Featured post

10,000,000 Miles in a Nissan Leaf?

Tuesday, 24 May 2016

Some Folks Say

that some (rather too many imho)  officials at the Environment Agency can be spiteful, vindictive and use their position to launch legal actions which end up costing the taxpayer simply loads more money than can be ever recovered from the people they choose to prosecute.

We know for certain that the culture is such that any challenge to the EA's position is generally regarded as something that must be squashed and pushed out of the way by any means to hand.

We do rather wonder if this:

Has anything to do with the inflexibility shown when dealing with a poo tank overflow at Glastonbury Festival less than 5 months later?

As we understand it - the BBC's reporting of the District Judge's critical remarks (about the EA's actions) has been rather selective about the exposing the EA's toxic antics and as far as we can see - little or no reporting of the reputed £250,000 cost of bringing the action and the amount of fine the EA sought to get imposed...

The EA were official advisers and approved the sanitary facilities plan - they detected the poo-pee and Glasto organisers did what was possible to mitigate the effects of the leak .... it would not surprise us if there's an increased amount of  wariness and apprehension about allowing the EA on site at the 2016 event...  

Make 'em buy tickets I say!   

There is more - and as soon as it's available there'll be an update   

Speaking outside court, 

festival organiser Michael Eavis said: 

"It's a great result and I think we were listened to fairly. I don't really think it was necessary to get this far. We pleaded guilty to make it easier for them yet they still wanted to pursue this case. I think it was a bit of a waste of time, to be honest with you. It wasn't that serious a crime really. We did our very, very best when we found the leak - we really did all that we should have done within the timescale. This wasn't really necessary. We should have been doing something else. We're putting together the biggest show in the world in four weeks' time."


So - after a guilty plea the EA pursued a prosecution over 2 years through 5 court appearances and the cost to the public purse (EA) is claimed to be only £34,236.81 ?  - some creative accounting there I think. 


  1. Didn't InsideTheEnvironmentAgency have a case where the EA spent £2,000,000 prosecuting for a £1000 fine?

    1. Some barristers chambers do really quite well from the EA - if you look at the online declarations of payments ... nice work if you can get it.

  2. I bet if the Officers had been given tickets to the Festival it would never have got reported. (Not that I am suggesting that EA officers can be influenced).

  3. It is really the EA looking for cheap advertising at major events where they can claim to be doing something. The "Look at Us" scenario. When it comes to real environmental challenges, such as a waste disposal yard on fire for months putting fumes over a nearby village they did nothing constructive to remedy the situation. The Environmental Agency is riddled with useless paperwork and procedures which not only hamper them but everyone else. Just mention environment and projects stop.


Get it off yer chest - please keep it civil