Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
Another Brexit Win To Add To My List
The freedom to release as much raw sewage as we like into our rivers and coastal waters.
https:/
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Hymie. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Paigntonian
//Nonsense. The government is not 'allowing' the release of sewage into the sea. It maybe another 'Brexit win' for you but not for those with common sense.//
Do you ever research any claim you make before posting it? Or is it as usual pure conjecture?
https:/
//Nonsense. The government is not 'allowing' the release of sewage into the sea. It maybe another 'Brexit win' for you but not for those with common sense.//
Do you ever research any claim you make before posting it? Or is it as usual pure conjecture?
https:/
//If such an authority had the power to fine the UK for such behaviour, that would be a good thing – but then so would being a member of the EU.//
Are you suggesting that, had we not left the EU, this would not have happened? Or are you saying that it still would, but it would be less unacceptable because "the UK" (and I'm not sure who you mean by that, the water companies, the government (i.e. the taxpayer) or whoever) would have been forced to hand over £squillions to the EU to do with what they wish.
I think you ought to make it clear how yo believe this would have been different if we had remained an EU member.
Are you suggesting that, had we not left the EU, this would not have happened? Or are you saying that it still would, but it would be less unacceptable because "the UK" (and I'm not sure who you mean by that, the water companies, the government (i.e. the taxpayer) or whoever) would have been forced to hand over £squillions to the EU to do with what they wish.
I think you ought to make it clear how yo believe this would have been different if we had remained an EU member.
Paigntonian
//Fatt: Your usual rudeness.//
….or just questioning posts that you’re trying to pass off as fact, when in reality it’s the exact opposite……or do you want to answer the question instead of portraying the feigned offence?
As George Bernard Shaw once said:
"Beware of false knowledge;
it is more dangerous than
ignorance.“
//Fatt: Your usual rudeness.//
….or just questioning posts that you’re trying to pass off as fact, when in reality it’s the exact opposite……or do you want to answer the question instead of portraying the feigned offence?
As George Bernard Shaw once said:
"Beware of false knowledge;
it is more dangerous than
ignorance.“
Although on a different tract (apologies to the OP), since certain members of AB think countries within the EU excepting the UK, of course (both before and after we were shackled), are all being goody goodies by abiding by various Directives and the UK were the bad guys, doing all sorts of naughty stuff. Perhaps you should look into liquid animal feed and why certain countries within the EU were adding transformer oil to it. Due to this practice every single batch of raw and finished (liquid) product has to be dioxin tested to ensure mineral oil is not getting into the food chain. To my knowledge the UK is the only country that has successfully campaigned to have its testing regime relaxed because there has never been an incidence of mineral oil found in animal feed. Other countries within the EU certainly don't follow the Directives if they can avoid it.
These allegedly are storm clearances or whatever the term is. Because in all honesty our sewer system is under severe strain, as much as anything through the demand on the water supply and years of underinvestment by private water companies wanting to keep costs down and satisfy shareholders.
Ideally we should be moving to dry sewage disposal which could mean using re-treated end product for fertiliser.
Ideally we should be moving to dry sewage disposal which could mean using re-treated end product for fertiliser.
Storms are always a problem-for any country.
The thing is if you built facilities to cater for worst case scenarios the cost would be prohibitive (yes even if shareholders were paid nothing).
It's nothing new but what should be monitored (and heavy fines levied) is when they do it outside of 'storms'.
The thing is if you built facilities to cater for worst case scenarios the cost would be prohibitive (yes even if shareholders were paid nothing).
It's nothing new but what should be monitored (and heavy fines levied) is when they do it outside of 'storms'.
Meanwhile a report from a few years ago ....
https:/
Happy holidays.
https:/
Happy holidays.
Latest Posts
If An Ordinary American Citizen Faced...
News7 mins ago
Home & Garden10 mins ago
ChatterBank11 mins ago
Neighbours Succulent Seeding And Growing...
Law17 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.