Honey, they killed my gas bees (From Echo)

To bee or not to bee that was the question!!

I think this story has the most nonsensical headline I've ever seen. And I've been known to browse through a copy of The Sun.

Blind Haze wrote:
I think this story has the most nonsensical headline I've ever seen. And I've been known to browse through a copy of The Sun.

I disagree it's a very important story, the decline in bee numbers has had a major affect on business's, Orchard growers are reliant on bees to polynate their crops, with such a massive decline in bee numbers its already having a damaging effect on them, to kill a colony when they could s easily have been relocated is just mindless. There are many Bee gatherers that would actually have moved the bees on for free saving the gas company money in fact.

Mudlark1 wrote:

Blind Haze wrote: I think this story has the most nonsensical headline I've ever seen. And I've been known to browse through a copy of The Sun.

I disagree it's a very important story, the decline in bee numbers has had a major affect on business's, Orchard growers are reliant on bees to polynate their crops, with such a massive decline in bee numbers its already having a damaging effect on them, to kill a colony when they could s easily have been relocated is just mindless. There are many Bee gatherers that would actually have moved the bees on for free saving the gas company money in fact.

What are you disagreeing with? I've only made reference to the headline.

Money, money, money...but the execs will say 'Lessons will be learned' and drone drone...zzzzzz. Was that a bee? No we killed them all; it was the sound of our money counter

Most beekeepers will remove colonies of bees for free so there would have been no charge to have them removed. The honeycomb now needs to be disposed of because other bees will rob the old comb and take the poison back to there own colony. Thats why you should never poison a bees nest because other bees will spread the poison to dozens of surrounding colonies.

They have been there two years, plenty of time to get them moved.
Surely a gas meter is no place for a bee hive!

Mudlark1 wrote:

Blind Haze wrote:
I think this story has the most nonsensical headline I've ever seen. And I've been known to browse through a copy of The Sun.

I disagree it's a very important story, the decline in bee numbers has had a major affect on business's, Orchard growers are reliant on bees to polynate their crops, with such a massive decline in bee numbers its already having a damaging effect on them, to kill a colony when they could s easily have been relocated is just mindless. There are many Bee gatherers that would actually have moved the bees on for free saving the gas company money in fact.

I think the headline is absolutely dreadful and an appalling attempt at journalism!

Surely the "writer" of the piece should have the common sense not to put "Honey" in the headline as the word in that context obviously gives the story an "amusing" slant.When you then read the story it is all about a colony of bees being killed - does the "writer" not realise how important bees are? Not to mention the complete lack of sensitivity the headline shows for the distress of the owner, who had been assured that the bees would come to no harm.

Pretty low depths of "journalism" in my opinion. Hardly the most creative of headlines to use the word "honey" in a story about bees anyway, but to use it when the story is obviously sad about a lot of bees being killed despite assurances is absolutely ridiculous. Surely readers should be moved (just like Mr. Norton) to feel anger at Siemens lying and putting their own profits ahead of the bees' lives? How on earth does "humour" in the headline tie in with the story?

I've had dealing with Siemens before: this story does not surprise me as they are a total bunch of penny-pinching, amateurish scrotes. They should be prosecuted for this.

Honeybees are protected by law and it is an offence to kill them.

billericay boy wrote:
Honeybees are protected by law and it is an offence to kill them.

Honeybees are not protected by law.

Most people think they are - but they aren't.

Most bee colonies have been devastated by Varoa mites, poisoned by pestacides and face the risk of Japenese Hornets crossing the channel - I think the UK has lost some 90% of its bees already.

Perhaps they should have some sort of protection.

For a start this gentleman should not have allowed the "pest" control people onto his property insisting a beekeeper or someone else was to remove them, alive.
Bees should only be killed if they are causing a public health issue. However, they were not and it was only Siemens staff who seemed very nervous of the nest. Legally, Siemens must check a meter at least once a year so why did they not deal with this nest last time. There has been ample time for them to arrange live removal. There was no reason for the urgency to have them killed and Siemens should certainly be condemned for this.

A Dermot wrote:

billericay boy wrote:
Honeybees are protected by law and it is an offence to kill them.

Honeybees are not protected by law.

Most people think they are - but they aren't.

Most bee colonies have been devastated by Varoa mites, poisoned by pestacides and face the risk of Japenese Hornets crossing the channel - I think the UK has lost some 90% of its bees already.

Perhaps they should have some sort of protection.

