HCR

The defence of necessity exists in relation to trespass, however, there must be an actual or reasonably perceived danger in relation to the course of action taken by the alleged trespasser.

Yep, very happy with that

Nowt wrong with the odd Tatra either

Technically. But I doubt they'd want a pile of twigs and leaves.

Interested to hear what a more detailed inspection discloses

Thermite.

This thread's darting around a bit now, and I may have gone out of sync, but Mr Holland did indeed need training. These are the laws he broke: Regulation 6(3) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005: "Where work is carried out at height, every employer shall take suitable and sufficient measures to prevent, so far as is reasonably practicable, any person falling a distance liable to cause personal injury." Regulation 4(1) of the Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992: "Every employer shall ensure that suitable personal protective equipment is provided to his employees who may be exposed to a risk to their health or safety while at work except where and to the extent that such risk has been adequately controlled by other means which are equally or more effective." Regulation 4(2) of the Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992: "Every self-employed person shall ensure that he is provided with suitable personal protective equipment where he may be exposed to a risk to his health or safety while at work except where and to the extent that such risk has been adequately controlled by other means which are equally or more effective." Regulation 9(1) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998: "Every employer shall ensure that all persons who use work equipment have received adequate training for purposes of health and safety, including training in the methods which may be adopted when using the work equipment, any risks which such use may entail and precautions to be taken."

It's a while since I was last involved in rhododendron stem injection (about 2005) but we did it with battery drills.

As an LDF consultation there need not be any developers involved yet. There might be, if the LPA is in partnership with someone to develop the land, but there is no guarantee of that. My guess is that the land is LPA owned, but it could be private. Blocks of woodland in predominantly built up areas tend to belong to local authorities though.

Superb!

Yeah, sorry for the confusion. I was referring to the earlier subplot about ichneumons stinging. I too once had a horntail get very interested in me after I'd been sweating over some spruce all morning.

Well, you live and learn. I did a bit of research and it turns out that Enicospilus ramidulus belongs to the sub-family Ophioninae; the only ichneumons to possess a sting.

It appears to be a consultation on the LDF - i.e. the designation of the land in the next local plan. Who owns the land is pretty irrelevant at this stage, and there are unlikely to be any planning applications at this stage either! The LDF will be open to challenge if local views are disregarded.

Depends on whether that law says that you need a specific, regulated test (such as for driving) or 'adequate training'. The latter can be provided in house, and a court can decide if it is indeed adequate in the event of things going Pete Tong.

Dubious sporting integrity, but I'm going on Wednesday

Sounds a bit like Enicospilus ramidulus, although they don't have a sting. Or maybe Megarhyssa superba...

Stereum rugosum?

:thumbup:

It would be completely illegal to make a choice based on someone's age! However, I get what you're saying. I'd take the right person, based on skills, experience and attitude. A slightly older person might be better qualified in those respects, but age is no guarantee either way. You sound like you have a lot to offer, so I can't see your age being an issue.

That's a lot like saying drink driving is alright if you don't crash!

The Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992.

Yes, it's Rhyssa persuasoria. Handsome beasts, often seen around stacked softwood.

When relying on a defence in English and Welsh law, it is by no means uncommon for the defendant to have to prove that his defence existed. Also, in Salabiaku v France (1988) 13 EHRR 379 the European Court of Human Rights found that there was no principled objection to the imposition of strict liability in criminal cases.

^^ Really?

That would be ideal, because as we all know, once the work begins, all bets are off. However, pretty much all conditions are 'Grampian' [negative] conditions these days, i.e. of the form that begins 'No development shall commence prior to.....', which is actually enforceable as it is time-bound; positive requirements are usually delivered via planning obligations (section 106 agreements). "Where conditions restricting development from occurring until a planning obligation has been completed are imposed, they must be negatively worded in the ‘Grampian condition’ form, i.e. prohibiting the development from occurring until the specified action has been taken. Positively worded conditions must be avoided."