Comments on: National Tree Safety Group – Tree Management for Public Safety

By: Antony croft

Antony croft — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 10:23:15 +0000

Isnt it sad that a living thing that man once worshipped and revered is now public enemy number one, seen only as an unreliable scaffold of living and dead tissues ready to undermine our houses or fall and kill us at every oportunity.

has the human race become so disatached from its relationship with the earths ecology that instinct and common sense has been lossed in the same winds that carry away our soils?

If we continue to force nature into our ever increasingly narrow requirments we will soon find a reminder of the intimate relationship we had with ecolgy and the web of life. We appear to have lost respect for nature in all its forms, and if we do not regain it we will force nature to remind us just how powerful it is in re balancing things that are out of order/balance.

Is it not time we went into our schools and re taught the next gererations the importance of nature, our relationship/place within its ecology. can there, at this time, be anything more important to teach our children than the relationship we have with life on earth?

it isnt these new laws that are the issue, they are just a symptom of a bigger problem, if you want to stop the risk entreprenuers you need to teach poeple how to love and respect nature again, then comon sense will once again rule the day.

By: incorgoacquig

incorgoacquig — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 05:54:30 +0000

I wanted to research this subject and write a paper. Your post what a thousand words would not. Nice job.

By: Gary Moore

Gary Moore — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 16:29:23 +0000

If this became law Woods for All would have to stop planting trees and buying up woodland.

By: Michael Organe

Michael Organe — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 18:59:17 +0000

I understand that there is a suggestion that everybody who has a tree on their land should be forced to pay have it inspected regularly, in the interests of public safety.

It seems to me that there are serious objections to this idea.

1. The cost of the scheme would be likely to far outweigh the current costs of compensation for damage done by trees.

2. There would not be enough independent experts to carry out the inspections, as happened with the HIPs housing inspection scheme.

3. It could be cheaper to fell trees subject to the scheme, rather than keep them, resulting in reduction of the tree stock and consequent damage to the environment.

4. The best way of judging whether such a scheme would be worthwhile would be to make insurance companies responsible for the survey fees. This would ensure that the risk assessment would be cost effective. After all it is the insurance companies that have to pay the compensation.

5. There is a strong possibility that this would lead to the sort of rip off that has affected the public over HIP surveyors and Independent Financial Advisers.

This has all the smell of another nanny state protection racket to me!

By: Andy Stokes

Andy Stokes — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 12:57:13 +0000

I thought the event was well worth while, though it took a while to liven up. The early sessions were very simple and basic, but were perhaps a matter of ensuring everyone was at teh same understanding. The questions posed at the end of each session were at times leading, and at times needed an answer of n/a or similar to express no preference. The most illuminating and useful aspects were from David Adams regarding the risk averse society. the least helpful was from BSI, who I found to be secretive, defensive and seemingly at odds with the wider concern of major landowners around the UK. The BS development in its current form could, if adopted, see many owners of roadside trees in our rural landscape just removing them rather than face the barrage of inspections currently proposed.