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.