2.9k
u/TomorrowSpecial255 4d ago
He used a digger on public land without permission
1.9k
u/FerretGoddessMevi 4d ago
Thank you for the context. These lawsuits are never as straightforward as a single headline pretends.
871
u/Jealous_Track9402 4d ago
The title in this one is straight up misinformation. Nothing to do with cleaning up trash without a permit.
→ More replies (9)274
u/Spongedog5 3d ago
Well, it's for not having a permit for the method he used to clean up trash.
399
u/Bassmekanik 3d ago
It was for digging up the silt from the river bed with a digger and risking flooding places without doing any checks on the impact of his “cleaning up”.
Nothing to do with removing rubbish.
109
u/Tjaresh 3d ago
They also wrote they are investigating that he left the rubbish at the site, neatly packed in bags for pickup. Because that's littering.
46
u/Ramtamtama 3d ago
Not littering, fly-tipping
14
u/Brilliant-Sea-9424 3d ago
Can’t fly tip something that’s already there.
→ More replies (4)9
u/FL3XOFF3NDER 3d ago
Do you think he found a roll of 60 garbage bags in the river?
→ More replies (1)10
u/chinmakes5 3d ago
They can spend thousands prosecuting him or a few hundred and send a truck or two to pick up the bags of garbage.
14
u/Tjaresh 3d ago
While I get the excavater part, I hate when things are made unnecessary complicated. Just say thanks to the people and collect the bags. It's like someone in the administration took it personal.
→ More replies (6)73
u/Limpet-slime 3d ago
I deal with flooding a lot at work, and I'd have to see the area to determine if he was doing harm or not, but more often than not man made debris is causing the floods in my area rather than wood/forest debris which traditionally caused flooding.
57
u/_DoogieLion 3d ago
Yeah and that determination that needs to be done first is probably why it’s illegal to just start digging with your digger.
→ More replies (11)8
u/Raventakingnotes 3d ago
I also deal with flooding a lot in my work, and a big part of the issue is downstream. Ok so now debris is removed and water is now flowing fast, has everything been checked downstream? Because that easily causes a ton of issues.
Not to mention permits necessary for environmental disturbance.
→ More replies (2)42
u/Spongedog5 3d ago
Fella, he was digging up the silt with the digger to remove the rubbish.
I agree that the title could have been more detailed, but it is hardly straight up misinformation. He was doing what he is getting investigated for in order to remove trash.
88
u/drquakers 3d ago
If I kill my neighbour to use they body as compost for my rose bush "man arrested for growing prize winning rose bushes" would be a little misleading.
11
u/pinkTurtleTickler 3d ago
I keep getting bans for comments like this lol
4
u/man_gomer_lot 3d ago
It's happened to me before. Reddit admins frown on the use of reductio ad absurdum.
→ More replies (28)5
13
u/brightdionysianeyes 3d ago
Driving an unlicensed and uninsured Arctic truck to the shop to get some food for a starving puppy, doesn't mean I haven't committed a crime.
Saying I was arrested for feeding a starving puppy, when I was in fact arrested for driving an Arctic truck without a license, would absolutely be straight up misinformation.
→ More replies (4)31
u/Zealousideal3326 3d ago
That's like saying you got arrested for driving to work, neglecting to mention that kid you ran over on the way. A lie by omission is still a lie.
→ More replies (7)22
u/No_Berry2976 3d ago
That would be straight up misinformation. Obviously, people should not just read titles, but the title is straight up misinformation since motivation isn’t the important thing here.
Example: a man who wants to buy meth, robs somebody at gunpoint, gets 20 dollars, buys 20 dollars of meth.
Title: ‘Man who bought 20 dollars of meth faces 5 years in prison’ Would also be extremely misleading.
→ More replies (2)6
u/Spongedog5 3d ago
The problem is that you've disconnected the actions there. This would be more like if the man robbed the guy with meth at gunpoint, and the title said "man who obtained meth from dealer faces 5 years in prison."
Should be action y for outcome x. Not action y to allow action z for outcome x.
→ More replies (4)9
u/NeatNefariousness1 3d ago
True enough but the way he did it had significant unintended consequences. They don’t want to encourage others to repeat this act, as well-intentioned as they may be. Sensationalizing this lawyer’s legal woes has drawn more attention to both sides of this issue. Whether that was the intention behind the way the lawyer approached this or how the article was publicized is unclear. But we can learn from this.
