Sewage Lies: How Hannah MacInnes of Times Radio, Lawrence Gosden of Southern Water, and David Henderson of Water UK Greenwash the Truth at Blue Earth Summit

I am going to explain my own story and experience with Blue Earth Summit (BES), their founder, program director, and marketing manager, which is mostly centered around a panel discussion named "Future of Water: Solutions for Scarcity & Sewage." The panel was hosted by ex-Newsnight and Current Times Radio presenter and podcaster Hannah MacInnes, Southern Water CEO Lawrence Gosden, and David Henderson, CEO of Water UK, the body that represents all the water companies in the UK as a collective.

Before I begin, I want to make it clear that I perfectly understand that for the most part, Blue Earth Summit doesn't pretend to be an ethical leader in the space—it simply can't, and they are smart enough not to position themselves as such. Their main offering of getting investors together to review business pitches with some kind of environmental aspect attached (of notably varying degrees) is a perfectly good offering in the event space, and it serves a purpose—its one of a few investor platforms in the environmental space. But where things get a bit confusing is that it also says things on its website like:

"The Blue Earth programme welcomes leaders, trailblazers, makers, and mavericks from all walks of life, to identify and channel investments into solutions that regenerate our natural world. We draw inspiration from time spent in the great outdoors."

This, along with other signaling in its marketing and branding, clearly leans on and leads with environmental credentials and makes it clear that it’s also a venue for ideas from the campaign space—a sort of place where business meets ideas from campaigners and startups. It’s a fair approximation, at least as far as I and most people might see it, and indeed how they see it themselves.

Now that some of context is set, let's begin my story.

I contacted BES about a complimentary ticket to their event. As a strong campaigner against sewage pollution and sewage pollution disinformation of some note for over three years, with frequent monthly appearances on GB News (please don't hate me, it's only GB News that invites me on—the BBC, Channel 4, and other venues have zero interest whatsoever). I think this is for many reasons, but ultimately, it comes down to my class status as working class/underprivileged. Being male and an indigenous Briton doesn’t seem to help either (this isn’t a dog whistle, this is just the meta-reality). And of course, I’ve called out the main Whitehall-approved sewage campaign organizations, like River Action Group (who fully control the Rivers Summit and the upcoming March for Rivers campaign and protest) and also the Beaver Trust, which was thier main grift before before jumping on to sewage pollution as a way to hoover up campaign energy and misdirect it into superficially plausible solutions that won’t fix the issue but at least give 95% of campaigners the impression it will. They also provide so many loopholes in their "Charter for Rivers" they use for political and corporate lobbying that it serves a dual purpose—cushioning campaigner demands without upsetting those who won’t go through the charter with a fine-tooth comb and employ their critical thinking abilities. It also gives something any polluter can eventually sign up to. Frankly, the charter is so weak that it won’t be a surprise when all the water companies sign up to it, and it also won’t be a surprise when it proves useless... Alas, I digress.

As I was saying, I reached out to them, gave them my website and social media links, so they could review my fairly niche following of roughly 4,200 politicians, councillors, policymakers, campaign organizations, and individual campaigners, poltitians, councilors, —I have orgs like UNESCO’s World Water Program who read and follow my word, down to localized grassroots movements (these are the ones that are most often getting caught up in perpetuating disinformation unknowley. Apparently, this wasn't enough to warrant me a free ticket. They did, however, kindly offer me the opportunity to do "a little" volunteering in return for access to the event without having to pay the £250 per day plus attendance fee. Fine. I agreed, and why not? We all have to render service and help the movement out in many different ways, depending on where there is a need. Right?

I began my first day by getting there at 7 AM. I met with a group of other volunteers, and we were all given a VERY quick tour and assigned our roles. Fair enough. I was assigned to helping people check-in with a group of others, a task I was able to enjoy for a short time, before then being able to go off and enjoy the event. Again, the next day I was due there at 7, but only made it in by 11:38, as I was overly tired from the day before. I suffer from mental exhaustion and other ailments, which is not uncommon for me. They were completely fine with me coming in later and didn’t make me feel bad at all—it wasn’t an issue, and I could tell they were not overly concerned one way or the other. This was kind of them, credit due were credit due.

Now, for the juicy bits...

When it came to the end of that short shift on the second at effective last day, at 1 PM, I ventured off. I saw there was a panel on "Future of Water: Solutions for Scarcity & Sewage." The panel was hosted by ex-Newsnight and Current Times Radio presenter and podcaster Hannah MacInnes, Southern Water CEO Lawrence Gosden, and David Henderson, CEO of Water UK.

