586
submitted 5 months ago by Stopthatgirl7@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

South West Water is claiming it has no legal obligation to keep rivers and seawater clean of sewage in its defence against a Devon swimmer who is taking the water company to court.

Jo Bateman, who attempts to swim every day off the coast of Exmouth, is taking legal action against South West Water, claiming its frequent sewage discharges into the sea have taken away her legal right to a public “amenity”.

However, in its defence to Ms Bateman’s claim, seen by i, the water firm states no one has a legal right to swim in the sea.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 10 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Do they actually have a privately owned water supply in the UK?

[-] billybong@lemmynsfw.com 8 points 5 months ago

Yes. Thatcher sold it off in '89, and since then the private monopolies have accumulated ~£60bn of debts and paid out ~£58bn in dividends. Now they're arguing with the regulator that they should be allowed to pay out more dividends, increase customer fees by 40% and not have to pay as much in fines for dumping raw sewage because otherwise the companies are "uninvestable" and they won't be able to raise the money to pay their debts and will collapse.

[-] Lemming421@lemmy.world 7 points 5 months ago

The water infrastructure was nationalised decades ago. Each reason has a single private company that maintains the pipes, supply, treatment etc. to everyone in that area. Being private companies, the execs have been getting massive bonuses while dumping raw sewage into public waterways recently. And why? Because as someone else here said: after Brexit, the government got rid of the environmental laws saying they couldn’t. And when you’re a monopoly in your area, are you going to spend money on treating water you don’t have to, or give that money to the shareholders?

It’s a fucking disgrace, a lot of people should go to prison for it and the whole system should be renationalised. But then people in government would lose money, and we can’t have that now, can we?

[-] Blackmist@feddit.uk 5 points 5 months ago

The water infrastructure was nationalised decades ago.

Privatised.

Just another of Milk Snatcher Maggie Thatcher's little poison pills.

And yes, it should all be renationalised. They haven't kept up with demand at any point.

Another example is Severn Trent.

They were releasing so much shit into the local nature reserve, that they have actually had to do something about it.

And that something is "building a big pipe so they can dump it directly into the Trent." They've already hacked down a load of trees to make room for it.

Before:

After:

[-] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 1 points 5 months ago

Even to an American where we have tons of privatized utilities this is a bit shocking to me. I haven’t really heard of privately owned water companies before. Although my region is a bit more into public ownership than most I guess. We have private gas supply and private internet but other utilities are public.

Predictably, those two are fucking awful and the other services run just fine. But the next town over has private electricity and it’s a total disaster.

I can see why Thatcher has such a poor reputation now.

this post was submitted on 30 Mar 2024
586 points (99.7% liked)

News

22895 readers
7340 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS