radiofree.asia

Thames Water accused of ‘retaliation’ against MP critic

The much-criticised Thames Water has been accused of ‘retaliating’ against a politician who sought to hold them to account:

It all comes down to how you take barristers saying they want to “deter” future legal action against the company.

Thames Water—’Retaliation’

Thames Water has embroiled itself in many, many, many scandals over the years. In its most recent, the company tried to make an MP pay for its legal costs. Liberal Democrat Charlie Maynard was the man representing the British public in court, and he described the company’s move as “retaliation”.

Whether the move was retaliatory or not, it was unsuccessful. If Maynard lost, he would have been on the hook for £1,400-an-hour legal fees. This is steep, right? It’s also a waste of money, because we’re happy to provide Thames Water with the following legal advice for free:

  • Stop polluting.
  • Stop paying shareholders dividends while your network goes to shit.

As the Guardian notes, Thames Water has accrued £17bn worth of debt, and it wants “15 years of leniency from environmental fines” to get back on track. This may be a dated reference, but the situation reminds us of the biopic Chopper in which an Australian criminal is given free reign to do unlimited crimes by the authorities. Would you believe that things turned out poorly in that story?

Given their litigiousness, we should state we’re not suggesting said company are ‘criminals’, although they are certified ‘rule breakers’:

It’s worth remembering that the company polluted badly enough to earn a £123m fine even with restrictions in place—so imagine what they’ll do once we take the safety wheels off.

Back to the latest case, the barristers representing Thames Water said Maynard should pay up to “deter” future litigation. Maynard responded:

I find it completely extraordinary. What is the largest water company in the country doing trying to run an MP off the road, and saying they want to deter me and others from taking such actions?

What is the government doing letting a bunch of people run the largest water utility in the country and behave this way?

The company defended what-some-might-call-Mafia-like behaviour as follows:

In light of the application’s lack of merit, the court is invited to infer that Mr Maynard made his application to try and disrupt the implementation of the plan and the subsequent restructuring in pursuit of his and his party’s political aim that Thames Water should be placed in special administration. This kind of conduct should be deterred.

Given how unpopular privatised water is in the UK, it does make sense that utility companies might want to criminalise criticising them:

graph showing most people support the nationalisation of utilities and other key industries

Thames Water also said:

Mr Maynard was able to make submissions at both the high court and court of appeal without any liability for costs” and that all parties had to pay their own costs.

Excellent, people should be able to hold large/failing companies accountable without needing to bankrupt themselves.

The company added:

we remain focused on putting Thames Water on to a more stable financial foundation as we seek a long-term solution to our financial resilience

Despite this, the Guardian reports that Thames Water is “spending of up to £15m a month on an army of lawyers, bankers, consultants and public relations advisers”. That’s funny, because we’re spending nothing a month screaming ‘NATIONALISE THIS SHIT!‘

Other recent criticisms of Thames Water include the following:

Good luck to all those who are standing against this colossal waste of money.

Featured image via Parliament

By Willem Moore

This post was originally published on Canary.