Volunteer Under Investigation for Cleaning Polluted River Without a License, Faces Two Years in Prison

People without training and coordination with a larger system can cause problems, especially if he encourages other untrained people to do it.

It sucks but there’s billions of us so it’s gonna suck. At least that’s what my local councilman (and dad) said when I complained I needed to ask permission to change my deck.

Two years in prison is stupid though. Make him work with the groups who have approved plans.

And I hate that this is the answer I’m giving but honestly it’s the only thing keeping me from renting a bulldozer and making my neighborhood walkable.

It's in the fine article:

The EA’s main complaint seems to be that the dredging was significant enough that it constitutes a flood risk.

Can't, since it doesn't 🤬

He wasn't just picking up litter. He rented a backhoe and actually started digging in the river bed.

https://youtu.be/Kj9Hvdzu_zw

It's Britian. He didn't have a permit and organized a group.

there you go you got a reply that makes sense

now be nice and magnanimous and thank them or maybe give a friendly reply, maybe even start a discussion if you don't understand

go on it's how to be a better lemming

To further clarify: the transgression, according to the Guardian, wasn't just removing waste, but the fact that "Powesland [...] organised a team of volunteers to tackle the removal of litter, weed and silt from a section of the River Roding", and they collectively "removed 200 bags of rubbish, branches and silt", which goes beyond just picking up trash.

The EA [Environmental Agency] alleges dredging has been carried out and waste has been left on site within the flood plain, constituting a flood risk activity under the regulations that would have required an environmental permit.

Dredging is the act of removing material from the water environment, here presumably from the riverbed, which is a tad more involved than just picking up pieces of trash and might have ecological knock-on effects. I find it perfectly justified that the Environmental Agency would want to be involved in the decision to take such steps.

The only real scandal is this guy having petitioned the Agency about the trash problem for years without success. That they'd now get pissed when someone takes the matter into his own hands is understandable, but might just be the only way to get them to care about the issue.

yeah but the easiet way to get upvotes is to provide a tldr for an article.

i don't know the british legal system very well. i know statesia. does this translate across the pond to informing him he's been indicted?

Fair point, but let's be real. He's getting those 2 years sooner or later.

The main issue is that he used heavy machinery for cleanup. If it was by hand it probably wouldn't have resulted in any legal matter

Yeah, he went way beyond simply removing trash:

The team removed more than 200 bags of rubbish along with branches, thick layers of silt, weeds, discarded household appliances, used needles and even abandoned weapons. Their goal was to restore the natural flow of the water and remove years of accumulated waste.

He basically dug up the entire riverbed. That isn’t something people should just be doing ad-hoc.

In the same post they say he's facing up to 2 years in jail and a image saying he's jailed already for 2 years....

edit: and if you end those permit law I think it might open ways for bad things mostly.

yup. in the judge's place might even sanction him for acts unbecoming or discreditable to the profession or whatever it's called over there. as a barrister or solicitor you are supposed to display good judgment at all times. This is his area of expertise. Like ho lee fuck did he err in judgment.

I'm gonna lean on another commenter who made me realise the legitimate reasoning behind something like this (disregarding the fact that two years is absurdly high): If we permit anyone to do whatever "cleaning" they themselves deem reasonable without approval, we risk that unknowledgable people with good intentions cause serious damage. One reason could be that they create an acute flood risk (you're right: garbage shouldn't be flood protection, but the actual flood protection is built around existing circumstances, and if removing the garbage causes a major risk to people losing their homes, the correct approach is to first prepare the flood protection, then remove the garbage). Another is that people can unknowingly or unintentionally destroy habitats or otherwise damage the environment.

The point is: We have some very competent people that are capable of assessing the impact of various cleaning operations. We need to let those people do their job. There can be very complex interactions in play, that turn your good intentions into catastrophic consequences. Therefore, we cannot allow laymen to judge how large cleaning operations should be conducted.