Lawrence I’ve met before, and I must say for the record (and it may sound odd to many), but I find him to be a lovely man. I met him briefly at the Rivers Summit a few months before, and yes, I know it's easy to get caught up in "the big CEO is responsible and therefore a fair whipping boy," which, of course, he is to some extent. But the truth is much more complex than most people care to realize. One could tell Lawrence really wasn’t comfortable with half the stuff he and David were saying—it was literally written across his face. When his talking points are deconstructed, he acknowledges that he is, to some extent, a trapped man. He is there to draw a salary and parrot the narratives from the corporates that own the water companies and their networks in the civil service in the UK but also in other parts of the world. One can tell by his micro ( and frankly marco) expressions he isn’t comfortable with what his job has become, and I even feel sorry for him.

David, on the other hand, is a seasoned establishment servant, serving in Australian and UK governments for some time, including being an ex-Downing Street advisor himself. It makes perfect sense (in this deeply corrupt system) that he is CEO of Water UK—there to blend corporate and captured government narratives and ensure everyone in the political sphere and in industry is singing from the same very odious disinformation hymn sheet. He is basically the Alistor Campbell for the polluting lobby, which essentially controls the government.

Anyhow, I arrived at the talk rightly halfway through. I listened for 20 minutes and heard such enlightening comments from David that the problems with pollution in Northern Ireland were, in fact, due to a new minister from Sinn Féin and nothing at all to do with the Department of Infrastructure, which 100% owns the local water company and is responsible for one in seven of all pollution incidents (that’s all pollution incidents, water-related or not) in Northern Ireland for some decades now. But no, apparently it’s all the fault of Sinn Féin’s Minister for Infrastructure, John O'Dowd, who recently decided to use some budget for a new bridge. Apparently, this recent act somehow absolves the Department of Infrastructure in Westminster for their environmental crimes against Northern Ireland for decades and decades. It was also blatant dog-whistling. I was somewhat surprised that the Water UK CEO would be so overtly political. Sure, I know the captured government, Whitehall, corporate giants, and other more opaque groups all work in lockstep to ensure their narratives and approved counter-narratives are the only ones our very, very weak and compromised journalistic class and media establishment to report on and within pre agreed frames. But I had never imagined he would quite be so... open about it. I thought the Water UK CEO would at least try to hide it, but perhaps that arrogance and pride coupled with serio-typical aussie brashness (as a yorkshire man, i can relate) got to him. I don’t think his comments will be met with cheers behind closed doors—a little too close to the book, one might suspect. Naughty naughty, David! Do at least try to keep the cat in the bag, for heavens sake man!

Then there were other gems from David, this being my favorite: "Even though you see and feel it rain a lot, it doesn't mean we have a lot of water." Presumably, the fact that last year we had more rainfall in one year compared to the last 40 years should be overlooked also. Now, if someone is telling you to discount the rain that’s falling on your head, I must say, that’s some bold gaslighting! One has to respect David’s front; it’s certainly as big as the fair (well, not really fair, but okay) land of Australia, which he comes from (Aussies been are our own tribe, of course, for those at the back of the room). But if such a bizarre statement naturally baffles somewhat, allow me to explain. The narrative the captured government, Whitehall, corporates, and Whitehall-approved sewage pollution campaigners want to sell us (River Action Group/The Rivers Summit—controlled by RAG in the background with Whitehall buddies) is that there is a growing water scarcity crisis. Water is becoming scarce, and we must be grateful we have water coming out of our taps at all given this growing scarcity, which, of course, will serve as justification for many more price hikes in the future.

The reason they push this narrative is because by using vague, blunt, and catch-all phrases like water scarcity and climate change, they can attempt to publicly mitigate some of their own public responsibility, at least in the public perception realm. The reality is, of course, there is no actual water scarcity issue in the UK, not at least in the way they describe it. Water is plentiful for now and has been for sometime. No, what we have is an epic water mismanagement problem, which manufactures water scarcity. You see, over the last 10 years, the powers that be decided to allow the water companies (or at least not block them) when they began to sell off our (cough, cough) water reservoirs. And from 2017 to 2022, there were over 35—yes, a whopping 35 water reservoirs—sold off to developers to build houses, leisure facilities, and the like. Just to be really clear: Since the privatization of the UK’s water industry in 1989, there has been a significant reduction in reservoir numbers. In 1990, the UK had an estimated 300-350 reservoirs. Over the years, many of these were sold off, particularly between 2017 and 2022, when 35 reservoirs were disposed of, often for housing or leisure purposes, while only two new ones were built. Today, the UK has around 273 major reservoirs, which account for the majority of the nation’s water storage. This sell-off has raised concerns about the UK’s ability to handle future droughts and maintain water security.

