipes not delibrate large scale dumping which is already illegal. Yes we need to tackle it but it needs a proper plan and decision as to how to fund the massive cost of overhaulling are sewer system over 10-20 years. The last thing we need is water bills doubling to pay for something thats not workable yet.
water should have never been privatised.
//water should have never been privatised.//

No it shouldn't - but that doesn't mean the systems would be any better under state control.
well, here's a brief clip of a seven-foot pippe releasing untreated sewage into a Hampshire harbour for 49 hours.

Apparently it's a shi, a site of special scientific interest. Of course it will cost money to sort out, and maybe shareholdeers will have to accept a cut in their dividends as a reward for having profited from this outflow. Tough.
-- answer removed --
it's the storm overflows, that's what;s always happened. It's a huge undertaking to completely stop it. Perhaps we should divert them to jno and canary's houses.
Conservative, Julie Marson, who voted against the amendment, said "there is a lot of misinformation floating about" on the issue and while the proposal itself was "sound", its "fundamental flaw" was that it "had no plan as to how this can be delivered and no impact assessment whatsoever".

She wrote: "The preliminary cost of the required infrastructure change was estimated to be between £150bn and £650bn.

"Unless we asked taxpayers to contribute, most of the water companies who would be carrying out this work would go bankrupt, meaning the work could not be completed anyway.

"The cost works out at between about £5,000 and £20,000 per household.

"I felt it would be unfair to sting local people with a bill of this size."


Like many other people here, no doubt, I'd like to see our rivers cleaned up but I can't see that legislation which would force every household to pay vastly more for their water bills (or force the government to increase taxes substantially, in order to find the hundreds of billions of pound necessary to keep water companies afloat if they're not allowed to raise their bills) is the way to do it.
Anybody thought of cancelling that damned railway and diverting the funds to drains an' that?
if they cancel the railway, they'll just spend the money on motorways with no hard shoulders.

1 to 14 of 14rss feed

Do you know the answer?

Water Disgrace

Answer Question >>