Pruning a tree with a TPO

[daltontrees]

16 hours ago, john87 said:

Hi There,

I looked up the case you mentioned and very interesting it was too.. Could not find any references to  "amenity" at all, just the tale of how someone got a TPO quashed..

 

Anyway, I can assure you that looking at a tree will not stop the patients doing anything, more likely to give them ideas..

 

These are SERIOUSLY ill people, that will do away with themselves in seconds and make persistant attempts to do this too.

 

They are not "down a bit" because their car had a flat tyre etc.. One problem, is that many people that kill themselves, SEEM to be better.. But, do not be fooled, this is because once they have made their mind up to do it, they are often more "settled" in themselves and seem happier..

 

Nobody in the health board wants to be arrested for manslaughter, or to have to explain to a coroner, that, despite having been told by a mental health professional that the branch posed a serious danger to patients, did nothing.

 

If the council wanted to assume that risk, [by preventing removal] then that is a matter for them. It would never happen.. Could this be the reason that this particular tree has not been TPO'ed??

 

Trust me, it is not everyday that someone on a ward kills themselves, but it is not rare either.. It is very difficult to prevent too, as hanging for example, is very quick, and very final.. You would not believe the lengths the health board have gone to to try to prevent this sort of thing. These patients are not stupid though, and can be very inventive.

 

Someone can take off their jacket say, throw it over the top of a door, close the door and seconds later it is all over. Now, you cannot ban jackets and doors... Latest thing is to install doors that have built in accellerometers and strain gauges to try to prevent this sort of thing.

 

Even fire alarm call points, you know, the red things where you let the alarm off, even though these only protrude from the wall about half an inch, they have had to install a type of tapered surround to make them flush...

 

It is all a very very sad thing

 

Just thought i would add, if anyone thinks they cannot keep themselves [or someone else] safe or if they are trying to help and advise someone, go to either the local accident and emergency department, OR the local police station. The police will arrest them under S136 and they will be taken straight to a "place of safety" [a hospital]

 

NEVER EVER, NO MATTER WHAT, tell the person not to be daft, or that they are "attention seeking" or to "pull themselves togehter" or try to but a positive spin on things or try to chivvy them up saying stuff like, "no you do not mean that" As do that, and you may as well shoot them yourself.

 

Try to get them to a hospital A&E or get the police.. In particular, if you know some one that was very down and or talking about harming themselves ove a period of time, and they suddenly have an apparent dramatic improvement, that is a very big warning sign, get the police or get them to a hospital...

 

john..

 

I am not going to answer your emotive rhetorical questions. I was not trying to defend the Council I was just saying that the tree is not a risk. There is a risk, but it's not because of the condition of the tree. You are twisting language. The risk is the state of mental health of the patients and inadequate resourcing.

 

My best friend hung himself when he was 9 years old. The rope wasn't a risk, nor was the door frame.

 

I suspect you like a rant and an argument, but I don't and this is a forum about trees (for me, anyway), on which you asked specific questions. Here's my answers.

1. The possibility of TPOs on land not visible to the public has already been explained to you. If you ask nicely without using a string of capital letters I will send you a copy of the Wilkson case. It's not 'some tale', it is development of uncertain areas of the law by the judiciary, developing and making new law as required. And very helpful it is too. It answers your question, where the legislation was too vague to do so.

2. Do you just remove the TPO'd branch? Your call, after admitting your guilt in advance on a public forum. Ask yourself if you are a respectable, law abiding professional or not. Ask yourself how long the risk has been present without incident, to inform the true urgency or otherwise of the situation. Then decide.

3. I suggest you apply to the Council, anything else is illegal. It would be thoroughly irresponsible to implicate  a client or customer in a prosecution.

4. Yes the Council can say no. I have already stated my view that the tree is not the risk. But the Council may see reason in the application and allow removal. You won't get if you don't ask. And if you get a refusal you can appeal.

5. If it all goes horribly wrong a coroner's inquiry will untangle it, and depending on the outcome there may or may not be a basis for a civil suit or criminal prosecution. Speculation as to the outcome of that is futile. But I continue to suspect that the focus woudl be on staff allowing someone in their care to harm themselves.

6. The safety of patients is not the Council's responsibility, but presumably it could be persuaded by a convincing argument to exercise its legitimate powers to allow tree works.

7. You now know what I think. Most others have perhaps wisely steered clear of expressing a view.

Over and out.

[monkeybusiness]

4 hours ago, daltontrees said:

I am not going to answer your emotive rhetorical questions. I was not trying to defend the Council I was just saying that the tree is not a risk. There is a risk, but it's not because of the condition of the tree. You are twisting language. The risk is the state of mental health of the patients and inadequate resourcing.

 

My best friend hung himself when he was 9 years old. The rope wasn't a risk, nor was the door frame.

 

I suspect you like a rant and an argument, but I don't and this is a forum about trees (for me, anyway), on which you asked specific questions. Here's my answers.

1. The possibility of TPOs on land not visible to the public has already been explained to you. If you ask nicely without using a string of capital letters I will send you a copy of the Wilkson case. It's not 'some tale', it is development of uncertain areas of the law by the judiciary, developing and making new law as required. And very helpful it is too. It answers your question, where the legislation was too vague to do so.

