Talk:River Roding
Add topic | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Boundaries
[edit]The river marks much of the boundary between the London Borough of Newham and the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham.
No - this was modified in the 1990s and the North Circular is now the main part of the boundary. A small section near the Thames still follows the Roding. Timrollpickering (Talk) 12:00, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Paul Powlesland
[edit]Currently this Wikipedia page says In June 2026, 40-year-old barrister Paul Powlesland was facing prosecution for "or operating without a licence" in is efforts to clean the river
As the cited article from MyLondonNews (is that WP:RS?) alludes to, he hired a digger. As this article from The Guardian specifies:
The EA alleges dredging has been carried out and waste has been left on site within the flood plain, constituting a flood risk activity under the regulations that would have required an environmental permit. Carrying out the work without one is an offence, it states.
Paul has unlawfully widened a statutory Main River, specifically Alder's Brook (a tributary of the Roding), making it up to 20ft wide and 4ft deep in places. I do appreciate WP:NOR means his own Facebook comments cannot be cited. But he's being investigated for a Flood Risk Activity. He is not facing prosecution for "cleaning the river", but for his use of an excavator to unlawfully widen and deepen a brook that is classed as contributory towards flood risks. There appear to be additional environmental violations around not just dredging but digging out the river, but citing the relevant guidance would breach WP:NOR.
In the meantime, would it be worth rephrasing the line in the article to be more representative of what Paul is being investigated for?
--~2026-36170-79 (talk) 18:00, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, rephrasing can often improve an article. MyLondon News does not appear at WP:RSP, so I have assumed it is reliable. But I'm sure The Guardian would be a much better source. As Alder's Brook has its own article, it might be a good idea to add that detail, and possibly also add at the Alder's Brook article? I suspect that the government document might be classed as WP:PRIMARY and so not eligible for use as a source here. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:09, 21 June 2026 (UTC)