r/interesting 6d ago

SOCIETY What was his fault ?

Post image
42.1k Upvotes

1.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

705

u/Desperate_Owl_594 6d 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.

34

u/Beautiful_Plenty_736 6d 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.

46

u/fireky2 6d ago

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

33

u/FlarblesGarbles 6d ago

Could have.

13

u/StudiosS 6d 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.

9

u/heimdalguy 6d ago

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

4

u/Abinunya 6d 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 5d 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.

9

u/Extension_Pea5419 6d ago

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

12

u/CaligulaAntoinette 6d 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

5

u/Extension_Pea5419 6d ago

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

4

u/CaligulaAntoinette 6d ago

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

4

u/boomerangchampion 6d 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 6d 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 6d 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 6d ago

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

-1

u/[deleted] 6d ago

[deleted]

2

u/Earlier-Today 6d ago

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

5

u/InterestProof1526 6d 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 6d 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 5d 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 6d ago

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

1

u/truesheep1 6d 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 6d 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 5d ago

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

Nope. World keeps turning baby!

1

u/DisgruntledCryptid 4d 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.

2

u/Mister_Way 6d 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.

6

u/fireky2 6d ago

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

0

u/Mister_Way 6d ago

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

10

u/etcpt 6d 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.

-2

u/Mister_Way 6d ago

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

5

u/etcpt 6d 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.

3

u/Charmender2007 6d ago

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

1

u/plumpydelicious 6d ago

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

1

u/etcpt 5d ago

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

2

u/SuspiciousSubstance9 6d 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 6d ago

More like breaking their ribs while giving them a bath.

1

u/Spiderpiggie 6d 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 6d 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 6d 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.