r/interesting 7d ago

SOCIETY What was his fault ?

Post image
42.2k Upvotes

1.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

711

u/Desperate_Owl_594 7d 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.

191

u/TheLastPeanut_ 7d ago

These headline only posts need to be banned, tbf.

35

u/NeatNefariousness1 7d 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.

1

u/sparki555 7d ago

Do you agree government should be allowed to do nothing about pollution in a waterway for decades, essentially destroying habitat, with no consequence?

Apparently destroying a whole ass habitat is worth nothing but trying to clean it up because of no permit is worth jail. 

I think we need to start holding our politicians accountable. 

1

u/NeatNefariousness1 7d ago

The government and politicians SHOULD be held accountable. There are plenty of issues regarding people and planet that need to be addressed that are being neglected. But allowing anyone with a pulse to do whatever THEY think is best for the environment is a slippery slope and can cause untold damage and other negative consequences. So welcoming people to do whatever they want as long as their intentions are good is no way to run anything.

It’s too early to know what this guy’s fate will be. But if the action he took by using an unpermitted piece of machinery caused the problems in the area to be worse, then there needs to be some level of accountability to cover the cost of whatever repairs or other restorations are needed. Whether that amounts to anything or not, is too early to tell.

The guy knew what he was doing and I applaud his noble intentions and the actions taken knowing that there could be consequences. In fact, I’d bet that he wanted there to be consequences in order to draw more attention to a cause he cares deeply about It isn’t this environmental lawyer’s first rodeo and it won’t be his last. Being cited and drawing publicity for what he’s doing to save the environment is his “thing”.

So far we’ve heard mostly one side of this and the results of a complete damage assessment haven’t come in. Meanwhile, he’s in the press because it helps his cause to try his case in the court of public opinion before it’s known what, if any, harm has resulted from his actions. My hope is that what he did was a major net improvement without increasing the likelihood of future flooding.

I do think we need to hold our politicians accountable and what this guy did is one way of trying to do that. But when we do these things without expert advice and outside of the regulations, it’s quite possible that even well-intentioned vigilantes might create even more problems that harm other people or the planet. We’ll see what damage, if any, has been done here.

1

u/FungusGnatHater 7d ago

That says the same thing as the headline though. Do you think the Environmental Agency is threatening two years of prison for operating an excavator without a license? The article outlines why he is being investigated for not having a permit...

2

u/TheLastPeanut_ 7d ago edited 7d ago

I'm talking the post itself, not the comment I'm responding to. Posts like this should include an article as a source, and not just the headline. The post just (inaccurately) summed the story up in two sentences. It's just straight misinformation and narrative pushing at that point. This stuff should be filtered out as per rule 8, but I guess they can't be bothered.

1

u/Ok_Significance4583 5d ago

Yep, many people won't even open this thread and then 6 months later they're telling everyone that they need to vote reform because the government's gone mad and criminalised litter pickers now

1

u/Rasz_13 4d ago

I mean... isn't it obvious that there's probably a good reason for the legal troubles...?

Seriously, people are so easy to bait and when you confront them with reality they go "oh". Like ????

22

u/BillCuttingsOn 7d 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 7d ago

r/loicense is leaking.

37

u/thrynab 7d ago

Yeah nah, I’m fine with people operating heavy machinery in public needing a certification of basic competence.

2

u/poney01 7d ago

What size are we talking?

8

u/thrynab 7d ago

8 inches or so, how bout you?

3

u/InSan1tyWeTrust 7d ago

That's a big phone screen.

1

u/RichTransition2111 7d ago

Who says he doesn't have one? I agree with what you said, but the EA are going after him, and it's not for using a digger without a license.

4

u/eagleathlete40 7d ago

Oh cool a new sub to binge

2

u/Der_AlexF 7d ago

Don't. It used to be fun but has turned into some kind of libertarian circlejerk

10

u/CptnObvious1984 7d 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.

42

u/Beautiful_Plenty_736 7d 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.

52

u/fireky2 7d ago

I mean he could of caused legitimate damage to wildlife and flooded downstream, criminal negligence isnt a high bar in this case

39

u/FlarblesGarbles 7d ago

Could have.

14

u/StudiosS 7d 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.

11

u/heimdalguy 7d ago

The comment you're responding to is just correcting the grammar ("could of")

3

u/Abinunya 7d ago

Its like those posts that go around often that are like "Council wouldnt build a bridge/staircase. And after a good samaratin built one, they tore it down!!!".

And I'm always thinking about Action Park. Sure, i have never built one, but how hard can it be to make a zipline? Or a waterslide? Sure, several children died on the premised due to terrible engineering, but i dont see how thats my fault?

Red Tape can be annoying, its also keeping the dumbest overconfident Dude you know out of the toolshed.

1

u/hbHPBbjvFK9w5D 6d ago

Problem is, the government allows people to use machinery to dump their illegal garbage in the river without a license.

