Well no, but I for one don't intend to snipe, it clearly is extraordinarily
difficult being an expert witness, and nothing else shines a light on our
performance in quite the same way. Certainly I wouldn't want to do it.
From: Edmund Hopkins <Edmund.Hopkins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.gov.uk>
To: UK Tree Care <email@example.com>
Sent: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 10:32
Subject: RE: Subsidence - the latest case
I think we should also remember that Lawyers/Judges and their ilk are
actually going to go out of their way to snipe and to find witnesses not
credible. I found a couple of Lord Justice Edwards-Stuart's ponderings
somewhat dubious; he agreed with Frank's assertion that Margaret implied an
unrealistic level of precision with her measurements to two decimal points
and then goes on to argue the toss about crown volume calculations not taking
elliptical crowns into account. And his vagueness on 30% crown thinning brom
3998 suggests he's not completely got a handle on things, not that that was
ever that precise anyway....
But the idea that Arbs are supposed to be better at foreseeability than
designers seems to be pandering to the insurers to my way of thinking.
And anyway Edmund; I've always admired your clear and concise language and
straightforward thinking so I don't think you'd have much to fear from a
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org
The UKTC is supported by The Arbor Centre