Okay, so you get the idea. The water scarcity thing is a manufactured issue. Now, when you combine the sell-offs with widespread polluting of all of our freshwater sources and underwater aquifers and national park lakes, and even in some small village ponds (ffs, a lake or a pond has no way to send this on to sea, the polluter’s preferred choice—to think they would dump here is something else entirely).

Indeed, UNESCO SDG 6 clearly states the need for nations to have the correct number of reservoirs, and this is essential for the nation’s environmental and population needs. But here in the UK, we've taken the approach of smashing up 35 to 40 reservoirs in the last 7 years ALONE!

Again, I digress, somewhat at least, but back to the panel. There were many other pearls of wisdom from David mostly, and Lawrence (albeit a reluctant and hesitant, uncomfortable Lawrence). He is not enjoying lying in front of a room full of people as our beloved David is. In fact, David relishes and revels in it—a I personally find entertaining. He gave a good show and with gusto, bravo. Lawrence just looked like he wanted the ground to swallow him up. Bless him. Sweet man he is, honestly. (Don’t be fooled into thinking the directors and CEOs of water companies have any power—they really, really, really don’t. It’s just a big pay package to take a bit of flak and oversee the cash funnel from bill payers to their corporate owners. That’s it. That’s the whole deal.)

After they had both finished, the panel came to its end, and at that point, is normally when the panel moves over to audience questions, as is standard format for these things. However, our Hannah MacInnes visibly signaled to the lady with the roving mic that there would be no questions. And by that, I mean the lady (an activist herself) with the mic stood up and was ready to start picking out audience questions, but Hannah looked at her, shook her head, squinted her eyes, and made it more than clear: there are no questions. She looked shocked but didn’t object (who would question Hannah MacInnes, after all?).

But as Lawrence got up (he shot straight up, bless him, and began walking off), the front of the audience started “kicking off.” There were gasps across the room, and some gentlemen stood up and started saying how wrong and disgusting it was they weren’t even prepared to answer questions. This was when I stood up and started filming. You can view the full video here:

https://www.tiktok.com/@waterwaysprotection/video/7427821222815141153

Lawrence and David quickly went back to their seats (sorry boys, no such luck this time), and Hannah reluctantly agreed to take some questions. I believe her words were, "Okay, well maybe we can do a couple of questions, but remember to keep them respectful.” Note, she only said this after the audience had forced Dave and Lawrence to sit back down, shocked that they were attempting to leave without answering. And it was only then that Hannah tried to play the middle person again (oh, Hannah, dear, dear me, oh Hannah). So a couple of predictably softball questions were asked—typical questions from a largely uninformed public who understandably see things in far simpler terms. Naturally, these questions were easily handled by these senior, PR-coached professionals (one wonders what they were even worried about, to be honest). There wasn’t an issue until the three of them made one by not moving on to questions as is standard practice. They themselves manufactured this outrage, and I must confess, I was in a fairly wry mood myself—I hadn’t planned to make a spectacle that day. So, a couple of questions, a couple of BS responses—pseudo-intellectual offal to a well-heeled and largely overly polite, culturally posh English audience. They accepted what was on their plate as reasons or excuses. However, as I stood up, with my phone out and my hand up like the boy in class desperate to be picked to give an answer (because he knows the answer), I saw the lady with the mic about to make her way to me. I pointed my finger at her and then to Hannah. At this point, Hannah gave a very stern and deliberate shaking of the head with squinted and determined eyes. The message was painfully clear to all 300 (or so) in the room: "NO, NOT HIM." This was when my blood did somewhat increase in temperature. And as a straight-talking, meta-truth loudmouth Northerner who is used to being sidelined and ignored in posh environmental circles or even outright mocked because I am not from the same posh culture as most of them, and I don’t subscribe to over-politeness to the point where it means 100% compliance and acceptance of "any old tripe" thrown my way, then by someone who is more posh (most of course, unless we are talking about my peers from Doncaster. To them, I might be a bit posh, at least culturally). But of course, to actual posh people, I’m a mere pleb and a nuisance for the most part. However, that doesn’t extend to all of them, just a sizeable majority. Anyhow, I was overcome with what I would say was “righteous indignation” that yet again I was about to be blatantly overlooked and ignored again. All I wanted was to take the mic, ask my question in a NORMAL way, perhaps slip in an opening wry comment about how impressed I was that David successfully managed to tell a room full of people, “Even if it’s raining, it’s not wet,” and lead on to a statement as a question about nature-based solutions. In any case, I wasn’t going to get picked, so I took matters into my own hands. I walked to the front of the room, initially looked at the panel, then turned to the audience, and made my statement about the so-called nature-based solutions narrative. At one point, Hannah tried to close me down, but I do declare she was given short shrift. “I am talking now,” I said adamantly as she made her weak attempt to interject me mid-flow. I made my speech, speaking loudly across the room as I wasn’t blessed with a mic. The audience was all watching me—many had their phones out, and many were smiling. It was the "you tell them" smile or the "wow" smile, but mostly (admittedly, from what I can remember) it was the "OMG, what is he saying, I'm shaking but I like it" smile.

