you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 59 points 1 month ago (3 children)

To further clarify: the transgression, according to the Guardian, wasn't just removing waste, but the fact that "Powesland [...] organised a team of volunteers to tackle the removal of litter, weed and silt from a section of the River Roding", and they collectively "removed 200 bags of rubbish, branches and silt", which goes beyond just picking up trash.

The EA [Environmental Agency] alleges dredging has been carried out and waste has been left on site within the flood plain, constituting a flood risk activity under the regulations that would have required an environmental permit.

Dredging is the act of removing material from the water environment, here presumably from the riverbed, which is a tad more involved than just picking up pieces of trash and might have ecological knock-on effects. I find it perfectly justified that the Environmental Agency would want to be involved in the decision to take such steps.

The only real scandal is this guy having petitioned the Agency about the trash problem for years without success. That they'd now get pissed when someone takes the matter into his own hands is understandable, but might just be the only way to get them to care about the issue.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 29 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 child)

    I just watched a YouTube video showing them working. I was fine with it when they were just a group picking up litter. Then they brought in a backhoe and started digging.

    https://youtu.be/Kj9Hvdzu_zw

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 1 month ago

    Yeah, that's where you go from helpful volunteers to reckless vigilantes. Shame that they couldn't leave it at cleaning up.

    Also, shame that these articles bury the lede of "dug up the riverbed" for the sake of outrage.

    And of course, shame that it came to this at all.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 24 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    Removing silt can be pretty bad in some cases, heavy metals sink to the bottom and will not cause problems if left undisturbed, if you start removing silt you will make those pollutants bioavailable again.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    I wasn't aware of that. I suspect the guy in question didn't either. That's why experts should make those decisions who do know that stuff.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    Do you think the government environmental agency is trustworthy? You do realize the neoliberals are in bed with big money.

    There is zero fucking chance of "experts" working in the public interest at the EA. 0%.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 month ago

    You don't have to work for a three letter agency to be an expert. I guarantee you that if they took the time to consult anyone remotely connected to ecological science they would have said no to hacking up the river bed without a proper survey and sampling.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    I mean, the agency did drag its feet until the guy got pissed enough to do something irresponsible. Doesn't excuse his actions, nor does it make him an expert either.

    If he had an expert advising him on this course of action, cool. The articles don't seem to mention it, and the articles prey on outrage, so saying "he even had an expert telling him to do so!" would have been worth a note.

    So if you're right, we've got two bunches of idiots; one negligent in their inaction, the other reckless in their action.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    You might be right, but in the grand scehme of things, allowing sewage plants, that combine industrial waste with sewage, to dump in the rivers without consequence, while prosecuting this guy, rubs many of us the wrong way.

    Only regular people get the shaft, not big money, that's why this outrage is here.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago

    For sure, the priorities are screwed. I initially just wanted to point out that it's not "guy picks up trash, gets punished for it" but "guy assembles a group to dig up riverbed". If we're gonna be pissed (and we should be), let's be pissed accurately and for the right reasons. Let's be pissed that the EA is doing jack squat about problems. Let's be pissed that so many agencies have been defanged and staffed with industrial bootlicks to the point of wilful incompetence.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 1 month ago

    Even removing the branches and larger tree limbs can cause issues with removing habitat for aquatic critters and changes the currents and flow of the river.

    Cleaning the trash by hand and hauling it away is one thing. They went beyond that.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    Careful now, you are going to harsh the righteous indignation with your facts and context.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments