Czech Environmental Inspectorate on the reports of the House Commission of Inquiry into the ecological catastrophe in Bečva
We take the reports of the House Commission as the product of politicians who need to collect points before the elections, not as an expert analysis. It is necessary to realize that the Police of the Czech Republic has been accused by someone, no doubt on the basis of evidence that is not available to the commission, the media or the public. And the evidence lies not only in the dozens of protected samples, but also in other operational findings of the police and expert opinions. In addition, the public prosecutor rejected the defendants’ request to stop the prosecution, which proves something. Although the reports themselves are emphasized several times that the investigation in accordance with the Water Act is conducted by the water authority, the conclusions point to the alleged failure of the Czech Environmental Inspectorate without any evidence. It was requested to cooperate only in the days following 20 September, and on-the-spot inspectors performed tasks on the basis of the method of the water authority that managed the investigation.
The fact that it is a political agitation is also proved by the fact that in the few specific allegations there is not a single truth based on facts. In addition, the report is internally contradictory and does not bring anything new. The unilateral claims of some so-called experts have been repeatedly refuted, they are untrue, but still repeated.
The alleged errors of the inspection can easily be rebutted by factual evidence. For example, the allegation that the Brno inspector did not go to accident is completely meaningless. The accident was being dealt with by the water authority at the time and it is provable that the Brno inspector agreed with the representative of this authority in Valašské Meziříčí and he himself stated that he did not need it on the spot and should not drive. It would be pointless, because given the distance it would take about three hours to the place, yet the Olomouc inspector was on site and worked perfectly and all this is confirmed by the official record.
Another song played is the rejection of fishermen’s samples. The explanation is again simple and verifiable. The fishermen did not hand over any sample of inspectors because they handed them over to a water authority official, lay warm in the trunk of the car for several hours and were taken in the most obscure place in the section where they took the Model of the Fire and Rescue Service. It is therefore understandable that samples that would not yield anything new were rejected.
Comments on the article. What do others think?