I told them all about the greenwashing of the nature-based solutions they are trying to sell, so they don’t have to treat and filter water properly. They can just dump it into nature with a host of chemicals, pharmaceuticals, and microplastics that nature can’t possibly treat on its own. I lament:

"I'm sorry, folks.

Okay, so I'm going to ask another question because they won't let me.

Let's talk about nature-based solutions, yeah?

Nature-based solutions, everybody, is where they want to treat nature as a dustbin.

Nature cannot treat the microplastics, the pharmaceuticals, the chemicals.

So this scam they're all trying to tell you about—nature-based solutions—is nothing but a con.

The only way that sewage can be treated is by mechanical means, like they do in civilised countries like Singapore, where you strip the microplastics, the pharmaceuticals, and the heavy metals, and then you can release it back into nature.

Simply using nature-based solutions as a scam is going to perpetuate the toxicity we're having in this country, and it's going to absolutely destroy it.

Stop trying to say that nature-based solutions are the answer.

It's using nature as a dustbin.

Be responsible, treat it with modern methods."

David responds, acknowledging that they do this in Switzerland and also Singapore (he thinks), but they are awaiting some EU directives to do this. So, like when he blamed the Northern Ireland minister for decades of UK government environmental abuse of Northern Ireland, what he is effectively saying is, “Well, nobody’s told us we have to filter out the microplastics, pharmaceuticals, and chemicals from the water, so it’s not our fault.” It’s like dealing with a petulant teenager who’s recently swallowed a dictionary. But alas, David does make a good point. He is not wrong to suggest there are currently no requirements for them (obviously, we can forget about any ethical or self-imposed requirements at this point—you all understand?) to do so.

Most people in the campaign space and political space as well (my audience) don’t even know that even if the water companies actually treated the sewage, that still wouldn't take care of the problem. As the LAW (and this is where David is 100% correct) doesn’t require them to filter out the microplastics, the PFOAs, the chemicals, pharmaceuticals, heavy metals, and other disruptors of which there are literally hundreds of thousands if not (well, actually) millions of varying pollutants from these categories. In fact, environmental law requires just 91 pollutants to be filtered—that’s it. They REFUSE to simply ban whole classes of pollutants, which would be the wise and logical scientific and responsible thing to do. This is why, in fact, I started a House of Commons petition last year to "Enact stricter final effluent standards to protect water from pollutants." SEE:

https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/653988

The petition got closed early because of the election, but I always knew it wouldn't make it into law or even get entered as a question. But, the idea was that the by-product would help update the campaign space and political space by giving them (that's people who genuinely want to solve this and not grandstand, which is mostly what the movement has become these days beyond the angling lobby being annoyed they have fewer fish to abuse—a tad harsh, I know, but allow me this one-off bitter off-the-cuff indulgence).

And it did help spread knowledge within the campaign space and beyond, so that was a useful and well-received success (simply enlightening a few people about the fact the law allows for this is what I consider success at this point—I’m not so stupid as to expect anything more, not right now anyway).

However, even with the CEO of Water UK effectively saying, “The law doesn’t require it, so why should we?” which coincidentally was the same answer I got from the waste treatment manager, a chap called Stuart, at Portsmouth works, I find it odd that the chairman of River Action Group, one Mr Charles Watson, released a statement on Twitter just 4 days ago (yes, I know it’s X now, and I don’t care), saying:

“We don’t need new environmental laws—we just need our existing ones to be relentlessly enforced. The defunding of UK environmental protection is a key cause for the collapse of Atlantic salmon. Join us on Nov 3rd in Central London @MarchforWater”

https://x.com/watsonchas/status/1846454820330263001

Anyhow, back to David’s response to my grandstanding statement on nature-based solutions (read: nature as a dustbin). He then mentioned the problem needs to be solved "AT source." THAT BASICALLY MEANS microplastics and other pollutants shouldn’t even be in the environment anyway, so it’s not our problem. It’s possibly the most reductive, empty-headed drivel of an argument I’ve heard used before. There is no way you can expect a modern population of what, 70 million people, in a fully developed nation, not to create all kinds of waste, which is why we have waste and wastewater treatment centers—to treat that waste, which is the job of the water companies he represents (just in case he has forgotten). When I heard him use the brain-cell-killing argument, I again stood up and said it was nonsense and codswallop, before piping down again to allow them to continue on with their response and to ensure I complied with the wishes of the hall attendees. But of course, I wasn’t going to just let him lie to me and not even have the RIGHT TO RESPOND, which I wasn’t given by Blue Earth Summit, or anyone there, especially Hannah MacInnes, who was instrumental in trying to block me every step of the way.

