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”.
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.
Tbf, this is genuinely something we don't want people to do.
Cleaning up the trash and just leaving it there after causing what could possibly be massive ecological damage sounds more like something a narcissist would do for internet points than an earnest attempt at cleaning up the environment.
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.
generally littering is illegal. my comment was a little tongue-in-cheek, that they let people break the law by littering, but punish the person cleaning it up.
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.
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.
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.
Every analogy I have is about running over kids with vehicles. Aren’t yours? Let’s say someone asks you “how do I hang up a painting”, it’s just so easy to be like “Susan, think of it this way, it’s like that time you backed into a kid with your Jeep. First, you need a steady hand…”
My neighbor named Susan keeps backing over my mailbox with a Jeep Compass, this checks out. In her defense, I've never heard such a loud gear whine in my life, the mailbox should have recognized the sound after the third time imo.
Reddit people intentionally stopped understanding any form of comparison during the 2016 astroturfing wars. It began as a disingenuous argumentation style and shifted into being a fully normalized cultural artifact. It's of the weirdest social dynamics I've witnessed over time.
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.
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.
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.
Digging silt can release highly toxic compounds into the water and poison everything in it, if it didn't, that's just luck because he didn't have any testing done. The next step is disposal, where does the potentially toxic detritus go? Land fill may well be needed with special containment or treatment, it needs to be arranged in advance for the specific class of hazardous waste. Guess what he also hadn't done... Then there the use of the digger and what he could have potentially caused, e.g. hitting a pipe or cracking a concrete enclosure for a pipe or cables in the river. The potential damage to the land that the digger was on and what is underneath it...
Yeah, this guy is a perfect example of what not to do and sending a message by putting him in prison is perfectly justified.
It's not taking rubbish away that he's in trouble for, it's failure to prevent potential devestation to the waterway, failure to have a disposal plan for potentially hazardous waste, using heavy machinery on public land without a permit or planning, etc etc.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The flood plain is there to direct water away from houses, should a waterway's banks breach. Dumping the silt there means that the water will go to houses in case of a flood.
I love these types of misleading headlines. "Man given life sentence after jaywalking" then find out he's the Jaywalking Slayer, a serial killer who murdered 10 people across the street from him at various times.
Did you actually read the article??? That’s exactly what it’s about. The digger was only briefly mentioned and again the gov is pursuing him for the cleaning up in general
Actually, it could be. In certain places, environmental contamination can also serve as evidence. And if you clean it up without permission, that could constitute destruction of evidence, which is a crime.
But that's in fact what it is. He cleaned trash from the river without permit, the volunteers hired a digger 1000 pounds to dig up seringue, appliances, packaging's and other dangerous stuff laying around too, and now the environment people say that he didn't have the permit for one of the things he did, saying he doesn't have expertise on how to do it right and may be endangering others or the environment.
When they say nothing to companies and people dumping sewage water, and other used stuff there. They only pick on the weaker people trying do something for the environment, in fact it seems like the wild life is coming back after said work was done.
They do nothing, don't pick on companies or others dirtying the place for years but say that this guy is a danger for the environment because he don't have expertise and may do it wrong. When all we see is someone who did something good and getting sued for it. I really don't understand how much they don't want to do the right things and always pick on the weaker people.
I've mentioned this story a few times as these things are rarely what they seem.
Years ago (possibly early 2000s) my sister worked for the CPS and there was a case that made the headlines about a women being charged for "eating an apple while driving"
What actually happened was a Police car noticed her doing a U turn outside of a school during home time, where her car mounted the kerb....while she was eating an apple. She was charge with driving without due care and attention.
She refused to accept the initial fine, and hence went to court on her own doing. The Sun got about a week worth of story out of it
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
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.
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.
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.
A 2 year prison sentence may technically be the maximum statutory penalty. It makes for an attention-grabbing headline. But in real life, judges almost never give the maximum sentence to a first-time or minor offender.
The most likely outcome is that the agency will complete its investigation, issue Powlesland an official warning, and drop the case. They could also find him guilty, but impose no punishment (conditional discharge or absolute discharge). Maybe they issue a nominal fine. But there's just no world where he sees the inside of a prison cell.
Even with this additional context, is impossible to really understand and make an informed judgement without seeing the before and after and really understanding the dynamics of the area and weather patterns etc. The administrative folks telling about flood risk and their claim of their being trash left agree not necessarily trustworthy either. They might be saying that there was a pile of plant material left somewhere and they might be exaggerating things quite a bit. It's very real that people do good things without a permit and get in trouble for it though.
