Remember how dangerous Nanny thought that conker trees were?Now she has set her beady little eyes on palm trees, along the seafront of Torbay.
Nanny's chums in the local council have written to the chamber of trade saying that the trees are a potential hazard, because their sharp leaves could cause injuries to
eyes or faces.
Torbay council's senior urban design and landscape officer, Paul Osborne, said in his letter that the trees needed to be "carefully and appropriately used".
He said:
"They can cause maintenance problems and,
as they have very sharp leaves,
need to be carefully used in the streetscapes,
where they could cause injury to eyes/faces if inappropriately placed."
Clearly Osborne doesn't get out much!
Colin Charlwood, a Liberal Democrat councillor and another friend of Nanny, said:
"The truth is that, like everything else,
health and safety regulations mean we have to be mindful
that palm trees could be dangerous.
What if one of those leaves caught a child in the eye,
for example?
It is a little bit like keeping tigers:
they are beautiful to look at
but you wouldn't want them wandering the streets."
Tigers?
Is this man on drugs?
As with all of Nanny's daft ideas, there are a lot of "what if's" but precious little hard facts.
Surely it's about time Nanny woke up and made the use of hard hats and visors obligatory for pedestrians. You never know when you might be blinded by a palm leaf or struck on the head by falling masonry, meteorites or frozen wee from a plane. Come on, let's have some common sense!
ReplyDeleteSo, these palm trees are being equated with tigers ? Are tigers not a little more ambulatory than trees or has the Torbay district been infested with a particularly vicious palm/Triffid cross breed that likes to hide behind other trees, bushes and ice cream huts waiting to leap out and give unsuspecting tourists a damn good maul. If this is the case then the public has a right to know. In fact I suggest a hysterical tabloid campaign on the lines of 'Killers in our midst: The Sun says 'Name and shame these lethal trees'.
ReplyDeleteIf however, these are perfectly normal palm trees I suggest the good burghers of Torbay go and have a look at countries where they are found growing in the wild and see how people deal with them there...ie without hysterical over reaction and much the same way as we in the UK would live alongside an Oak, Beech or Pine.
The Ministry is called "Trees and Urban Roads Designs for Safety" or T.U.R.D.S. for short.
ReplyDeleteAnd you are right, it stinks ...
Cutting down mature trees seems to lack the 'join up thinking' that Nanny claims. I mean, what about the carbon sequestration? If they keep chopping down trees how will Nanny meet her carbon reduction commitments?
ReplyDeleteI see that today Nanny has invited representatives of all the large Electrical Retailers to Downing St. to ask them if they would mind only selling electrically efficient products. Not for our good of course, though I suppose over the life of giant screen the electricity used could cost a fair bit, but for hers as she failed to factor in any growth in the use of energy when she set her targets for reduced 'carbon emissions' by 2010.
Apparantly the 'stand-by' consumption is the thing that they are worried about. Some devices still use about 6W of electricity on standby whereas as long as 4 to 5 years ago the best devices only used 1W.
Wow.
I have just spent a few minutes trying to fond out what a typical modern TV screen display screen might consume when it's on but it seems such info is not easy to come by.
My own ageing Widescreen CRT device suggests it uses 77W, which is less than I thought. But it does suggest that Nanny might do better to reduce TV broadcasting from 24 hours per day to, say, 4 hours per day if she is serious about making real savings. However I am sure the related reduction in proganda transmision time would be unacceptable to her.
That said there are a couple of growths in my garden that seem to want to attack me whenever I go near them. I wish Nanny would ban them so I could do something about them.
Well, I think I understand Nanny's concern. Nanny's whole outlook on life and her reason for existence is to protect us from all from all the dangers we're not aware of and to teach us to do as we're told. And as we all know, Nanny takes her responsibilities extremely seriously ... she would really hate to lose her job.
ReplyDeleteSo Nanny wouldn't want to risk us slipping the leash and (heaven forbid) finding out that we can actually survive in a world without her supervision.
That would make Nanny and her vast, costly army of trolls seem rather pointless. The only way they can imagine themselves to be useful is by ever more vigorous and imaginative nannying.
Man, you Brits must have some really, really good Ganja growing over there.
ReplyDeleteWhere can I get some of dat?
Seriously, quit complaining about the mental cases who decide public policy.
You people keep electing them and then re-electing them.
Instead of getting rid of the palm trees, why not get rid of some of the morons who come up with these insane ideas!
ReplyDeleteanonymous said
ReplyDelete"Seriously, quit complaining about the mental cases who decide public policy.
You people keep electing them and then re-electing them."
True enough, but what do you do when the only people stupid enough to want the job are the only ones offering themselves for election?
No one really capable would waste their time and effort on the things that people whose primary, possibly sole objective is to tell others what to do and retire on a guaranteed pension, seem willing to take on.
I suppose we could refuse to elect anyone and enjoy a period of anarchy instead.
Grant:..
ReplyDelete"I suppose we could refuse to elect anyone and enjoy a period of anarchy instead..."
In the days of the old West in the USA, there was a defence that stated words to the effect of:
"He NEEDED killing, your Honour.."
Some people just need to be killed.
Ok, ok. Just joking, here.