Alas, after my speech and David’s thoughtful response, some applause of sorts was given. Also, at this point, people were clapping just for the fact this sad show had finally ended and people could get to lunch, I suspect. Lawrence and David walked down the center corridor, in between the chairs through the entire audience. David looked as happy as a pig in the proverbial, feeding off all the energy, good and bad, and positively brimming with smiles and self-adulation. Anyone would think he had been given a gold medal—it did make me smile. I recognize that fighting spirit, as it were. However, poor old Lawrence, who had no doubt been dragged there by David (to the panel, I mean), looked absolutely shaken up, completely red-faced, completely full of shame. Hand on heart, I really felt for him, I really did. Few in the world understand his position like I and a few others might do. He truly is a trapped man. I can’t see him staying in the role too much longer, to be honest, but then again, he might not have much of a choice... However, I want to make it clear, I don’t really hold the CEOs and directors of the water companies responsible—they are just hired and paid yes-men with NO power. They simply do the bidding of the corporate owners and opaque powers in government and governance. The owners, THE ACTUAL OWNERS OF THE WATER COMPANIES, THE BLACKROCKS, THE LAZARDS, the Vanguards, etc., they are the ones, along with their lackeys in governments and regulators' offices the world over, who call the shots—not sweet little Lawrence. Poor chap. I even said, “Hello, Lawrence,” as he walked past me. We had met before when he was on a panel at “the River Action Whitehall Water Company Summit” (sorry, I mean the “Rivers Summit"). Of course, here he took questions, not from me, but from a host of other people with similar views to mine. As he walked down that corridor, I went over and said to him (the first one to speak to him), “Don’t worry, Lawrence, you didn’t do too bad.” He was genuinely appreciative of my comments and said he needed a stiff drink. So you can imagine how hurt I was when this time he didn’t even look up—he looked a broken and deeply ashamed man. That’s the thing about human nature—unless you’re a complete sociopath, such as the likes of David, human nature will generally show, and the leakage from Lawrence was enough to fill 35 of those recently demolished water reservoirs.

Anyhow, that was that. We all and I continued on with the day. I visited a few investor pitches, had some lunch, spoke to a few different ones about business models and whatnot—typical summit chit-chat. But then at 16:30 or something, I get a WhatsApp from a lady called Margrette. She was an organizer of the event. I, of course, knew what it was about. She was being coy, so I played along:

Person 1:

Hey Philip! Are you still around? :)

Philip:

Yes. I'm still about. What's up? :)

Person 1:

Brilliant! Would you be free to meet me by registration at the main entrance?

Philip:

Just watching a pitch of a start-up. Can do shortly. What's up? :)

Philip:

?

Person 1:

Oh cool!

No worries, I’ll come find you.

Philip:

Sure. At the back of the main blue stage.

Philip:

Back chairs, I mean.

At this point, she comes and sits next to me while I watch the BES final pitch round. I innocently inquire, “Everything okay, what is it you wish to talk to me about?”

“Oh, we are just making sure we and the program manager get to say thank you to all the volunteers for all their work.” A likely story, I thought. I could detect her utter and complete disgust permanently through her micro/macro transgressions—externally overly polite and all smiles, but underneath it all, utter disgust. It was an amusing spectacle. I think it’s harder for the younger privileged ones to mask their contempt—I suppose it takes time to master, like anything. She kindly asks me to message her when I’m finished watching the final pitches. I, of course, agree, and she eventually leaves (thank God). Half an hour of her awkwardly sitting next to me was a bit too much to bear, if I’m honest. But nonetheless, I embraced the absurdity of it all, enjoying the live interactive show that was my life that day and all the actors within it.

Twenty minutes later, the BES is over and the winner is announced: UrbanChain. They are looking for an additional £50 million investment. It’s an amazing offering, even if I do say so myself. They basically allow communities to trade their own energy with each other at rock-bottom prices, instead of being forced to give it to the grid for nothing, only to be charged triple to use the same energy in the evening. A great thing, and this is what Blue Earth Summit excels at. Getting involved in the sewage pollution movement from a political perspective and trying to shield polluters from accountability—maybe not so much. Because when it comes to water, the whole UK needs to know: this is FIRMLY my space, and anyone providing cover to polluters, shielding them from questions, and trying to peddle greenwashing nonsense will be called out by me. EVERY TIME.

