... I thought they meant it would be floating out to sea. Or polluting a nice chalk stream fishery, or washing up on a sandy beach somewhere.

Now i learn it's all over the bloody Internet too!

* not by choice, of course. As a Public Utility, they have a monopoly on the whole area that they serve. Having such a utility in private hands should never have been allowed. On which ex politician can I place the blame for that? One Margaret Thatcher i would assume

It was 1989 so yes, during Thatcher's time as PM.

I saw no problems in the 50's every time I just walked across the yard and took a shit or a piss in the Thunderbox which helped me start reading because there was always plenty of news papers there.

Scottish Water is still in public ownership, and is also under fire for dumping sewage into rivers in ever-increasing quantities.

It's probably the fault of those dastardly English tourists, coming over the border and shitting in Scottish toilets, overloading poor Scottish sewers.

Public Ownership as an arms-length quango is different from being government run.

A public owned company is still encouraged to maximise profit, sometimes at the expense of well-run public service. See also: The Post Office

But even government departments can still be scandalously awful, I agree. E.g. the Home Office

even government departments

You appear to have misspelled 'especially'. It's easily done.

If the water companies were not in arm-length/private ownership they'd be dumping their sewage selectively in rivers running through opposition party constituencies, while MPs from the governing party would frequently be pictured proudly opening brand new sewage treatment plants in their constituencies.

On this matter I'm sure a moderately serious Offwater wrist slapping is coming Southern Water's way. A stern letter might even get sent.

I'm just glad that they've never managed to spell my name right and I've never bothered to correct them :)

Although not heard a peep out of them so maybe I'm OK.

Southern water are pretty useless. On par with SSEN. A house down the road from me was leaking water from the meter pit for about 4 months. When we had the cold weather it turned that part of the road into a skating rink.

> A house down the road from me was leaking water from the meter pit for about 4 months.

Which side of the meter was leaking?

No idea, I just drove past it twice a day :)

As it was leaking for so long probably not the house side.

"Having such a utility in private hands should never have been allowed"

Believe it or not, sewage discharges were far more common before privatisation, and the reason for privatising was so government weren't saddled with costs and work of complying with the upcoming EU Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, nor the various EU Drinking Water Directives. Back then it was the state owned water boards, and especially in coastal areas the norm was to allow untreated sewage into the sea. In addition to the tightening water treatment regulations, the state had under all parties and for decades limited infrastructure investment and intentionally allowed water treatment facilities and pipes to deteriorate, and didn't want to be on the hook for either the inevitable breaches of standards, or the costs of remediating the state's neglect.

I worked on investment programme management for one of the largest water companies for a good few years immediately after privatisation, anybody who thinks things would be inherently better under state ownership is living in a fantasy land. That said, there's been a failure of regulation over the past few years, where OFWAT should have held companies to the requisite standards, noting that would also require higher water charges. I'm reasonably confident that the ultimate causes of sewage discharges come down to the fact the population has increased by 14% over the past twenty years, but the OFWAT permitted investment programmes haven't created 14% more treatment or pipe capacity. The same is true for rail and road, but we just tolerate the consequences of congestion and delays.

> I worked on investment programme management for one of the largest water companies for a good few years immediately after privatisation

Oh, so it's YOUR fault then?!

How come the water companies were allowed to take on loans, and spend the money on dividends and executive salaries, instead of on investment in infrastructure?

They could have built separate sewage and storm drains like they do in Europe. Population increase could have been *planned for*.

But given that they split a large public body into dozens of regional utility companies, joined-up thinking becomes impossible, and the policymaking work becomes inefficient as is has to be repeated in each region, and nobody is going to waste money building a storm drain if the neighbouring utility isn't bothering.

Ofwat is partially responsible for this farce, but that is what you get with a revolving door between a private sector and its regulator..

"OFWAT permitted investment programmes"

Quality British government in action, the same kind that created Brutish Leyland

> Believe it or not, sewage discharges were far more common before privatisation

You'll forgive me if i say no, i don't believe it, then :)

Do you have a source for that claim?

A Tory so blue she was positively ultraviolet!

Well, of course there were other monsters around in the circus that was the Thatcher government.

[1]One BBC Radio programme I listened to a while ago said that John Redwood was instrumental in privatising British Gas. He may have done the same for other utilities.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_privatisation_in_England_and_Wales

The Conservative government of the day had originally proposed water privatisation in 1984 and again in 1986, but strong public feeling against the proposals led to plans being shelved to prevent the issue influencing the 1987 general election.[15][16] Having won the election, the privatisation plan was "resurrected and implemented rapidly"

So it seems little has changed in UK politics. Always implement your most evil and unpopular plans immediately after an election.

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001j3lj

"Affected individuals have also been offered a free 12-month Experian Identity Plus membership for credit monitoring."

12 months? That data is leaked for ever . The victims will always be vulnerable.

Experian Identity Plus is expensive if you buy it. Victims will need to keep paying after a year, and so the membership for these leaks should be perpetual.

Once these companies start factoring the cost of lifetime Experian membership for all victims, they may spend more than the 50p they currently do on security.