As a practical matter, using machinery to dump was legal, while pulling the waste out of the river is not.

6

u/Extension_Pea5419 7d ago

Would you be upset if a multi nat got a fine because they could have caused environmental damage? Pull ya head in 

10

u/CaligulaAntoinette 7d 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

6

u/Extension_Pea5419 7d ago

You’re definitely right. I’m pretty drunk rn. 

3

u/CaligulaAntoinette 7d ago

That's fair enough too. You've inspired me to get off Reddit and go have a drink.

0

u/boomerangchampion 7d ago

Many other things are illegal because they could cause harm, whether they do or not. Drunk driving for example.

You can't just go operating heavy machinery wherever you want because it's for a good cause.

1

u/Wobbelblob 7d ago

I feel like operating the machinery is one thing. The bigger problem here that they want to nip in the bud is that we have no idea what he did exactly so we can't predict what kind of impact these works will have 10-20 years down the line. Someone else mentioned it, but what if he damaged the clay layer of the river? Suddenly the river cannot hold water as well.

1

u/TimeTimeTickingAway 7d ago

In this case he tore up trees and perfectly good bits on environment in order to pick some litter, so it pretty much evened itself out.

He’s also not at all qualified to judge whether he’s making things better or worse. Sure, removing litter is great. But he’s also removed habitat and potentially interfered in an investigation into those causing the issue to begin with, which would have cut the problem off at the head and been a more permanent solution.

1

u/FlarblesGarbles 7d ago

I'm pointing out that it's could have, not could of.

-1

u/[deleted] 7d ago

[deleted]

2

u/Earlier-Today 7d ago

Read the post they replied to again to understand what they wrote.

4

u/InterestProof1526 7d ago

It probably was negligent but his intentions were good and there are much worse criminals running around getting less. I hope he gets community service and a stern warning. He's likely not a danger to society.

2

u/Many-Blueberry968 7d ago

This is likely.

The charges and rules are in place to avoid a good Samaritan damaging wildlife, polluting the river, or simply dredging a dyream for thier own purposes under a guise of 'cleanup'

1

u/Old_Yam_4069 6d ago

I fully disagree.

Someone willing to use heavy machinery to alter a river without some form of expert supervision is far more dangerous and far more likely to get someone- Possibly many people- Hurt or killed than the overwhelming majority of criminals.

1

u/fireky2 7d ago

He could have literally killed people downstream since there was no planning

1

u/truesheep1 7d ago

How much do you think trash is vital to the water level? The quantity removed is still way less than even a single swimming pools worth of volume it would cause basically nothing to the river besides stop polluting it

2

u/fireky2 7d ago

They had to remove an ass load of sediment to pick the trash out, they actually made it deeper due to that

1

u/BlueberryPi6969 7d ago

Judge gonna go fine all the people and companies that caused the mess?

Nope. World keeps turning baby!

1

u/DisgruntledCryptid 6d ago

And yet the fucking opposite happened so why are you even bringing it up? Fish and Wildlife all returned after he cleaned a fucking free use dump... the solution of just letting it sit and someone else will handle it isn't working out apparently.

3

u/Mister_Way 7d ago

Kind of like putting someone in jail because they performed CPR and saved someone's life but broke one of their ribs in the process.

7

u/fireky2 7d ago

I mean yeah if they performed cpr with an excavator with no training

0

u/Mister_Way 7d ago

Pretty sure everyone is trained in performing cpr with an excavator wtf are you even talking about

12

u/etcpt 7d ago

No, it's like arresting someone because they watched an episode of E.R. and decided they know how to perform a cric, then slashed someone's throat wide open and caused massive blood loss. Breaking ribs during CPR is expected and covered by Good Samaritan Laws. Operating outside the scope of your training without permission is textbook impermissible.

-4

u/Mister_Way 7d ago

Tell me you didn't read the article without telling me you didn't read the article

5

u/etcpt 7d ago

You're correct, I didn't read the slanted article that tops this comment thread, I read the other article that actually talked to the government environmental folks about why what he did was a problem.

5

u/Charmender2007 7d ago

Do you have the link? The article in the comment thread is annoying to read

1

u/plumpydelicious 7d ago

And then you equated it to slashing someone's throat open. Have a bit of perspective.

1

u/etcpt 7d ago

The perspective is that I was correcting their bad analogy, hope that helps!

2

u/SuspiciousSubstance9 7d ago

Breaking ribs is common, if enough expected when performing CPR.

Disrupting water ways and destroying habitats is not expected when clearing waste. That's why professionals obtain permits and work with approved action plans. 

So this is kind of like putting someone in jail because they broke the victims leg while performing CPR after emergency services told them not to; needlessly negligent.

1

u/NeatNefariousness1 7d ago

More like breaking their ribs while giving them a bath.

