View previous topic | View next topic

Health & Safety REALLY gorn maaad...

Page 2 of 3
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Spud McLaren
899821.  Sun Apr 08, 2012 8:30 am Reply with quote

Sadurian Mike wrote:
Which would be reason enough to reallocate it, I would imagine. Using H&S is a daft excuse, but I suppose they thought it would stick better than 'picking on him because he's ill'.
Can't imaging why they might've thought that, though. Most agreements have a clause to the effect that one can be evicted if the plot falls into disuse for a specified length of time.

In the same way, there's also (usually) a clause against subletting. Now, although the allotment holder has not himself, personally, done the heavy work on the plot, the point is that it has been worked, is in use, and he is still the holder who is benefitting in the form of the produce. Getting in help isn't subletting, and indeed these aren't the grounds on which the council sought repossession.

 
Efros
899825.  Sun Apr 08, 2012 8:44 am Reply with quote

I suspect someone has had their eye on the plot and whispered in someone else's ear.

 
Tom
905247.  Sun Apr 29, 2012 11:06 am Reply with quote

H+S is good at one thing, providing an easy way out with minimal effort required.
The man who was denied his allotment has been wronged until such time that the council provides a reasonable explanation for their denial of his use of the land.
There is also nothing I know of preventing him from growing veg somewhere else, such as his garden.

 
djgordy
905250.  Sun Apr 29, 2012 11:23 am Reply with quote

I can't help wondering if the people who live in that block of flats in the East End of London are going to use health and safety concerns to block the MOD putting ground to air missiles of their roof.

 
suze
905257.  Sun Apr 29, 2012 12:14 pm Reply with quote

They can't - the MOD would just utter the magical words "National Security", which trump everything.

I don't think anyone could really deny that this activity constitutes the "storage of dangerous substances", and so the Control of Major Accident Hazards Regulations 1999 apply. This means that a safety report must be submitted to the proper authority before such storage begins.

If National Security considerations are said to apply, what happens next could only happen in Britain - that report still has to be submitted, but it may be left blank.

It is suggested in Huffington Post that these missiles are being placed there under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 - which means that the owner of the building can't say "no" and won't be paid for this intrusion on his property.

 
Neotenic
905281.  Sun Apr 29, 2012 1:22 pm Reply with quote

Anti-aircraft missiles being part of the Olympic security preparations is one of those boomerang stories that just keeps coming back.

I believe that they were first deployed in Atlanta in 1996. There is also ample evidence of their 'shock' deployment for Athens and Beijing.

They don't, however, appear to have been in evidence for Sydney - but that might just be because it's so fucking far from everywhere else that any errant plane would simply have run out of fuel before it got there.

Despite what anyone says, I can't help but think that anti-aircraft missiles are the kind of thing its better to have and not need, than to need and not have.

 
Jenny
905286.  Sun Apr 29, 2012 1:46 pm Reply with quote

They say that over here about AK47s in private hands.

 
Neotenic
905318.  Sun Apr 29, 2012 2:48 pm Reply with quote

Misapplication of an argument does not render that argument invalid in every circumstance.

 
djgordy
905401.  Mon Apr 30, 2012 4:14 am Reply with quote

Neotenic wrote:
one of those boomerang stories that just keeps coming back.
>
>
>

They don't, however, appear to have been in evidence for Sydney


One might have thought that Sydney was the one OLympic venue that boomerang stories would be prevalant.

 
gruff5
907930.  Tue May 08, 2012 10:32 pm Reply with quote

Neotenic wrote:
Despite what anyone says, I can't help but think that anti-aircraft missiles are the kind of thing its better to have and not need, than to need and not have.

Going to make air passengers coming in to London who are aware of the "friendly fire" possibilities somewhat nervous, though, isn't it?

 
Neotenic
907952.  Wed May 09, 2012 3:18 am Reply with quote

That would of course presume that there isn't already an anti-aircraft defence capacity for certain landmarks and institutions in London.

 
Sadurian Mike
908055.  Wed May 09, 2012 10:09 am Reply with quote

If an airliner is making its final approach into the East End of London, the passengers should feel worried.

 
suze
908083.  Wed May 09, 2012 10:59 am Reply with quote

If the airplane were traveling to London City Airport, then passengers would get worried were the final approach not over the East End of London.

It was originally announced five or so years ago that LCA would be closed for the duration of the Olympics - but it seems that this is not the case.

 
Sadurian Mike
908124.  Wed May 09, 2012 3:10 pm Reply with quote

suze wrote:
If the airplane were traveling to London City Airport, then passengers would get worried were the final approach not over the East End of London.

Ah, I was talking about real airliners....

 
PDR
908156.  Wed May 09, 2012 6:13 pm Reply with quote

gruff5 wrote:
Neotenic wrote:
Despite what anyone says, I can't help but think that anti-aircraft missiles are the kind of thing its better to have and not need, than to need and not have.

Going to make air passengers coming in to London who are aware of the "friendly fire" possibilities somewhat nervous, though, isn't it?


There is a controlled airspace zone over quite a large part of the south east for the duration (well 14th July to 15th August actually), and entry into it will need special procedures. Aircraft entering without permission will risk being chased by the QRA Typhoons (some of which have now been moved closer as QRA South has moved to RAF Northolt), augmented by Tornados and a few helicopters. On interception they essentially get one chance to turn away, after which they may well be shot down (see THIS). The inner ring of missiles are a "point defence" intended as a last resort against the unlikely event that something manages to get through the other layers. But as Neo says, it's almost certainly better to have it and not use it than to need it and not have one.

The restrictions are being well advertised with poster campaigns at airfields, on aviation websites etc as well as being NOTAM'd in the normal way so there are no excuses for not knowing. Amusingly these same restrictions also apply to the "over 20kg class" of radio-controlled model aeroplanes (these are subject to special restrictions anyway) even when operated from recognised model aeroplane flying sites. This is because such models can be relatively easily adapted to become remote-pilotted missiles, if anyone had a mind to do it.

PDR

 

Page 2 of 3
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group