Scrutable

I'm with Monbiot on this one...

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... nvironment

sh.t - I didn't realize it was so bad... seems the EA need to be much more like HMRC (and actually do some enforcement) - seizing assets of those that profited such that being caught results in the ill gotten gains being taken away at a minimum.

Problem with systematically underfunding any sort of public service like regulation is that a backlog gradually builds up. Underfund for long enough and the backlog becomes completely overwhelming. That's what's happened at the EA, see also local planning authorities.

Make it a profit centre? Seizures of assets if you done this sort of thing allowing the enforcers to keep some of the proceeds? Will no doubt eventually lead to perverse incentives.

I mean, hefty fines for rule-breakers should more than cover the cost of monitoring, bringing prosecutions and the subsequent remediation. £840 for 600 tonnes of rubbish is 4-6 orders of magnitude too small.

It could easily pay for itself while acting as an actual deterrent. As with sh.t in rivers, burning of peat bogs etc the problem is lack of political will to fix the problem.

Are many Tory donors in the illegal dumping trade?

Surely these are just entrepreneurial small businessmen who think that light touch regulation is the way to go. Don’t want the state interfering with a (dis)honest trade do we!

bjn wrote: ↑

Wed Nov 24, 2021 10:37 am

Make it a profit centre? Seizures of assets if you done this sort of thing allowing the enforcers to keep some of the proceeds? Will no doubt eventually lead to perverse incentives.

More than perverse incentives - that's how you create corruption. Either personal or institutional, depending on how the money gets distributed.

Millennie Al wrote: ↑

Thu Nov 25, 2021 2:42 am

bjn wrote: ↑

Wed Nov 24, 2021 10:37 am

Make it a profit centre? Seizures of assets if you done this sort of thing allowing the enforcers to keep some of the proceeds? Will no doubt eventually lead to perverse incentives.

More than perverse incentives - that's how you create corruption. Either personal or institutional, depending on how the money gets distributed.

It's a risk but could be designed out. Bigger risk might be creating some sort of Ponzi scheme of enforcement that grows exponentially then collapses, but that might actually be quite a good way to quickly deal with a backlog of important things.

Millennie Al wrote: ↑

Thu Nov 25, 2021 2:42 am

bjn wrote: ↑

Wed Nov 24, 2021 10:37 am

Make it a profit centre? Seizures of assets if you done this sort of thing allowing the enforcers to keep some of the proceeds? Will no doubt eventually lead to perverse incentives.

More than perverse incentives - that's how you create corruption. Either personal or institutional, depending on how the money gets distributed.

Prevention of that is what courts are for and why asset seizure can't happen just at will.

tom p wrote: ↑

Thu Nov 25, 2021 12:39 pm

Millennie Al wrote: ↑

Thu Nov 25, 2021 2:42 am

bjn wrote: ↑

Wed Nov 24, 2021 10:37 am

Make it a profit centre? Seizures of assets if you done this sort of thing allowing the enforcers to keep some of the proceeds? Will no doubt eventually lead to perverse incentives.

More than perverse incentives - that's how you create corruption. Either personal or institutional, depending on how the money gets distributed.

Prevention of that is what courts are for and why asset seizure can't happen just at will.

The US has had forfeiture for quite some time and suggets otherwise: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_for ... ted_States

I was thinking of a formal process involving the courts, where the environment agency gets to keep some of the proceeds to offset their costs once a conviction has happened. Not arbitrary seizure.

bjn wrote: ↑

Fri Nov 26, 2021 6:30 am

I was thinking of a formal process involving the courts, where the environment agency gets to keep some of the proceeds to offset their costs once a conviction has happened. Not arbitrary seizure.

That was certainly how I understood your suggestion

tom p wrote: ↑

Fri Nov 26, 2021 10:57 am

bjn wrote: ↑

Fri Nov 26, 2021 6:30 am

I was thinking of a formal process involving the courts, where the environment agency gets to keep some of the proceeds to offset their costs once a conviction has happened. Not arbitrary seizure.

That was certainly how I understood your suggestion

They should certainly get their revenue budgets topped up from the fines.

They could also just be adequately funded in the first place, fines or otherwise.

I get the impression the EA's budget gets hacked so much because it has "Environment" in the name so people (well, Tories) assume it's some hippie nonsense. Then suddenly there's floods and sh.t and trash everywhere and they get all surprisedpikachuface.jpg

There's no need to come up with creative funding solutions. The EA used to have a decentish budget from central gov and now they don't - a deliberate political calculation intending a corporation-friendly, laissez-faire approach to environmental regulation.

Actually their budget for building new flood defences has doubled for the next few years. Their regulatory side has certainly been squeezed though.

Another "cost of doing criminal business" prosecution: £12,000 fine for three people who dumped 30,000 tonnes of controlled waste. The courts are making the laws pointless.

https://www.mrw.co.uk/news/newry-firm-f ... 3-01-2022/

Sciolus wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 20, 2022 7:01 pm

Another "cost of doing criminal business" prosecution: £12,000 fine for three people who dumped 30,000 tonnes of controlled waste. The courts are making the laws pointless.

https://www.mrw.co.uk/news/newry-firm-f ... 3-01-2022/

He must also pay a £15 offender’s levy.

That will definitely teach him a lesson