Homeowners could have to pay a specialist to regularly examine their garden trees, under proposals for a new safety standard which could lead to thousands being felled.And there'd have to be people to record the checks, and then to check the checkers, and then to report the statistics, and they'd need running cost budgets, and publicity budgets, and consultation budgets, and...
The British standard for tree safety inspection would require tree-owners to conduct an annual "walk-by" inspection and get them checked by a "trained person" every three years.
A more rigorous and expensive "expert inspection" would then need to be carried out by a qualified arboriculturist every five years.
I think we can all see where this is going, can't we?
5 comments:
I have your concept of freedom pretty mapped out, oh self-important one.
"Freedom, it's what Britain's all about. If you can't afford your dinner, you're free to go without"
And now, goodness, you've all but admitted you're a bag carrier for DD. A person who (how shall i say ?) positions themself. Rather foolishly this time I feel.
How could anyone who purports to be intelligent and in touch with today's Zeitgeist be so mis-directed ?
It'll be that thing won't it ?
"You turn if you want to etc etc drone drone"
Oh, and then there's the Daily Mail thing too. You're a fan of them. And (oh yes) you're a predator.
Have a word with yourself ?
TT
"..now, goodness, you've all but admitted you're a bag carrier for DD.."
I have...? News to me, Total Twat.
"It'll be that thing won't it?"
Once again, you aren't making sense.
You know your doctor can give you advise on alcohol and substance abuse, don't you? He might recommend you ease making nonsensical comments on blogs too....
This should have been stifled at conception.
The article quotes a total of six people per annum killed as a consequence of falling trees. So, the risk is one in ten million. From a health and safety management perspective. the risk is already as low as reasonably practicable. Any further money spent is likely to result in negligible - if any - improvement in the risk. Therefore, "do nothing" is the appropriate response.
I noticed that there was a case of a motorcyclist being injured as a consequence of a fallen branch. He sued. So, English common law is working exactly as it is supposed to.
The upshot is that there is not a problem and it doesn't need fixing. Still, there is always someone who wants to create an industry out of nothing...
I suspect this sort of nonsense will only apply in England...
"Therefore, "do nothing" is the appropriate response."
Sadly, 'be seen to be doing something' has become the watchword lately...
Post a Comment