Here we go again - welcome to the country of fatuous regs

[RogerS]

Get your trees inspected now...and by the way...that will be £70 thank you very much.

Maybe I missed this in an earlier thread...

http://property.timesonline.co.uk/tol/l ... 176060.ece

and comment here

http://www.spectator.co.uk/business/tra ... rees.thtml

and at least a voice of sanity here

http://www.berr.gov.uk/about/economics- ... 46700.html

 

[Jake]

That's the private sector for you - madness. :roll:

Thankfully, as you point out, the government is opposing it and taking a much more sensible approach.

 

[RogerS]

Yes - one could argue that it has all the hallmarks of vested interests that were so blatantly apparent with industry bodies and Part P.

 

[Smudger]

Interesting that the first comments start off the government bashing, although as far as I can see the government body is trying to get the BSI to drop this rather silly idea...

It's actually all the fault of some judge who allowed the claim by the motorcyclist. Used to be that this was an Act of God, but not now in the compensation culture.

Hmm. Branch in the road. Shall I slow down? Nah. I can always claim later...

 

[Mr T]

I notice this is a draft proposal up for consultation. I assume that as Roger and Jake disagree with it so much they will be making their representations to the BSI. Some times we prefer the whinge to action!

Chris

 

[Digit]

I'm saying nowt! :lol: (who said that's a change?)
Anyway, surrounded as I am by trees I have mine checked regularly.

Roy.

 

[Jake]

I assume that as Roger and Jake disagree with it so much they will be making their representations to the BSI. Some times we prefer the whinge to action!

Chris

I think you totally missed the point of my post!

 

[Digit]

Give a group of people power and they will use it to their own ends. Doesn't matter a damn whether they are governments or private groups.

Roy.

 

[Mr T]

Hi Jake

On re reading, yes you are quite right, apologies.

Chris

 

[Digit]

Doesn't make much difference, power corrupts. Some 7000 organisations now have the right of access to our homes. I can't even think of 7000 organisations, governmental or non-governmental who might want access to my home, or why.

Roy.

 

[RogerS]

Doesn't make much difference, power corrupts. Some 7000 organisations now have the right of access to our homes. I can't even think of 7000 organisations, governmental or non-governmental who might want access to my home, or why.

Roy.

Erm....only 260, I think.

 

[Digit]

In last Thursday's Question Time the figure given was over 7000.
But even a couple of hundred seems like overkill.

Roy.

 

[chipchaser]

Thanks to RogerS for pointing to this new proposal, I would not have known of its existence without happening on his post.

Please look at the draft British Standard before making up your minds that no action is necessary. OK the RRAC (Risk & Regulation Advisory Council) is opposing the new proposals and, as they say on their site, The Health and Safety Executive agree that a lighter touch should be possible. However, the draft BS 8516, Recommendations for tree safety inspection will look attractively convincing to the nannies who proliferate in the UK. The draft is available for comment until July 31.

Even if it has no legal authority I expect it will be used as the yardstick for what action a defendant in any legal action should have taken. So, taking an extreme view , if a burglar is squashed by a bough falling from my tree he may be citing this new standard when he asks for compensation!

 

[Jake]

Even if it has no legal authority I expect it will be used as the yardstick for what action a defendant in any legal action should have taken. So, taking an extreme view , if a burglar is squashed by a bough falling from my tree he may be citing this new standard when he asks for compensation!

Judges do not defer to British Standards, even as yardsticks.

They do listen to expert evidence, and it seems that a body of experts is behind the BS - although it is hotly contested. That body of experts will hold those same views whether the BS is passed or not - so you may well be stuffed anyway (if the judge prefers their evidence).

 

[RogerS]

....... and it seems that a body of experts is behind the BS - although it is hotly contested. .......

Also known as 'those with a vested interest'.

Six people killed by falling trees? Used to be known as an Act of God. Now in this litigious society even God isn't immune to some half-baked no-win no-fee parasites and a greedy little sod.

 

[Jake]

Is it that simple?

What about if a slimeball no-win no-fee merchant, at home on his massive estate, is fully aware that some branches in his conker tree are really rotten and about to fall off, but he doesn't take them down because (a) he's a tight-asre and (b) he doesn't like children trespassing on his land and if a few get squashed that'll teach them a lesson.

Then children get duly get squashed and need life-long care.

Should nasty stingy slimeball (or his insurers) be made to pay for the care, etc, or should the children and their families be left to scrape around in the gutter trying to balance caring for the poor little mites 24/7, and scratching a living?

 

[RogerS]

Quite right Jake. They have no right being out and about and not in the workhouse slaving away :wink:

To argue in absurdam (or whatever the Latin phrase is), why don;t we remove all obstacles from our garden and land, Let's chop down all the trees as they still might fall down. Concrete over the country nice and flat in case someone trips up. Ban cars - far too dangerous and motorbikes and cycles, for that matter. If it's raining then we'd better be banned from walking outside in case we slip and then want to sue someone.

Back to trees - my risk, I prefer. Not some numpty coming round telling me what to do, As it happens we spent some serious money husbanding our trees and I don't take kindly to shelling out again or being told what to do.

We're going to see the same vested interests that crawled out of the woodwork when Part P was in the offing.

 

[Digit]

Like the implementation of the Asbestos regs vis-a-vis Asbestos cement you mean Rog, as written on the advise of the Asbestos removal companies and implemented, despite the HSE's own scientific advisor's advise?

Roy.

 

[Jake]

Quite right Jake. They have no right being out and about and not in the workhouse slaving away :wink:

Thought as much!

Back to trees - my risk, I prefer. Not some numpty coming round telling me what to do,

It is, and will remain so. Just 'cos it's a British Standard, doesn't mean anything - unless you want to claim that you comply with it as a badge of quality.

As it happens we spent some serious money husbanding our trees and I don't take kindly to shelling out again or being told what to do.

Who's going to make you do that, or tell you what to do? I assume you have no particular desire to add "Fully in compliance with BSXXXX" to your letterhead?

We're going to see the same vested interests that crawled out of the woodwork when Part P was in the offing.

It's called 'regulatory capture' by economists. Part P is a bit of a red herring here, as that is binding legislation with an enforcement mechanism.

This is just the BSI making up some so-called 'best practice' stuff to sell.

 

[RogerS]

We're going to see the same vested interests that crawled out of the woodwork when Part P was in the offing.

It's called 'regulatory capture' by economists. Part P is a bit of a red herring here, as that is binding legislation with an enforcement mechanism.
..........

But it wasn't until NICEIC and all their chums started jumping up and down.

There was one death (tragic I know but arguably as much culpability for her partner who drilled into the wall without checking to see if any live cables were buried there). One death. RoSPA could not supply me with any statistics for accidents caused by faulty wiring. If it was that much of a problem then you would have expected them to have at least some records or stats to back things up.

As I said 'vested interests'