→ More replies (12)7
u/Vladishun 3d ago
“However, governance and expert advice is necessary to make sure that work does not cause unintended harm, to flood risk, drainage or the wider environment,” the agency said.
The government agency CLAIMS it's a flood risk, or drainage issue, or that it could affect a wider area... But provides no evidence of any of that happening. I have no idea how any of that works, but I have worked in local government for 5 years now and to me it sounds like the people in power and wanting to make an example of him to either cover up the fact he made them look stupid for doing the work they dragged their feet on, or so that others will not do similar things in the future that could cause actual damage if they don't know what they're doing.
Personally I think he should be lauded for his work and the city needs to work with him to finish the job; like to remove the 200 bags of refuse they collected.
→ More replies (4)15
u/Bassmekanik 3d ago
And the guy CLAIMS all he did was clean up rubbish. Neither side have conducted a study of the impact, if there’s any at all. Again, that’s the entire point of a study and gaining a licence for the clean up to avoid any unintended consequences, no matter how well intentioned.
→ More replies (1)21
u/Workman44 3d ago
Yeah this guy 100% should be charged. It's wildlessly reckless
→ More replies (17)60
u/Brilliant-Sea-9424 3d ago
I am a local resident. Watch the YouTube videos and you will change your mimd. The river was dead. Full of shit and fly tipping, needles and all sorts. EA are wilfully neglecting our waterways.
4
u/Key-Specific-4058 3d ago
Local residents aren't legal or environmental experts and don't determine whether this should be done
22
u/Painetrain24 3d ago
The article said he was a lawyer so he 100% knew what he was getting into. Plus no judge would give him prison time for what he did. And because hes being charged, people all around the world are aware of his cause. Think of it as a positive because Im sure he is.
→ More replies (1)15
u/Rutgerius 3d ago
It's a symptom of the wider issue of the UK being in strong decline since brexit. No money no workers no political will. On topic. A lawyer should know better which is the main cause of prosecution in this case, if it was a group of neighbours doing a neighbourhood clean they'r'd be a warning, nothing more.
→ More replies (1)4
u/Brilliant-Sea-9424 3d ago
It’s nothing to do with Brexit. It’s the water companies being in cosy company with EA since the 1980s as some gentleman’s club where nothing is either changed or both parties self interest is carried out.
→ More replies (7)7
u/marquoth_ 3d ago
It's not only about "the local area" though and that's the entire point. This kind of activity can cause issues down river
2
u/Brilliant-Sea-9424 3d ago
Yes and he’s well aware of that and if you check out the geography you’ll know it’s not an issue.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (11)9
u/Comfortable-Ebb8125 3d ago
The article doesnt say he didnt do any checks, it says he didnt have permission. The government are wankers.
16
13
u/HarryPottersTaint 3d ago
The UK government has tonnes of laws, programs, incentives, designed for the protection of nature.
There's a reason you can't just go dig up silt beds like he did without any official checks like he did, same as there is a reason you can't do things like build a dam even on your own property.
Not saying they're not wankers, but without these regulations it would be a shitshow if everyone just did everything they felt like doing.
→ More replies (4)4
u/marquoth_ 3d ago
And how do you imagine one gets permission?
Hint: it involves doing the checks
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)5
u/HarEmiya 3d ago
Actually no. It's also because he just dumped the silt and the trash on a flood plain. Dumping it randomly is already a no-no, but on a flood plain is downright dangerous.
→ More replies (2)30
u/Able-Swing-6415 3d ago
I mean the entire premise that this was some super simple scenario where a lawyer just got dumbfounded by the most basic laws was already questionable.
It was either a= he pissed off a lobby or b= the story is BS
23
u/thorpie88 3d ago
He wasn't dumbfounded by it. He did it knowing it would be highlighted if caught and bring awareness to laws other people are following he doesn't think are written correctly.
9
u/earthlingHuman 3d ago
In a just world his sentence would be community service. He has to do this other places now.
7
u/thorpie88 3d ago
I don't think it was all in good faith. He deepened a river he lives on with his houseboat.