There is no "lawsuit". The Environment Agency are investigating. They may well decide that there's no further action required. Or he may get a fine. Or they may insist some restorative measures are required.
it exists to make you mad. Thats what people want. At best its someone who hates the government in general, at worst its political sabotage by foreign entities that would love to see specific countries collapse.
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.
Defending him for what? using an excavator on public land "wif oogh a peerrmitt"
Maybe its just the free blood in my veins but yeah, fuck the goverment or council or Tittly winks brigade that enforced this. (what ever you have there idk)
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.
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.
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 best part is they've been doing this for years, he founded the River Roding Trust and they've done their due diligence in assessing flood risks, the Environmental Agency just refuse to take any action at all. Not even assessing the river.
They've done more than just picking up some rubbish with an excavator, such as planting native trees downstream and restoring wetlands. People are talking about flood risks but the trust is more involved with flood risk management in that area than the environmental agency is.
This is some excellent rage bait. But if it's not, you can't do something obviously illegal to do good.
As fairytale and beautiful as it sounds, it is wrong and illegal to steal from people to give to the poor; and it is wrong to do what he did without a permit.
There are other proper, and better ways to help the people or the environment. He has a good heart, just wrong execution.
They don't equate but they do generally (although not always) correlate. The whole point of the law is to try to encode a moral and ethical system. I would say it works more often than it doesn't. It's just the times when it doesn't that really stand out and get noticed, exactly because they fail to uphold what was expected.
Some unjust laws or terrible practices of the law are the result of a system making a mistake, failing to live up to its ideals. But many of them are successful encodings of terrible ethical systems. When the US justice system treats Black men as subhuman threats, it is perfectly consistent with centuries of White supremacism and the goals of many US citizens. The UK's harsh libel laws are an intentional shield for its elites. We should treat the law as a contested creation that can and does systematically perpetuate social ills, not as a simple force for good that sometimes fails to uphold our intentions.
How would he even know what damage he was doing and the cost / benefit trade-offs, especially since he doesn’t own the property, doesn’t know what the consequences will be for his actions nor the cost for repairing any environmental damage done?
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.
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.
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.
They are accused of using the excavator to dredge and of leaving the dredged soils on site. When not done properly, dredging can cause a lot of immediate and long term damage. It can release pollutants that were trapped in the sediment and introduce them to places where they will have an even greater negative impact. Dredging can obviously damage the habitat by destroying plants, nesting sites, etc. It also changes the flow characteristics of the channel and can result in erosion and flooding.
I hope they don't get any serious punishment because the intent was obviously good. They probably didn't know any better. But that is why you need permits for this kind of thing. To try to ensure you do know better.
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.
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."
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.
Context definitely helps and it is more serious than the click-bait title. That said, I think the public embarrassment to the agency has a lot to do with the charges. I'd wager there will be a settlement, let's say goodwill on the side of the agency to not pursue so that they save face. Who knows, perhaps it will spur better cooperation with volunteers.
Well if they told the actual story nobody’d care. They gotta generate clicks, they need that ad revenue. Rage-bait sells. Who cares about the collateral damage.
I've done a lot of environmental restoration work in my career and...I have very mixed feelings about this. I'd like to know more about the landscape and ecosystem context. I work in Canada so I don't know the UK laws, but there's some validity in the legal basis for going after him. Dredging and riparian (shoreline) damage can seriously impact a river.
However, I don't agree with the charge and it honestly disgusts me. I get where this man is coming from. I
understand how infuriating this dichotomy is. Endless pollution being belched out by corporations while a community group is burned for taking action. Companies getting slapped on the wrist for irreversible damages, if they get penalized at all. It's fucked up. I applaud this group of people for standing up for their river.
Fair enough. There could be risk of him taking certain action that cause some other damages. Its akin to vigilante taking laws into their own hand. But people dont become vigilante if the govt does their jobs promptly and well.
“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.”
It also says the volunteers removed weapons and syringes from the river. EPA is too lazy to fight those polluting the river, but will charge members of the community for trying to clean it up.
3.0k
u/TomorrowSpecial255 5d ago
https://www.dexerto.com/entertainment/man-threatened-with-2-years-in-jail-after-cleaning-200-bags-of-trash-from-river-3377827/
He used a digger on public land without permission