Meanwhile, back at the conference, as we all applaud UrbanChain's Charlie for the win and accept his free drinks invitation for a do upstairs, I realize I am probably going to have to face the music. “Should I get my bag now if they are going to throw me out in a minute?” After all, she was very keen that I meet at the front entrance. What could it be? I decided I would leave my bag where it is and “risk it.”

Philip:

Did you still want to talk?

Person 1:

Yes! Where are you?

We see each other as I walk down towards the entrance. I meet with her, and we both begin to walk to the front, where she then passes me over to the Blue Earth Summit Program Director, Rosie. She makes the introductions and quickly scuttles off. I continue walking towards the entrance with Rosie at my side. As we get close to the door, she oddly inquires, “Are you going now?”

“No,” I say. “I am literally just following you.”

“Oh, okay, no, let’s go this way,” she says. We head to a quieter place out of the way, and I brace myself for the lecture I know is coming.

“How was it today? Are you enjoying it?” The build-up of unnecessary over-politeness is wearing thin at this stage, but still, I play along.

“Of course! Yes, yes, it’s been lovely,” I say. The charade continues. “Did you like the speeches?” she asks.

“Oh yes, wonderful, I thought UrbanChain's offering was brilliant,” I respond.

“Oh fantastic, yeah, great, blah blah” (Will she ever get on with it? I think to myself).

“So, I wanted to speak to you about a talk you went to today...”

“Yes?” I inquire (I’m not making it easy for her at this point—it’s her concern to raise, not mine, I already did that).

“Well, Philip, it seems the way you asked your question was a bit disruptive, and it could have been done in perhaps a slightly better way.”

“And what way would that be?” I asked. “Since Hannah wasn’t taking questions, and when she reluctantly agreed to take some after the audience started reacting badly (it was the audience that started it, gov, not me, honest), then even though I had my hand up and was standing up with my hand up, Hannah refused to give me a voice. So, Rosie, how else could I have asked my question?”

I put the ball firmly back in her court. She stops, thinks for a while, then abandons that argument altogether.

“Okay, Philip, if you had bought a ticket, you would have been able to do that. But as you were here in a supporting role...”

I stop her. “Supporting role??” I ask. “Rosie, before I begin, do you know anything about me and my work?”

“No,” she says. I quickly show her some of my profile, my TV stuff, website, and articles. She is very quick. I tell her I’ve been campaigning for three years and have a very niche audience of the political class—politicians, journalists, policymakers, and other campaign groups. I explain to her that I requested a free ticket but wasn’t given one, which I feel was a bit rude considering the work I do in the space. She sort of deflects and wryly and/or wearily acknowledges my point. I then go on: “I didn’t realize that me helping you out for a couple of hours gave you ownership over my voice.” I leave that with her. She then comes back again.

“If you had bought a ticket, you could have, but since you were supporting us...” Even I am growing weary of her attempt to address this.

“Okay, so you are saying it’s a conflict of interest, is that it?” A smile comes across her face—I had given her the words she was searching for.

“Yes,” she says.

“Well, okay,” I say. “If I am here again in the capacity of a supporter, I will remember not to do any campaigning, so to speak, and apologize for that.”

She graciously accepts my apology, and we say our goodbyes. The end... or so I had thought. It was a Thursday night and the last day of the conference (yes, I know on Friday they had some yoga and open swimming planned, but trust me, no one was going to that except a fraction of the people—it was very much a Wednesday/Thursday deal). So, I went to mingle, attend some events, and drink and talk. I got talking to Hugo Tagholm over a beer. It was hard to finish the conversation as I kept being deliberately interrupted by people who were sent to distract me from Hugo by the founder Will of Blue Earth Summit. But the conversation I did have with Hugo (former head of Surfers Against Sewage) alluded to his preference for nature-based solutions and not hard infrastructure. I am not sure how he thinks sewage can be treated without hard infrastructure. Hugo, I’d be keen for you to finish your point, and I found it a bit rude you didn’t finish the conversation with me or make any effort to, I’ve got to be honest. And considering the international crisis we are in and the actors involved, I’d have thought you would at least finish that conversation instead of avoiding it and me...

Anyhow, during our chat, Will, the founder of BES, comes over and says how he heard about what happened and how he “loves it.” I was like, “Okay,” and I showed him the video I uploaded to Twitter. He once again says in front of Hugo how he loves that, blah blah, okay great. Anyway, the evening goes on. I have a conversation with someone about how there are not too many people on the planet—it’s what people do, so a mass cull isn’t the way forward (wow!!).