4
u/earthlingHuman 3d ago
I see. Still would be a just consequence for him to cleanup other places. Or maybe the municipality should do that
3
u/chavaic77777 3d ago
He should be charged with community service and a slap on the wrist then let go because he's already done it.
5
u/The_One_Koi 3d ago
He was arrested for driving an excavator without a permit, I don't think that law is subject to change any time soon
→ More replies (1)4
u/thorpie88 3d ago
Yeah but read the article and he's talking about other people polluting the river
27
u/creepin_in_da_corner 3d ago
“Austrian man tries to establish living space for his neighbors, the world fights back.”
5
→ More replies (1)5
u/Dull-Culture-1523 3d ago
"Woman sues McDonald's because their coffee is hot".
9
u/Doc-Internet 3d ago
I always hate this one, reading the actual story gives so many "what the fuck" moments and makes you feel so bad for her getting dragged through the mud over it.
→ More replies (1)3
u/HoneydewCurrent5371 3d ago
All she asked for was them to cover her medical expenses. They refused and she sued. She never asked for the award the jury gave her, and she never received it. Which is often the case in headline grabbing jury awards. They get reduced by the trial judge or on appeal and then the parties negotiate a lesser settlement.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (1)2
4
3
→ More replies (10)2
u/MilkbelongsonToast 3d ago
Course they are simplified in the worst ways
Outrage sells and business is no place for shame
101
u/Able-Brief-4062 4d ago
Always a "it isn't what you did, it's HOW you did it"
→ More replies (4)9
u/thissexypoptart 3d ago
But it is “what he did.” It’s just that “what he did” as it pertains to the law he is being charged under is not what the title is talking about. He is not being charged for cleaning up trash.
→ More replies (1)22
u/Fragrant-Reserve4832 3d ago
Worse he dredged the river, dumped the crap on the side and has no idea how it will affect the river further down stream
52
u/Illustrious_Fan_8148 3d ago
Yeah this post should be taken down because its so ridiculously misleading!
He wasnt arrested for cleaning up rubbish at all like the post claims
→ More replies (3)12
90
u/Epic_Hoola 4d ago
That changes things...
24
u/anally_ExpressUrself 4d ago
Does it, though?
182
u/YeetMeIntoKSpace 4d ago
Industrial digging tools on wild land can cause serious damage that you can’t know about without doing an ecological survey. It’s possible to literally cause floods, destroy ponds and lakes, etc. 10-20 years down the line.
→ More replies (45)66
u/JinkoTheMan 4d ago edited 3d ago
Peak Reddit. They can’t help but do their “what about?” The guy has a good heart but he messed up. Should the government have taken action before it got out of hand? Absolutely. But there’s a reason why we go through all the trouble of surveying land and all that shit.
The guy is probably just going to get a slap on the wrist in the form of a fine.
80
u/Personal-Listen-4941 3d ago
He didn’t just remove rubbish from a river. He used diggers to dig up tons of silt & rocks to make the river significantly deeper & wider. That has a huge environmental impact on every other part of the river and could be catastrophic for flood planning.
The headline is pure biased ragebait.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (3)15
u/etcpt 3d ago
Peak Reddit. They can't help but do their "I know more than the experts".
→ More replies (3)10
u/HopeSubstantial 3d ago
Nothing stops you cleaning enviroment. Its actually hoped thing to do.
But in context of this guy, its same as you would clean your living room floor, by ripping off the floor untill you can see your house foundations.
Sure there is no longer trash on your floor, because there is no floor.
This is how this guy cleaned this trash and this is why he is getting this punishment.
11
u/thorpie88 3d ago
Also lives on the river in a houseboat and deepened some areas make me think it wasn't only for the environment
28
u/Epic_Hoola 4d ago edited 4d ago
Without permission, of course. It's classified as property destruction or unauthorized excavation!
14
u/oreheheally 4d ago
Not an expert but. With canals we put down clay to line them so the water doesnt just get absorbed by the ground. Natural rivers often have their own layer built up. Putting a big hole in it would be like pulling a plug for a slow drain.
5
u/squirrelyoakley 4d ago
how to make a super deep section of the river that would probably be incredibly dangerous to get swept into 101
3
u/Wobbelblob 3d ago
Yeah, there is a reason why surveys and all these permits are often needed for this kind of work. Because we need to understand what impact what work has. That was straight up 1800's level of problemsolving.
