Health & Safety Police

[Sportsman]

Yes it would ! conkers have little taxation value tree surgery does

if you banned dangerous occupations there would be no tax to fund the HSE and job protection is top over safety ,not the jobs of tree surgeouns ofcourse the HSE jobs

labour set up hundreds (if not thousands) of "organisations" who do nothing but invent stupid legislation or enforce the stupid legislation ,not because its needed but those workers doing nothing will realise if they didnt vote labour their jobs were at risk ...it almost worked

 

But the HSE didn't ban conkers

[chesters1]

it would be impossible to enforce ,chestnut trees aid and abet them ,need those tree surgeons

[rob.imk2]

I actually watched the programme where they caught flounders underfoot I used to do this as a youngster in the estuary at Arnside until one year I stood on a weever fish that was the last year I ever used that method

[yorkio]

I actually watched the programme where they caught flounders underfoot I used to do this as a youngster in the estuary at Arnside until one year I stood on a weever fish that was the last year I ever used that method

Last time I was over at Arnside, it was fascinating to watch that old bloke doing this with his golden retriever. Mind you, the retriever wasn't so golden after half an hour of plodging through the mud!

[corydoras]

Trying to remove risk altogether is nonsense made up by people who don't assess risk properly.

Most people haven't got a clue how to assess risk. Chesters for example seems to think everything is 50-50, either it will happen or it won't.

[ColinW]

As usual the ill-informed animal rights nutters come in with the ridiculous language "14 stone men stamping on fish...."

I have caught flounders like this and it is nothing of the sort. You do it in bare feet for a start! All you do is hold the fish down with your foot while you bend down and pick it up. Obviously (to anyone but a tree hugger) when you want to eat a fish you do not want to damage it at all. Do these animal rights people kick their aubergines around Sainsburys?

[chesters1]

Most people haven't got a clue how to assess risk. Chesters for example seems to think everything is 50-50, either it will happen or it won't.

it cannot be anything else ,it will or it wont

Edited July 27, 2010 by chesters1

[barry luxton]

it cannot be anything else ,it will or it wont

 

 

I can say for certain one thing won't happen, and that is the angling trust getting more than 16,000 members in it's lifetime, although there are millions of anglers in this country the majority don't want to join, so it ain't too difficult to work out that the chances of the trust doing well out of the uk punters is pretty low, thats gotta be worse than 50-50.

 

 

 

Wots the link with health and safty, well you could call the trust a hospital case.

 

 

 

i'm off now.

[corydoras]

I can say for certain one thing won't happen, and that is the angling trust getting more than 16,000 members in it's lifetime, although there are millions of anglers in this country the majority don't want to join, so it ain't too difficult to work out that the chances of the trust doing well out of the uk punters is pretty low, thats gotta be worse than 50-50.

 

 

 

Wots the link with health and safty, well you could call the trust a hospital case.

 

 

 

i'm off now.

Having jut had a look at their web site here's one more angler that that won't join. It's not 50-50 it's a probability of 0. Edited July 27, 2010 by corydoras

[Steve Walker]

Chesters for example seems to think everything is 50-50, either it will happen or it won't.

 

I think he just says that to wind up the statisticians amongst us