Wellingtonia felled by idiots!

[Khriss]

I think a word is needed here abt PPE, putting herself at risk there. K

[Gary Prentice]

1 hour ago, Khriss said:

I think a word is needed here abt PPE, putting herself at risk there. K

Yeah, you could go blind...

[Khriss]

Dust and fungal debris from tree cavities is no laughing matter, Gary k

[Gary Prentice]

16 minutes ago, Khriss said:

Dust and fungal debris from tree cavities is no laughing matter, Gary k

Nor RSI's

[Khriss]

I never joke abt safety matters Gary, as you know,  helmet boots n gloves or yr Off Site ! K

[felixthelogchopper]

43 minutes ago, Khriss said:

I never joke abt safety matters Gary, as you know,  helmet boots n gloves or yr Off Site ! K

Don't forget mask.

[Gary Prentice]

24 minutes ago, felixthelogchopper said:

Don't forget gimp mask.

Fixed that for ya?

[sean]

On 30/11/2018 at 07:19, Adam M said:

I wasn't aware that the Magistrates could impose an unlimited fine. I was under the impression that would be the point of referring to Crown? Happy to be corrected (if you could point out the section in legislation that would be much appreciated).

It looks to me like Magistrates can impose a max fine of £20,000 but serious cases can be refered to Crown Court where an unlimited fine can be imposed.

[Adam M]

4 hours ago, sean said:

It looks to me like Magistrates can impose a max fine of £20,000 but serious cases can be refered to Crown Court where an unlimited fine can be imposed.

Yes, that was my understanding. 

[Adam M]

2 hours ago, EdwardC said:

 

 

 

It even says that if you look at the TCPA https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/8/section/210

 

Trouble is it's not been updated. If you look closer, at the pink bit at the top of the page I've linked you to, you will see that there are editorial changes yet to be made to the TCPA, and it would appear the guidance too. 

 

If you take the trouble to find out what those changes are, you will find that they are... 's. 210(2) words substituted by S.I. 2015/664 Sch. 4 para. 18(5)' which says 'In section 210 (penalties for non-compliance with tree preservation regulations)(f), in subsection (2), for the words following “liable” substitute “on summary conviction, or on conviction on indictment, to a fine”.

 

That is a a fine. No qualifying level or amount. A fine, of the Beaks choosing. Even on summary conviction, ie in the Magistrates Court.

 

Austerity has clearly hit the .gov editorial team. But the changes came into force 12 March 2015 so we should really know this. Trees aren't the only things affected by the primary legislation leading to these Regs. You'd be surprised at what it covers.

 

It's been a long day.

I see what you mean now. Is there any point in pushing for a case to be heard at Crown Court then if Magistrates can bosh out a fine of their choosing?