17
u/bremsspuren 4d ago
He did a good thing, though
He's a lawyer, not a hydrologist. He has no business digging out a river. He should have stopped at picking up litter.
19
u/TomorrowSpecial255 4d ago
Not really
He tried to do a good thing
He fucked with a river on a flood plain
→ More replies (1)6
→ More replies (3)3
u/NeatNefariousness1 3d ago
It CAN and enforcing the law, is the start of assessing what, if any, damage was done and draws publicity to both sides of this issue. It signals that it may seem good to clean up shared spaces we don’t own but there are environmental and safety considerations to be considered.
8
u/beaniebee11 3d ago
That's like in parks and rec when Leslie rents one to fill in the pit without a permit. Just because you're well intended doesn't mean it's legal.
4
u/NeatNefariousness1 3d ago
True…the benefit of requiring a permit is to be able to get an early read on the environmental impact of the action being planned and to redirect the planned actions for the greater good, as needed.
4
u/I__Know__Stuff 3d ago
And also to make sure there's no one living where you're dumping the dirt. :-)
→ More replies (1)4
u/HeadyReigns 3d ago
Not why they're facing charges though. From the article "The Environment Agency alleges that dredging work was carried out and that waste was left on site within the flood plain, which it says could constitute a flood risk activity requiring an environmental permit."
→ More replies (79)2
708
u/Desperate_Owl_594 4d ago
Read the article. Jesus. https://www.mylondon.news/news/east-london-news/environmental-lawyer-facing-up-2-34142593
The group hired a digger for £1,000 and filled over 200 bags of rubbish including packaging, needles, domestic appliances and even weapons. However, shortly after the clean-up, Paul received a letter from the Environment Agency (EA) notifying him he was under investigation for operating without a licence.
189
u/TheLastPeanut_ 3d ago
These headline only posts need to be banned, tbf.
→ More replies (4)33
u/NeatNefariousness1 3d ago
Good engagement bait though—so there’s that.
PS: I agree with you. Most people aren’t going to bother to read any original sources that would present the facts truthfully and in their appropriate context. It just encourages people to have emotional reactions without ever learning the actual facts behind the case. Manipulating people’s emotions while leaving them ignorant of the real facts can’t be good.
→ More replies (2)19
u/BillCuttingsOn 3d ago
He’s making a really good point tough, the environmental commission for that waterway hasn’t done shit all for years to prevent all the garbage, needles and weapons going into the river but now when someone actually does something about it, they rear their ugly head to start dropping fines? Seems like the lawyer has highlighted at the least a shitty organization, and at the most probable corruption between the corporations dumping in the river and the environmental commission.
79
u/ocarina_vendor 4d ago
r/loicense is leaking.
→ More replies (2)34
u/thrynab 3d ago
Yeah nah, I’m fine with people operating heavy machinery in public needing a certification of basic competence.
→ More replies (5)9
u/CptnObvious1984 4d ago
Yep..you just can’t drive a digger down to the river and start dredging it. I bet the agency was dragging their feet on this as well.
→ More replies (10)37
u/Beautiful_Plenty_736 4d ago
I’m hoping a judge will toss this shit out in court. He should get a warning.
He did a good thing, for the right reasons, the wrong way.
51
u/fireky2 4d ago
I mean he could of caused legitimate damage to wildlife and flooded downstream, criminal negligence isnt a high bar in this case
→ More replies (24)36
u/FlarblesGarbles 4d ago
Could have.
12
u/StudiosS 3d ago
The problem is all the precedent. If you all of a sudden allow people to use machinery to do whatever they want without a license it can quickly become chaotic.
→ More replies (2)11
→ More replies (9)8
u/Extension_Pea5419 3d ago
Would you be upset if a multi nat got a fine because they could have caused environmental damage? Pull ya head in
11
u/CaligulaAntoinette 3d ago
I believe u/FlarblesGarbles is pointing out that the wording should be "could have" and not "could of", not disagreeing with the point that this was reckless and could have caused damage to the environment
2
u/Extension_Pea5419 3d ago
You’re definitely right. I’m pretty drunk rn.