Full disclaimer: While I think the above reasoning is sound, I think we should be very careful regarding how unauthorised cleaning operations are punished. For example, it seems absurd to me to give jail time for it. When the person in question is obviously acting with good intentions, it's much more reasonable to sentence them to take some course where they can learn about why what they were doing was potentially harmful, and perhaps sentence them to community service working on some authorised project. That way, you help them learn, let them work on something they want to contribute to, and get more resources for the authorised projects.

Wasn't just removing trash. Drove heavy machinery (excavator) into the stream bed to remove silt thereby changing stream hydraulics and releasing silt downstream further degrading water quality and potentially smothering fish, invertebrates and vegetation. Used backhoe to uproot vegetation from stream bed making it more susceptible to future erosion. Dumped and left materials on the streams flood plain which could alter hydraulics in a flood.

As an environmental lawyer he knows permits and extensive planning needed when changing streamflow. (EDIT first comment after just reading links, just followed up with video links, a bit of a puff piece but monitoring/surveying/planning was done END EDIT) As a lawyer and an officer of the court is held to a higher ethical standard than ordinary civilian. Despite this he first conspired to break the law, and then proceeded to break the law. Not a minor transgression, deserves more than a minor punishment. EDIT Not minor transgression but with some mitigation already done, perhaps lessor punishment

they're the same flavor of bullshit which is why they draw the similarity i think. to point out that the UK saw the US doing this bullshit and said "hey, why not us too?"

I can say in chicago there was nasty stuff down in the silt that they by and large do not want to com back up into the water.

I don't see anything about heavy equipment. According to the article, it's a creek rather than a full river, but it does claim that the scale of the cleanup could cause a flood risk.

Either way, the real crime is that the authorities never cleaned it up. Authorities failing to do their job will eventually invite people to take matters into their own hand.

they brought in a backhoe and started digging.

https://youtu.be/Kj9Hvdzu_zw

He rented a backhoe and was actually digging up the river bed.

https://youtu.be/Kj9Hvdzu_zw

Organic debris is kinda vague, that could be twigs or a bakery's worth of white bread.

It makes sense when you think of it less as a beurocrat taking issue with cleaning trash, and more like the ruling class making sure the poors don't get any ideas that the world can be better, since they might decide to hold them to doing something to help.

Sir, this is a jet engine compressor blade... The way out is the combustion chamber.

Tl;dr: It seems the group was well intentioned but this actually could have been pretty environmentally detrimental.

According to this article, it appears the issue is the team used a digger in some capacity. Details on how are sparse.

I'm a microbiologist (environmental micro), but I studied a few things in grad school. A big chunk was hydrology and riverine engineering, more specifically erosion control and environmental remediation. I promptly went on to work in a different field, because who does what they actually study in university?

I'll spare you the details (unless you want them, I will go HAM on erosion control autistic data dumping because I rarely get to talk about this) but it's pretty easy to fuck up a river if you start digging it up. Given they mentioned flooding concerns, I checked to see if the area is in a flood plain and confirmed it is.

Humans engineer rivers in floodplains to prevent the previously cyclical flooding as well as reduce erosion. If those controls are damaged, the flooding and erosion can resume, and downstream effects (...pun?) can be pretty serious for humans and the environment.

I'd need more information to confirm exactly what happened, but there may be some merit to the complaints about their project. If they didn't have even a cursory environmental impact assessment, they could have done a lot of damage while trying to do something good.

He hasn’t been charged with anything, and the issue isn’t picking up trash, but dredging the river with heavy equipment and removing silt. ~ they brought in a backhoe and started digging.

https://youtu.be/Kj9Hvdzu_zw

What do you mean it states that in the first paragraph. Is this ironic or something.

Little detail that the headline "accidentally" missed is that the side used an excavator and dug up half the river bed

Still this is kind of extreme, but at the same time,.it's not about a normal guy picking up some garbage, this is much more

You mean famous Tory-except-for-environmental Jeremy Clarkson?

He wouldn't do shit mate