Posted By Swis Warning - people allergic to such news artciles refrain from reading the following article. http://www.telegraph.co....lth-and-safety-risk.html

Posted By Swis I would emphasis to read on the comments made by public after reading the article…Are these justified?? http://www.dailymail.co....rges-25-return-them.html

Posted By Ron Hunter Swis, I have resolved to refrain from comment (and where possible, avoid reading) this kind of "news" article in future. To discuss these items at all is IMHO to afford them some form of credibility. Best ignored I think. Of course, I have been known to break my resolutions from time-to-time!

Posted By Swis well spotted Cossh Assessor. :-)

Posted By Swis typing error martin... that's all,

Posted By Graham Bullough The housing association involved cite the major fire (6 deaths) in a block of flats at Camberwell in South London on 3rd July as having prompted its stance about tenants’ hanging baskets, pot plants and window boxes. However, from available reports it doesn’t seem clear that partial obstructions of escape routes were a significant factor in the Camberwell fire. Even so, the crux of the subject of this thread seems to be whether or not the any of the tenants’ floral displays pose significant partial obstructions or narrowings of the access/escape routes at the properties involved. It would be interesting to know if the association has 1) liaised with the local fire brigade as to what constitutes “obstruction”, and then 2) issued guidelines to tenants about what width and height of access ways need to be maintained to avoid causing problems. If some floral displays are restricting access ways, the housing association may well be justified in tackling them. However, it might not be doing it with appropriate diplomacy and explanations to tenants. Quite a number of years ago when my employer, a local authority, directly ran its housing department, a new manager drew my attention to a problem he had found in a complex of flats for older people in his area. Some tenants had furnished parts of the enclosed common lobbies and verandahs outside their flats with chairs, tables and loose carpets plus some floral displays. We devised a suitable letter to tenants explaining that the combustible items were 1) located in publicly accessible areas and were thus vulnerable to damage or theft, and 2) could be set alight by vandals and in some cases obstructed access through the lobbies and along verandahs. I think we also sought the comments of a fire officer to reinforce what was needed. Within a reasonable space of time the matter was resolved, no doubt aided by housing officers talking to and urging action by any tenants who were slow to respond. From recollection, most of the floral displays (i.e. real plants in soil and pots as opposed to combustible artificial displays) stayed because they were not hindering access and helped to brighten up what were boring empty areas. Though it’s probable that a few tenants grumbled amongst themselves at the time, the circumstances didn’t generate any formal complaints and media interest. Hopefully, this was because the reasons for the changes needed were properly explained to tenants, and also because they were treated in a fair and sensible manner. p.s. Perhaps it’s just my sense of humour but I confess to being amused by a comment in the “Daily Mail” article quoted earlier that “The (name of housing association) ironically sponsors the local gardening competition….” Perhaps there are now different categories of sponsorship: In addition to ironic, how about cynical, publicity grabbing or even philanthropic?!