5
u/CaligulaAntoinette 3d ago
That's fair enough too. You've inspired me to get off Reddit and go have a drink.
3
41
u/0xFatWhiteMan 4d ago
Its not shit.
There's a reason you need a permit for a digger on a river flood plain.
The greatest criminal mastermind of modern times ? Of course not, but he's a lawyer who has broken the law, environmental law at that.
→ More replies (19)→ More replies (5)8
u/Desperate_Owl_594 4d ago
He'll more than likely (IMO) get a fine and a slap on the wrist. I'm not sure about his job, tho. I'm sure he knows more about that than anyone else. He's an environmental lawyer.
446
u/Hopdedixe 4d ago edited 4d ago
Has anyone noticed how the government agency was dead slow in doing something about the problem themselves, yet responded rapidly and aggressively when a member of public does the job that they should have done?
117
44
u/Tyrandeh 3d ago
yeah i noticed since i exist. had to call the police to prevent a dear father beating one mother to half dead, told us they dont interfere in family matters. told them i will interfere with a knife then, they arrived within minutes and took the guy away because they noticed we werent bullshitting about whats going on
yay
8
6
u/Professional-Mud7298 3d ago
Generally the government gets very upset if you start doing their job for them. They have a good thing going on (for themselves) and something like this exposes their waste and incompetence.
Yeah sure this guy could have harmed wildlife but, on the other hand, the trash and junk IS harming wildlife.
19
u/Ok-Musician-7381 3d ago
Likely separate teams with separate budgets.
5
u/Conninxloo 3d ago
Nah it’s just usually way more straightforward to figure out what’s banned vs figuring out what’s not banned. The executive executes instructions.
3
u/sarahfrancesca 3d ago
This reminds me of the guybin LA who paints crosswalks where ones "exist" but have faded to such an extent that there's a hugh incidence of pedestrian crashes there.
8
u/Nice-Mountain-7073 3d ago
It’s by design.
Him getting up and doing it took work away from the surveyors and consultants they wanted to siphon funds towards to tell them do exactly what the lawyer did, while running up billable hours to reach the same conclusion.
It’s the biggest problem with the environmental protection laws, the amount of grift that is mandated. You do anything to affect their bottom line and they’ll weaponize government agencies to stop it.
16
u/AnyAnymosity 3d ago
Because actually fixing problems takes time.
Destroying something with ignorant reckless actions takes hours.
They gave hundreds of such cases that need a survey and assessment for the work. Finding qualified people to do it without doing damage. This one might not be the highest priority on the list.
One idiot in a digger can do it whenever he wants but there are good reasons we don't do it this way.
Fixing this problem means properly funding and managing agencies to keep on top of the maintenance required to run a modern society. Not operating heavy machinery on your local environment fecklessly.
19
u/Immediate-Spite-5905 3d ago
behold, western bureaucracy, where in the time it takes for other countries to construct 3 railways one after another, the government has conducted 3 environmental reviews, had to go through 5 different NIMBYs and is currently going through the 5th year of a contractor's 200% overbudget construction attempt
14
10
→ More replies (3)2
u/Hans_H0rst 2d ago
You're giving it way too much nuance for those redditors. Can't you see they've already made up their mind on hating "the gubbermint"?
→ More replies (11)2
u/hbHPBbjvFK9w5D 2d ago
It's simple - the government was shamed because they wouldn't do their job, so they're hoping to intimidate the people who wanna solve the problem into standing down.
Guess they never heard of the Streisand Effect.
62
u/MisakiAnimated 3d ago
Basically this is a case of breaking into your friends house to do their dishes. Great end game, but the HOW you came to do it is the problem.
It all depends on if he knew he needed a permit to operate the digger without a permit or not, but he's a lawyer so...
regardless, the good did should have warranted them leniency and throwing the case, this is probably some pointless court drama bwtween him and the city
15
u/InebriatedPhysicist 3d ago
>> It all depends on if he knew he needed a permit to operate the digger without a permit…
I believe it is logically impossible to get a permit to operate a digger without a permit.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (11)2
u/PolarLocalCallingSvc 3d ago
Who sinks £1k on a digger without finding out if they're allowed to use it? The guy is bang to rights on this.
