UKC

Please discuss (In light of today's news).

It's a great lake and I'll stand on that.

United Utilities made a reported operating profit of £241m if I've read it right (half year to Sept 2023).  They've paid pretty decent dividends for many years.

https://www.unitedutilities.com/globalassets/documents/corporate-documents/...

"BlackRock, Inc. is the largest shareholder with 11% of shares outstanding. With 8.4% and 4.8% of the shares outstanding respectively, Lazard Asset Management LLC and Amundi Asset Management SAS are the second and third largest shareholders."

Let's face it they can afford to pay a pretty eye-watering fine to sort this out and prevent it from happening again. I used to work at Ambleside YHA and a swim or paddle across the lake was a very regular activity, I don't think I'd be doing that at the moment.

A clean Windermere should be regarded as a public good and anyone who pumps sewage into it (genuine mistake or not) needs to pay the price.

Join the campaign to help Windermere here: https://www.savewindermere.com/the-problem

It's an utter disgrace what UU are getting away with. Rather than siphon the profits off for the shareholders, more needs to be pumped into the upgrading of infrastructure

Sh*t aside, when visiting for the first time in 20 years this spring, I was surprised at how permissive the council are to developments on the eastern shore, cranes and builders abound.

Here in our non-touristy corner of the world, it’s a struggle to get a gate in a house wall let alone some stark “modern slate” McMansion with an equally unsympathetic boathouse...

They all get raffled on Omaze.

Quite like the idea of someone taking a muck spreader down to Warrington and completely  covering their HQ in cow shite. See how they like it.  

Every day that there is enough rain to justify it.

10 million cubic litres would cover a football field up to the armpits of the players. That´s one big load of sh*t.

PS that´s the taller players.

Only issue with this is that there are presumably people who work in that building that aren't responsible for the decisions that lead to pumping sewage into the lake.

How about doing it to the homes of the CEO/directors etc?

If they put much more sh!t in it, you will be able to stand on it!

I always chuckles at posts such as this that have a go at 'shareholders'.  Yes, they might be the "Fat Cats" but they might be you, me, the person next door: just think of all those ordinary people you know who have a shares ISA invested in collective funds, a SIPP, an occupational pension .... where are they invested ....   I have a friend who worked (now pensioner) for a nearby city council, who was having a go at Shell's 'massive' profits lining the profits of the wealthy.  I suggested they take a look at the investments inside their employer's occupational pension scheme and find out where some of Shell's profits were going ....

To a certain extent I agree and it's a complex picture. We all have pensions and it would be impossible for us to be all over the detail of every single invested unit and this is where my left/centre left leaning makes an appearance, despite being more centrist in nature.

The central question, and its a big one, is whether critical infrastructure should be under national control or private control and then if under private control, to what extent should the conflict between public good be out of balance to private interest. After that, if private ownership is deemed the right strategy, to what extent should regulation control how the private owners operate the business, whether prices are set, whether profit and/or share caps should be applied and whether returns should be paid before the public good is satisfied, in whatever form.

I don't really 'get' privatised industries that aren't subject to genuine competitive pressure - water, rail infrastructure, and so on. By the time the (Inevitable) government appointed regulator has agreed pricing, profit margins, investment plans and all the rest, why don't they just go that final step and run the thing? After all they've done most of the hard work.

Personally, I dont think a critical resource such as water should be private, unless absolutely necessary. I dont remember specifically why Maggie sold off the companies but if they (the industry) weren't in any distress then I can see it was a 2nd/3rd term appeasement to the public to get them to buy a few shares and make a couple of quid, whilst satisfying free marketeer/small govt headbangers in her party. Both positions failed to accurately predict the inevitable sugar rush come-down when the benefits to the public are long since gone, whilst leaving the companies and the public at the mercy of the markets.

We are where we are but with today's news I am yet again thinking that there should be emegency regulations created to either nationalise or to compel the companies to stop paying dividends until such time as the infrastructure is fit for purpose and we no longer allow shit to be pumped into our wild waterways.

Jesus has entered the chat

Exactly this. Or if they are to be privatised, shares should only be made available to purchasers with an interest in keeping the water clean. Eg local people and businesses. The mess with Thames Water is a perfect example. Trillions in debt exist now due to many years of high dividends and bonuses to shareholders that ostensibly couldn’t give a shit about performance. 

It’s a terrible paradox when I think about it. 

Entirely inappropriate.

It should be the sludge pumped from a septic tank, not bovine. UU have enough bull already and they need something more unpleasant than cow