Anyway, a little later on, I was outside enjoying a cigarette (which I only ever do with a beer, and I only drink about 5 or 6 times a year—okay, maybe 7 or 8 but that’s it...). My conversation is interrupted by Will and Rosie, who ask for yet another ominous word. We go to ‘one side,’ and the people I was talking and smoking with quickly disappear as they sense their masters are about to tell me off. Will starts off nicely enough, a change in his tone to slightly more official, which is completely apt given the context of what will be the conversation. Rosie, on the other hand, is standing there with her hands behind her back, smiling through gritted teeth. It reminds me of being in school and having a fellow pupil present a teacher to me for a telling off.

“Look, Philip, I know we spoke earlier about what happened at the water talk, but it’s been hugely damaging for someone personally.”

“Really?” I say. “Who might that be? I doubt it would be Lawrence (after all, he knows what his job is at this point), and I know instinctively it wasn’t David—he would never give me the satisfaction of making a request to myself or even acknowledging my existence whatsoever (whether or not he may try to end it one day remains to be seen).

“So who then?”

“Look, Philip, I won’t disclose who has said this but if you—”

“You want me to take the video down,” I interrupted.

“Yes, if you could, that would be great.”

I will stress Will was nothing but polite with me.

I then said, “Okay, perhaps I can, I just didn’t think it was right for them to block all questions and refuse to hear mine,” I added.

At this point, Rosie completely loses it.

“You were at the event representing us, you had no right to—” At that point, I’m completely triggered. Yet again, I’m being spoken down to by a posh person who is saying I don’t have the right to air my opinion, and that because I did a couple of hours volunteering on the front desk in exchange for a free ticket, I can’t speak my own mind and do my own thing... “Woah woah, I am going to stop you both right there. You were doing so well, but if that’s your attitude, BOLLOCKS.” I take my badge off and am about to do a 180 and throw it to the ground in stereotypical am-dram fashion (but it really was how I felt in the moment).

“Wait, wait,” Will says, whilst also signaling to Rosie to be quiet—one assumes he is more sensitive to the semantics at play here than preppy silver spoon "do what I say" Rosie is.

I tell Rosie to apologize. She does. I say, “Great, let’s be friends. I’ll delete the video.” I walked away. I realized that instantly if I were to delete the video, it would go against my very core as a human. I felt for a moment I had been pressured and nearly caved, but Rosie’s arrogance reminded me of who I was and why I am doing what I do. I get my bag and leave, adrenaline pumping. I took the Lizzie line from Woolwich to Canary Wharf. As I’m walking through Canary Wharf, I get a phone call from “Tilly,” a northern (like myself) marketing manager who had been brought on some days before (apparently, she didn’t know Blue Earth before two days ago—I’m highly incredulous about this statement, but alas). She says, “Hiya Philip, hope you are okay.”

“Sure, I’m fine, Tilly, what’s up?” I innocently ask.

“Well, I understand you said you were talking to Will and Rosie and that you were going to take down that video.”

“Yes, Tilly, we did have that conversation, but I’ve thought better of it. We had a conversation about how I felt spoken down to by Rosie and how she doesn’t own my voice, blah blah.”

Anyway, somebody didn’t tell Tilly not to mention it was Hannah MacInnes (such was the lack of general organization, which I might add reflected in other parts of the event, but alas).

“Hannah just wanted to ask if we could take the video down.”

I explained to Tilly that Hannah is a fully grown person, a Newsnight presenter, Times Radio, and a podcaster—she doesn’t really get to play the victim card. Hannah herself chose to behave as she did, in front of 300 people or so. Towards the end of the conversation, I get my other phone out and video it, just because I want it on record that the person pressuring Blue Earth Summit to pressure me to take down the video was Hannah MacInnes herself. I politely tell Tilly I’ll take her comments under advisement and thank her for her time, and then post the video. Because again, I am not carrying this burden on my own. If Hannah wants to try to bully me to take down the video, then that’s also going to be a matter for public consumption.

I do declare, some darker thoughts crossed my mind. Ah, I thought for a moment, I could probably leverage taking this down to get on her Times Radio show. But then I thought again—the moment I do that, I am no different to all the grifters and greenwashers that pollute the campaign space with mixed messaging as a way to help the polluters avoid scrutiny. To do such an act would violate my core and send me on a corrupted trajectory. "No, no, I won’t do that" (sure, think Meat Loaf song if you like).