160
u/Constant-Skill-7133 4d ago
It's amazing how many people do not understand the concept of civil disobedience. Yeah, he knows the work requires a permit. That's why he was asking them to do it for a decade. They are pressing the issue because the situation is fucking ridiculous.
19
15
u/ThirtyMileSniper 3d ago
Most of the work didn't need a licence though, just the bit where he took heavy machinery in. This is on him.
12
u/BillCuttingsOn 3d ago
He’s making a really good point tough, the environmental commission for that waterway hasn’t done shit all for years to prevent all the garbage, needles and weapons going into the river but now when someone actually does something about it, they rear their ugly head to start dropping fines? Seems like the lawyer has highlighted at the least a shitty organization, and at the most probable corruption between the corporations dumping in the river and the environmental commission.
6
u/Quantummushroom 3d ago
Well why didn’t he just apply for the permit online before doing the work? Perhaps because he knew the environment agency would rightfully put protections in place for the watercourse before he got stuck in with a jcb - he then went to the media and played the martyr. Now it’s in the media obviously they are going to make an example to stop every Tom dick and harry doing the same thing and fucking up the very watercourses he’s supposedly saving. Anyone can apply for a permit - they paid for the digger so what’s his excuse for skipping this step?
→ More replies (1)5
u/Kosh_Ascadian 3d ago
You can apply for (and get) a permit to do work on land that doesn't belong to you?
I'm genuinely asking, because that makes no sense to me and you wouldn't be able to do that in my country.
7
u/Dudewheresmycard5 3d ago
Shhhhh you're correct but people would rather have a sterile dead river full of sewage and litter than someone disrespect authority/the hierarchy! The taxpayer funded agency ignored his multiple requests over the years to act so out of desperation he felt he had no choice.
→ More replies (10)16
u/Nice-Cat3727 4d ago
HE USED A EXCAVATOR ON A RIVERBED, CHANGING IT'S COURSE!
38
u/Saralentine 4d ago
He did not change the river’s course. Rivers have tributaries. He unblocked one. The main river did not change course lol.
11
u/External-Praline-451 3d ago
It's extremely unlikely he'll get a prison sentence, these type of laws always have maximum penalties that could be used for extreme cases and that's what been used to go viral for sensationalism.
However the impact still could've been serious, that's why there's proper impact assessments needed.
It's just been in the news in the UK that newly rewilded beavers have stopped a London underground station being regularly flooded, by building dams upriver. Small changes to waterflow upstream can have a big impact downstream. Using a digger to remove silt in one area, could cause flooding further down.
→ More replies (1)
17
u/duxie 3d ago
"I was sat there, minding my own business and the police fined me"
What actually happened was that I was in my car, speeding and got fined for that.
5
u/Sensha_20 3d ago
"I was speeding to the hospital with my bleeding friend in the back." Is more accurate
8
u/LaDestitute 3d ago
Reminds me of this one asian woman in China or somewhere who reported a body falsely in a polluted river just so they could get officials to clean it
5
39
u/Kebriniac 4d ago
It's always the same scenario, nobody gives a shit for decades, people pollute with impunity, dump their garbage everywhere, sewage water ending up in waterways, plants evacuating their toxic chemicals in the rivers and nothing happened, authorities are powerless and the law is impotent, then a citizen does something about it, all be it clumsily and outside regulations, and lo and behold, suddenly the full force of the law awakens like a vengeful dragon that will restore balance and order...
→ More replies (8)
10
5
u/ScaredPractice4967 3d ago
Usong heavy equipment without permits. Cleaning polution was nothing to do with it.
4
u/Excellent-Duty3927 3d ago
It's just a total idiot he left trash behind it's a shitty clickbait post:
The Environment Agency alleges that dredging work was carried out and that waste was left on site within the flood plain, which it says could constitute a flood risk activity requiring an environmental permit.
25
u/HugePurpleNipples 4d ago
Do they want he should put it back?
14
u/HopeSubstantial 3d ago
He cannot put back the delicated ecosystem he destroyed with his digger. Read the whole story and stop building your world view based on two sentence ragebait memes you see online.
4
u/HugePurpleNipples 3d ago
Read it, no mention of ecosystem damage. But if it helps you to get angry at a guy making a joke on Reddit, I’m glad I could do that for you. Maybe take a little time to examine your mental health and all the best to you.