2. Do you just remove the TPO'd branch? Your call, after admitting your guilt in advance on a public forum. Ask yourself if you are a respectable, law abiding professional or not. Ask yourself how long the risk has been present without incident, to inform the true urgency or otherwise of the situation. Then decide.

3. I suggest you apply to the Council, anything else is illegal. It would be thoroughly irresponsible to implicate  a client or customer in a prosecution.

4. Yes the Council can say no. I have already stated my view that the tree is not the risk. But the Council may see reason in the application and allow removal. You won't get if you don't ask. And if you get a refusal you can appeal.

5. If it all goes horribly wrong a coroner's inquiry will untangle it, and depending on the outcome there may or may not be a basis for a civil suit or criminal prosecution. Speculation as to the outcome of that is futile. But I continue to suspect that the focus woudl be on staff allowing someone in their care to harm themselves.

6. The safety of patients is not the Council's responsibility, but presumably it could be persuaded by a convincing argument to exercise its legitimate powers to allow tree works.

7. You now know what I think. Most others have perhaps wisely steered clear of expressing a view.

Over and out.

Great post!

John - point 2 (particularly the last couple of sentences) are essentially what I was going to post, but with less politeness. 

[john87]

36 minutes ago, monkeybusiness said:

Great post!

John - point 2 (particularly the last couple of sentences) are essentially what I was going to post, but with less politeness. 

Turns out the tree does NOT have a TPO anyway..

 

As to how long has it been a risk woithout incident, about a year i suppose, not the hospitals fault if trees tend to grow.

 

john..

[Stubby]

8 hours ago, john87 said:

Turns out the tree does NOT have a TPO anyway..

 

 

 

john..

So the whole thing was a wind up ?

[Sutton]

38 minutes ago, Stubby said:

So the whole thing was a wind up ?

And last year, the branch that a patient could have hanged themselves from would have been too small/insubstantial to support their weight! Deary dreary!

[Rich Rule]

I think all the answers are here.

 

[john87]

3 hours ago, Sutton said:

And last year, the branch that a patient could have hanged themselves from would have been too small/insubstantial to support their weight! Deary dreary!

 

Not the brightest eh... [But think you know it all] Hanging yourself requires VERY little force..

 

As it happens..

Immediate death following attempted suicide by hanging may occur in one of three ways:

·         Mechanical constriction of the neck structures (asphyxia; venous occlusion or arterial occlusion). Only 2 kg of pressure is needed to block the jugular veins, arterial occlusion requires 2.3–30.0 kg. About 15 kg of pressure is required to obstruct the trachea.

·         Cardiac arrest, possibly facilitated by pressure on the carotid sinus and its effects on vasoactive centres.

·         Injury of spinal cord and brain stem. Fractures of the cervical spine are, however, very rare in suicidal hanging because the drop before tension on the noose is achieved is usually minimal.

So, you go get yourself a single green twig, say 3/8" diameter, catch hold of each end and try to pull it apart. You got precisely no chance..

john..

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

2 hours ago, john87 said:

 

Not the brightest eh... [But think you know it all] Hanging yourself requires VERY little force..

 

As it happens..

Immediate death following attempted suicide by hanging may occur in one of three ways:

·         Mechanical constriction of the neck structures (asphyxia; venous occlusion or arterial occlusion). Only 2 kg of pressure is needed to block the jugular veins, arterial occlusion requires 2.3–30.0 kg. About 15 kg of pressure is required to obstruct the trachea.

·         Cardiac arrest, possibly facilitated by pressure on the carotid sinus and its effects on vasoactive centres.

·         Injury of spinal cord and brain stem. Fractures of the cervical spine are, however, very rare in suicidal hanging because the drop before tension on the noose is achieved is usually minimal.

So, you go get yourself a single green twig, say 3/8" diameter, catch hold of each end and try to pull it apart. You got precisely no chance..

john..

 

 

Give it a rest mate - derailing a thread can have some funny outcomes but derailing the whole f*cking forum into some sort of Samaritans think tank is bang out of order.  Pull yourself together man, get a grip and crack on....

[Bolt]

24 minutes ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

 

 

Give it a rest mate - derailing a thread can have some funny outcomes but derailing the whole f*cking forum into some sort of Samaritans think tank is bang out of order.  Pull yourself together man, get a grip and crack on....

I don’t know Kevin, i’m really not tooooo sure……

 

But,

 

If I had to try to list threads that seem to aim to derail an entire f*cking arb forum….. (like if I searched really, really hard)….

 

It probably wouldn’t include this one.

 

 

 

Just sayin’

 

Edited November 12, 2022 by Bolt

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

23 minutes ago, Bolt said:

I don’t know Kevin, i’m really not tooooo sure……

 

But,

 

If I had to try to list threads that seem to aim to derail an entire f*cking arb forum….. (like if I searched really, really hard)….

 

It probably wouldn’t include this one.

 

 

 

Just sayin’

 

Mheh....