A little later in the night, maybe around 11:30 PM, I get a DM on Twitter from Hannah. It’s a little all over the place—a mix of guilt, desperation, and shame. But ultimately, her own concerns are about how her actions have made her look, and essentially, she wants the comments taken down to avoid looking bad. She says in response to my opening DM a few minutes earlier, where I said:

"So they said it was you who wanted the video taken down.

FYI, they couldn't hold their water."

I was keen to let her know the cat was out of the bag. She responds:

Thu 10:31 PM

"No, I just didn't want to be tagged as it looked as if I was on their side, but I care passionately about this issue. I care DEEPLY about our water. Deeply. I truly did not at all want to block any questions, I promise you.

Thu 10:56 PM

"You have @'d Feargal and all the people I respect so, so very much here and who I want to help with their mission to get this sorted—I feel so, so sad to think they might think anything otherwise."

Thu 10:58 PM

"I would be so, so hugely, profoundly grateful if you might take down the parts where you call me shameful and say 'shame on me.' I truly did not want to block questions."

Thu 11:04 PM

And I respond with this:

“Hannah, you may not have intended to block questions, but that’s exactly what happened. During the session where ‘absolute nonsense and falsehoods’ were peddled, just as the mic was about to be passed around—standard practice at the end of these panels—you visibly signaled to shut down any audience input. When objections were raised from the front about the lack of engagement, you begrudgingly allowed a few questions—but only soft ones. (I’m not suggesting you could have predicted that, of course.) It was obvious that having Southern Water and Water UK on the panel came with an unspoken condition: no tough questions and no questions from the public. Both companies used their time to push the false narrative of water scarcity, urging us to ignore the rain—typical greenwashing. Naturally, the few questions you allowed were easily handled by these seasoned, PR-coached professionals. As I stood there, hand raised for some time, the mic lady—keen to come to me, as she’s an activist herself—looked ready to pass me the microphone. But you again signaled to stop her. It wasn’t subtle; it was a rapid, deliberate shake of the head, accompanied by squinted, determined eyes, making it clear that my question wasn’t welcome. There were hundreds of people in that room who saw your actions. You may not have wanted to block questions, but you did, and it was your decision. Furthermore, the only reason you’re engaging with me now is because you want something. Under normal circumstances, you wouldn’t give me the time of day, let alone have me on your show. You reserve airtime for Whitehall-approved voices like RAG and SAS—groups that promote watered-down solutions while creating the illusion of giving the movement a platform. It’s all carefully crafted disinformation. I’m sure Feargal couldn’t care less about my views, but your reputation and environmental credibility are at stake. After today, you’ve lost both in my eyes—just as River Action Group and SAS did before you. You likely view me as a working-class ‘nobody’ who has no place questioning you or those above me in this campaign space. But I don’t play by your societal rules. I operate on meta-truth—seeing the bigger picture beyond the polished narratives you present. The system you’re propping up is actively destroying the planet, and you’ve chosen your role in it. As for asking Blue Earth Summit to pressure me into taking down my post—an unfortunate move. Will approached me respectfully, and I might have considered it. But then Rosie stepped in, arrogantly demanding I remove it, as if a few hours of volunteer work gave her authority over me. Her disdain was clear when I questioned her. I’ve grown used to this kind of classism in the environmental movement. You, Rosie, Will—you all defer to those in power, careful not to upset the status quo while elevating your own profiles. Meanwhile, I continue to live in meta-truth, knowing that voices like mine—fact-checked and verifiable—will never be given a platform in your world. Good evening.”

After that, I posted everything online, as I like to live in meta-truth. Since then, I posted again and announced to the world that I have removed Hannah MacInnes as a follower from my Twitter, along with River Action Group, James Wallace, and Chairman Charles Watson, all of whom are hurting the anti-sewage pollution movement massively with their weak charters and softball requests that won’t resolve anything.

I’ve also rebranded myself. Waterways Protection is now the "Anti-Sewage Pollution Campaign Regulator: Exposing greenwashing organizations and narratives diverting YOUR energy from real solutions to the crisis."

I issued all three people a notice that they have been removed as followers, and that I wish no further association with them while they are all actively engaged in providing cover to those who destroy our land, waters, and wildlife. For me, it’s pretty low and very obvious. It’s time the campaign space got wise to the carefully crafted disinformation dynamics at play and who they serve, and it’s not the campaigners or the man on the street who just wants the water treated correctly so the rivers and seas are clean and his tap water is reliable. River Action Group, Surfers Against Sewage, and journalists like Hannah MacInnes are all involved in propping up this broken system in order to enhance their own profiles and gain influence in a dry, rotten corporate world.

Stay true. Greenwood OUT.

Next
Next

The Misleading "Write-Off" of ADIA’s Stake in Thames Water: Setting the Record Straight