On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 19:49:25 -0000, Peter Crosland wrote:

Sorry to say but you are quite wrong. The EA can, and do, prosecute
people who hve a system that is causing pollution. Whilst the chances are
that they will not find out if they do the consequencesx are likely to be
costly. This can happen by chance or by someone reporting it.

Peter Crosland

Based on your "contributions" you must make a living from enforcing petty
rules?

Far from it. The rules are anything but petty and in any case I retired from
another business sector altogether. If you consider activity that can result
in considerable financial penalties along with a criminal record petty then
you need to change your attitude. Since the OP has a system dischargeing
directly into a watercourse he may well be found out by routine EA
inspection. The consequences of such a discovery are severe hence my earlier
comments. This is quite apart from the benefit that everyone gains from a
less polluted environment.


What constitutes 'discharging into a watercourse' is open to
interpretation. In my case the EA defined that an old dry ditch that did
not actually connect to any water course with any kind of running water
flow in any kind of weather constituted a 'water course'

And there is a world of difference between a septic tank doing such and a
cess pit doing such.

I am al for getting rid of any possible sources of pollyrtion, espceailally
if its as simple, effective and as cheap as a Klargester is...but the EA
can be a bunch of pettifogging morons sometimes.



Peter Crosland