Actionmat
Well-Known Member
If these figures are half right then funding's not the problem.
http://insidetheenvironmentagency.co.uk/index.php?controller=post&action=view&id_post=28
Fisheries Enforcement
- Thread starter boatone
- Start date
If these figures are half right then funding's not the problem.
http://insidetheenvironmentagency.co.uk/index.php?controller=post&action=view&id_post=28
CJL
Well-Known Member
Somehow I don't think you can rely 100% on the "facts" presented by a disgruntled employee!!
CJL
Last edited:
Actionmat
Well-Known Member
The figures are confirmed by the links below.
CJL
Well-Known Member
Some of them but then there are some factual errors on the site as well so it's not all one way by any stretch of the imagination!!
CJL
Actionmat
Well-Known Member
I don't know enough to spot the errors, but if only these two 'facts' are correct it's an outrage.
Spent almost £1 million hiring dredging equipment after it sold its own machines for just £200,000
Nearly 7,000 vehicles (plus trucks) - more than one official vehicle for every two employees
Spent almost £1 million hiring dredging equipment after it sold its own machines for just £200,000
Nearly 7,000 vehicles (plus trucks) - more than one official vehicle for every two employees
oldgit
Well-Known Member
If its anything like the case down here on the Medway, the plant was sold off after privatisation.
It was assumed presumably that in the brave new world that was to come , private contractors would replace in house staff and save everybody money and in order to provide a better return for shareholders.
The equipment lay idle for ages with no money to maintain or repair, before finally being auctioned off at scrap money.
It was assumed presumably that in the brave new world that was to come , private contractors would replace in house staff and save everybody money and in order to provide a better return for shareholders.
The equipment lay idle for ages with no money to maintain or repair, before finally being auctioned off at scrap money.
apollo
...
I am very easily pleased, all they have to do is keep to the basics above all else, some water to float in including up to the banks and headroom above me below the trees. It aint rocket science, instead they waste money on all sorts of nonsense.
This bit of kit was never going to be anything like cost effective, there are several patrol boats which hardly ever move so regardless of who paid for it, why waste more money.
But you and uncle tone are never going to hear anything said against your pals at HQ so i have better things to do today.
oldgit
Well-Known Member
For Gawd sake.
If this was a brand new rib purchased purely to run up and down the upper Thames to catch people fishing in the close season.Not a good use of funding.We can all agree.
If it was not the above it would be different story.
It cannot be beyond the scope of this frum to find out the actual facts. ?
If this was a brand new rib purchased purely to run up and down the upper Thames to catch people fishing in the close season.Not a good use of funding.We can all agree.
If it was not the above it would be different story.
It cannot be beyond the scope of this frum to find out the actual facts. ?
Actionmat
Well-Known Member
It's not about one RIB, it's about a huge government agency claiming poverty, ripping its customers off every year by giving less for more while spending millions on PR so we all know what a fantastic job they're doing of saving the planet.
Are these fairy stories made up by 39 serving and ex EA staff? There's nothing that would shock anyone with previous experience of quangos and local government, but what surprises me is how quickly some jump to this quangos defence, insisting that anything spent on the non tidal thames will have to come from other more needy services. Like PR?
http://insidetheenvironmentagency.co.uk
Are these fairy stories made up by 39 serving and ex EA staff? There's nothing that would shock anyone with previous experience of quangos and local government, but what surprises me is how quickly some jump to this quangos defence, insisting that anything spent on the non tidal thames will have to come from other more needy services. Like PR?
http://insidetheenvironmentagency.co.uk
Last edited:
boatone
Well-Known Member
Well I certainly have no intention of wasting my time on it. It is a fisheries issue, not navigation, and I have enough problems trying to keep track of all the navigation issues that need addressing - without a lot of support from some here !
boatone
Well-Known Member
So what are you going to do about it - or are you waiting for someone else to do something about it? Don't hold your breath either way - it could seriously damage your health!
Actionmat
Well-Known Member
So what are you going to do about it - or are you waiting for someone else to do something about it? Don't hold your breath either way - it could seriously damage your health!
I was going to withhold my licence fee, but decided that it wasn't fair on everybody else. If 10,000 boaters refused it would be more effective than 10,000 TMBA memberships, but we live in hope so I joined anyway.
boatone
Well-Known Member
Refusing to pay would be a futile gesture as it would only result in the EA pursuing you through the courts to make you pay.
Thank you for that - but I would argue that even 1,000 TMBA members - ALL licence payers - would have a far greater chance of penetrating the smoke and mirrors that obscure the way the EA and most other government departments work.
Murv
Well-Known Member
Well, personally, as a license paying angler I'm delighted to see this 
Ramage
Well-Known Member
Unfair to have a pop at people who pass on information to the forum just because you do not agree with it.
In particular be aware that Teddington Lock is a serving Lock Keeper and he obviously is constrained in what he can say if he wants to keep his job!