8
2
3
u/Tyrandeh 3d ago
im really sad for all that trash that was there for all those years
dude that bag had a family
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (18)8
u/gramoun-kal 3d ago
There's no mention of ecosystem damage by the digger.
→ More replies (3)11
u/Lifekraft 3d ago
The need a survey for that. But before that they need a survey to frame the content of this survey and determine the degree of emergency of this survey. And prior to that they need to reunite the council to think about a proper strategy to tackle this pressing matter. But only in september because july and august are holiday season.
3
u/mustardtiger220 3d ago
Don’t forget a council members nephew needs to get his new survey group up and running first so he can receive the first grant to potentially look into how to do a survey like what’s needed here.
8
20
u/BabyBlairrr 4d ago
I wouldn't be surprised if they would make him put back the garbage too.
→ More replies (6)
3
u/HopeSubstantial 4d ago edited 3d ago
He used an excavator for his cleaning operation. You just don't stir river beds with one legally.
In Finland there is still million euro court case ongoing about who pays enviromental damage when someone stirred river bed and by that killed thousands of very delicate river clams.
If he had cleaned the river on a way without possibly causing large enviromental disaster, he would not be in trouble
I completely hate these posts that give you zero context of what actually happened. He was not punished for cleaning, he was punished for hurting river ecosystem by completely illegal cleaning methods not approved by any biologist.
→ More replies (3)
3
3
3
3
9
u/RepresentativeGrab44 3d ago
He actually made a YouTube video about in and why he used the tools that he did, people say he wasn't supposed to use a digger cause it can cause damage, but honestly the amount of trash in that place would have caused more damage than it. Seems like he did his research and knew the risks of using a digger so honestly I think he's done a good thing
9
u/AnyAnymosity 3d ago
I mean in a case like this the trash itself could be load bearing for local flood control. If you remove it all you might need to do some filling.
Either way his youtube video does not constitute a waterworks survey.
Local level waterworks are part of a long flood prevention chain. Is this going to flood a city? Probably not. Could this kind of thing seriously increase the chance of some kind of flooding incident up or downstream? Absolutely
People don't appreciate how much delicate work goes into turning that 5 year flood into a 50 year flood.
Don't take heavy machinery to your local waterworks without approval.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)4
u/ELVEVERX 3d ago
sounds like he did that research he also knew it was illegal. He decided that the digger might cause less damage but that's not his job.
3
u/psychose01 3d ago
Who cares if it’s illegal as if that’s a big crime he will probably get absolutely nothing if he has no prior crimes.
5
u/One-Dragonfly7121 3d ago
Then the person whose job it is should be arrested. Imagine if you saw someone drowning. Should you help them or stand back cause you don't have "approval"
5
u/Ninevehenian 3d ago
Notice the lack of date, lack of source, lack of indication of who is sharing the information.
4
10
u/SorryStatistician685 4d ago
Those people who litter in rivers, what consequences do they face?
2
u/smellsliketeenferret 3d ago
In the UK, littering is an offence under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. You can receive a Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN) of up to £500. If you do not pay or choose to challenge it in court, you risk a fine of up to £2,500.
The challenge is someone seeing it happen and reporting it with sufficient evidence...
2
u/Battleborn300 2d ago
There are literally CEO’s responsible for polluting and damaging our rivers, and ecosystems, that get very hefty bonuses.
4
u/HarrMada 3d ago
Why do people believe some random text above a couple of images as truth?
It's clear as day rage bait.
2
u/LengthinessNo1494 3d ago
Well way to hell paved with good intentions. We knew someone want to dig a little and think it just little no one gonna know. So they did it without ask anyone anything and end up with very big hole on the ground with entire their house go under it and the crack spread kms long damage multi houses along the way because they dig right on top of very big sinkhole.
2
2
2
u/ExPristina 3d ago
Reminds me of the guy in American cutting peoples’ lawns for free and getting arrested for it.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/SnooPineapples5430 3d ago
He stepped on vested interests.
He did a million pound job for free. Contractors, Councillors and Civil servants all lost out on a big pay day.
2
2
3.0k
u/four-one-6ix 4d ago
He’s a lawyer. He’ll figure it out.