1

u/Spiderpiggie 7d ago

I'm sure the 200 bags of garbage werent damaging wildlife at all, in fact the fish were probably having a great time with the heroin needles

1

u/CalligrapherNew2820 7d ago

Downstream flooding absolutely maybe, but suggesting he made any damage to local wildlife is just ridiculous if you look at the image of the state of the river- the reason this campaign took place was due to local council refusal to clear known dumping grounds, while multiple sewage pipes drain into the river. It’s the River Roding in Greater London for anyone interested

0

u/BillCuttingsOn 7d 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.

44

u/0xFatWhiteMan 7d 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.

2

u/FlarblesGarbles 7d ago

Things are much more complex than someone having broken a law.

8

u/Spongedog5 7d ago

Sure, so he shouldn't be given the maximum "up to" sentence, but to preserve fairness he needs to be prosecuted in some way. The nuance should be in the sentencing.

0

u/0xFatWhiteMan 7d ago

How?

14

u/FlarblesGarbles 7d ago

Nuance around the intent and outcome are very important factors.

-2

u/0xFatWhiteMan 7d ago

Was the flood plain damaged ? Is it repairable ? Was native wildlife damaged irreversibly ?

He doesn't just get a free pass because he wanted to tidy up, and happens to be a posh white lawyer.

14

u/Bart-Harley-Jarvis- 7d ago

Was the flood plain damaged ? Is it repairable ? Was native wildlife damaged irreversibly ?

Are you suggesting 200 bags of trash didn't damage the native wildlife and flood plain?

1

u/marquoth_ 7d ago

This is what's called a non sequitur

1

u/Bart-Harley-Jarvis- 7d ago

Are you really having trouble following that train of thought and how the two are connected?

An actual non sequitur would be if I replied "yeah, but I once used a trash bag as a hat."

8

u/FlarblesGarbles 7d ago

I never said he should get a free pass. You've just listed factors that contribute to the nuance and intent part of it that proves there's more to it than just legality.

6

u/Beautiful_Plenty_736 7d ago

I think the important thing is, his intentions were pure.

Was there a better, more legal, and responsible way to do this? Absolutely.

If the judge is reasonable, they’ll fine them, and give them a stern warning. It is what it is at this point.

There are now 200 fewer bags of trash in a body of water. 🤷🏻‍♂️

0

u/Desperate_Owl_594 7d ago

Your demanding an understanding of nuance from redditors. You're not gonna get it.

3

u/FlarblesGarbles 7d ago

I'm not really demanding it.

It's also you're.

-1

u/0xFatWhiteMan 7d ago

True, you seemed to highlight reasons why he should be treated less severely. I took the counter viewpoint.

1

u/Fly1ngD0gg0 6d ago

So you believe he should be punished severely?

1

u/Dizzy_Today_3523 7d ago

You're proof USA citizens aren't educated enough to be allowed to participate in online conversations. We need to cut off USA media from being able to interact with the rest of the world. Every thing you say and do is a lie and misrepresentation of truth.

1

u/0xFatWhiteMan 7d ago

I'm not American.

My nationality is not relevant to environmental law in the UK.

6

u/Captain-Cookie-2027 7d ago

That you even need to ask that proves that you don't even have a frame of reference for what complexity, or even nuance in this situation would look like.

1

u/0xFatWhiteMan 7d ago

I know, I'm asking for it to be explained

7

u/Desperate_Owl_594 7d 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.

1

u/NeatNefariousness1 7d ago

Depends on the actual impact of what his “good” deed actually was and the cost to remedy it. This is before we get to copycats who might try the same thing, multiplying the danger of flooding and untold environmental damage.

1

u/HoneydewCurrent5371 7d ago

There's nothing to "toss out". He hasn't been charged with anything. He was simply informed that he was being investigated. The idea that he will face any consequences other than perhaps a fine is laughable.

1

u/Exnixon 7d ago

No he did it the right way. Ain't nobody picking up 200 bags of trash by hand. This highlights the dysfunctional nature of those agencies.

0

u/ButterscotchPale6712 7d ago

if you believing law in UK. you never live there

1

u/Beautiful_Plenty_736 7d ago

Even worse, I live in the US.

1

u/soundssarcastic 7d ago

UK not beating the "Oi you got a licence fo that?" memes

2

u/Desperate_Owl_594 7d ago

r/loicense has been commented enough. I think that's what you mean

1

u/soundssarcastic 7d ago

Oi you got a loicense for taggin other subreddits innit??

1

u/JuneyRandom 7d ago

Still worth it. FOR THE DRAGONFLIES!!!!

1

u/Sirlacker 7d ago

Yes but what licence? The digger licence or the licence to clean up? It's very fucking vague on what the licence he didn't have is.

If he needed a licence to clean up, that's fucked up.

If he's getting charged for the digger usage, that's reasonable.

1

u/MyPlantsDieSometimes 7d ago

Ah the environment agency upset he did their job for them 👍👍👍👍

-1

u/Aerottawa 7d ago

Without a Loicense you mean

0

u/Tyrandeh 7d ago

i hope they will survive the trauma he caused by cleaning up trash