Andy Onchan Posted June 22, 2022 Share Posted June 22, 2022 https://www.manxradio.com/news/isle-of-man-news/toxic-silt-prosecution-wasnt-in-public-interest/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cissolt Posted June 22, 2022 Share Posted June 22, 2022 Just now, Andy Onchan said: https://www.manxradio.com/news/isle-of-man-news/toxic-silt-prosecution-wasnt-in-public-interest/ Who decides whether it's in the public interest? The AG? If I polluted the sea would I be immune from Prosecution? 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finlo Posted June 22, 2022 Share Posted June 22, 2022 Funny how it's never in the public's interest when it comes to prosecuting anything or one government related! 9 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omobono Posted June 22, 2022 Share Posted June 22, 2022 for a start Government find it difficult to prosecute themselves , and a heavy metals pollution trial would only attract unwanted attention from the UK media and as I see it the department bringing the prosecution before the courts , the chief executive appears to have over ridden his scientific officer and given the DOI permission , what I would like to know is where the suction dredger and the miles of heavy duty rubber pipes is hiding now , what did it cost , and was all this agreed by treasury , Peel harbour is in a mess with heavy metal pollution building up at an alarming rate again , no wonder some of the longtails are leaving the ship , no doubt with pockets jingling ,and huge pensions to look forward to , Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SleepyJoe Posted June 22, 2022 Share Posted June 22, 2022 BiosphereIOM should prosecute them It's damning for our world heritage site status 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piebaps Posted June 22, 2022 Author Share Posted June 22, 2022 37 minutes ago, Omobono said: the chief executive appears to have over ridden his scientific officer and given the DOI permission , That's not correct. You need to read the Tribunal judgement. Para 18. "Before the DoI can dump silt at sea, it must present its proposal to DEFA. DEFA must consider and deliver an opinion on the rights or wrongs of the proposal. DEFA’s only right is to be consulted on whether a licence to dump silt should be granted." The CEO at DEFA couldn't either give or refuse permission. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omobono Posted June 22, 2022 Share Posted June 22, 2022 thanks for the correction which is accepted we don't wish to finger an innocent man , so that means the DOI and someone in authority there chose to disregard the advise from DEFA , well on their heads be it ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted June 22, 2022 Share Posted June 22, 2022 Just another topic where anyone well qualified in a specialism, would rather coat their eyes in jam amongst a swarm of angry wasps than work in the public service on the IOM. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Trench Posted June 22, 2022 Share Posted June 22, 2022 3 hours ago, finlo said: Funny how it's never in the public's interest when it comes to prosecuting anything or one government related! Remember the cockup over the oil spill from the Douglas power station? Very expensive to clean up and afaik the gov were liable for prosecution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doc.fixit Posted June 22, 2022 Share Posted June 22, 2022 Just run the river down the side the same as Laxey and get rid of the stupid flap gates. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoops Posted June 22, 2022 Share Posted June 22, 2022 4 hours ago, Omobono said: thanks for the correction which is accepted we don't wish to finger an innocent man , so that means the DOI and someone in authority there chose to disregard the advise from DEFA , well on their heads be it ! Or not, as seems to be the case here. As noted by many, our much vaunted biosphere status is a farce. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numbnuts Posted June 23, 2022 Share Posted June 23, 2022 15 hours ago, doc.fixit said: Just run the river down the side the same as Laxey and get rid of the stupid flap gates. That causes big problems though with pontoon and lots of the vessels berthed in the harbour. Not saying theres not big problems now just its not as easy as just getting rid of the flap gate. Probably the cheapest option by far though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0bserver Posted June 23, 2022 Share Posted June 23, 2022 19 hours ago, finlo said: Funny how it's never in the public's interest when it comes to prosecuting anything or one government related! Bit like the MEA dodgy loans 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doc.fixit Posted June 23, 2022 Share Posted June 23, 2022 28 minutes ago, Numbnuts said: That causes big problems though with pontoon and lots of the vessels berthed in the harbour. Not saying theres not big problems now just its not as easy as just getting rid of the flap gate. Probably the cheapest option by far though. I was also thinking of Padstow which has conventional swing gates, so, I would accept swing gates and a wall keeping the river to the side and exiting separate from the retained harbour. I've never liked flap gates because of the never ending maintenance of the pit for the gate which inevitably gets full of debris and the underwater hydraulics. Swing gates don't have this problem. The river would not deposit debris in the harbour and the floating harbour would be flushed each tide. There might be some deposit in the basin but there are few harbours that don't have some silt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Phantom Posted June 23, 2022 Share Posted June 23, 2022 19 hours ago, Roxanne said: It’s might not be in the public’s interest but it’s certainly in the interest of the public. Probably in the interests of the Scallop fisherman who weren't allowed to fish the beds in 14/15 because of the dumping of the silt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.