🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <AE6AAB339668CB430@tygh.demon.co.uk>, Geoff Dellow
<geoff@tygh.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <32404948.5F27@compuserve.com>,
>LDNPA <100063.3401@compuserve.com> wrote:
Snip snip
>Admit it, the LDNPA does not have the resources to maintain these trees
>effectively and they want them "out of their hair".
>
This had occured to me as well. However the matter is argued, it is not
possible to make any long-term plans, wherever the tree health/people
safety line is drawn, without allowing for regular reinspection. This is
currently deemed 'reasonable' at one to two year intervals. That is
going to add up to an awful lot of money paid out to qualified
arboricultural consultants. 
The insurance companies insist on using them, not so much because of
their expert knowledge per se but more because they will have
professional indemnity insurance themselves.
This means that if they make a wrong diagnosis, tree falls and hurts
someone, owner of tree can sue consultant, consultants insurers pay up.

>It seems that a responsible charitable organisation with interested
>volunteers is the answer.
>
Therefore no number of interested volunteers can replace the opinion of
said qualified arboricultural consultant if it comes to a negligence
case.
BTW while it is good to see the whole perceived risk question being
aired in the national press, I was very irritated to see these trees
described as 'ancient'. What exactly was this supposed to mean?
-- 
bex
How many trees have you planted this year ?