Some say it is some say not but After all, without bees for pollination, we cannot survive)

This could bee the end of the world, it certainly looks that way reading some of these comments.

Just let it bee!

Is there a fruit shortage then? 90% of bees lost but not 90% of fruit? Are the rest working overtime?

Echoface

A nice surprise for an unsuspecting gasman trying to read the meter. I wonder if Mr Norton would accept liability if his bees put someone in hospital. There are lots of people dangerously allergic to bee stings.

Alekhine wrote:
A nice surprise for an unsuspecting gasman trying to read the meter. I wonder if Mr Norton would accept liability if his bees put someone in hospital. There are lots of people dangerously allergic to bee stings.

Try reading the article.
3rd paragraph, first line.

Sloppy humour attempt in the headline.

Bees are important, and *should* be protected by law.

frank & monty wrote:

Alekhine wrote:
A nice surprise for an unsuspecting gasman trying to read the meter. I wonder if Mr Norton would accept liability if his bees put someone in hospital. There are lots of people dangerously allergic to bee stings.

Try reading the article.
3rd paragraph, first line.

Well quoted that man.

Davey B wrote:

frank & monty wrote:

Alekhine wrote: A nice surprise for an unsuspecting gasman trying to read the meter. I wonder if Mr Norton would accept liability if his bees put someone in hospital. There are lots of people dangerously allergic to bee stings.

Try reading the article. 3rd paragraph, first line.

Well quoted that man.

Try reading the second paragraph. The bees have been there for almost 2 years. You have a lot of trust in Siemen's procedures.

Alekhine wrote:

Davey B wrote:

frank & monty wrote:

Alekhine wrote: A nice surprise for an unsuspecting gasman trying to read the meter. I wonder if Mr Norton would accept liability if his bees put someone in hospital. There are lots of people dangerously allergic to bee stings.

Try reading the article. 3rd paragraph, first line.

Well quoted that man.

Try reading the second paragraph. The bees have been there for almost 2 years. You have a lot of trust in Siemen's procedures.

Funnily enough I did read the second paragraph.
Regrettably Mr Norton put his trust in Siemens, but found out the hard way that they are full of B.S.
Struggling to see your point here; presumably you work for Siemens...

frank & monty wrote:

Alekhine wrote:

Davey B wrote:

frank & monty wrote:

Alekhine wrote: A nice surprise for an unsuspecting gasman trying to read the meter. I wonder if Mr Norton would accept liability if his bees put someone in hospital. There are lots of people dangerously allergic to bee stings.

Try reading the article. 3rd paragraph, first line.

Well quoted that man.

Try reading the second paragraph. The bees have been there for almost 2 years. You have a lot of trust in Siemen's procedures.

Funnily enough I did read the second paragraph. Regrettably Mr Norton put his trust in Siemens, but found out the hard way that they are full of B.S. Struggling to see your point here; presumably you work for Siemens...

No, i don't work for Siemens.

My point is that you are trusting Siemens not to send anybody to read the meter over a 2 year period since being advised (presumable 2 years ago) about the bees.
.
This looks like recipe for an accident to me.

Alekhine wrote:

frank & monty wrote:

Alekhine wrote:

Davey B wrote:

frank & monty wrote:

Alekhine wrote: A nice surprise for an unsuspecting gasman trying to read the meter. I wonder if Mr Norton would accept liability if his bees put someone in hospital. There are lots of people dangerously allergic to bee stings.

Try reading the article. 3rd paragraph, first line.

Well quoted that man.

Try reading the second paragraph. The bees have been there for almost 2 years. You have a lot of trust in Siemen's procedures.

Funnily enough I did read the second paragraph. Regrettably Mr Norton put his trust in Siemens, but found out the hard way that they are full of B.S. Struggling to see your point here; presumably you work for Siemens...

No, i don't work for Siemens. My point is that you are trusting Siemens not to send anybody to read the meter over a 2 year period since being advised (presumable 2 years ago) about the bees. . This looks like recipe for an accident to me.

Good for you.
I think that you may have mis-read the position: Para 4 says that Mr Norton advised Siemens about the bees, received the necessary assurances, then a few hours later the bee colony was dead.
Instead of doing the right thing, Siemens took the easy option and have earned the resultant ill-feeling.

frank & monty wrote:

Alekhine wrote:

frank & monty wrote:

Alekhine wrote:

Davey B wrote:

frank & monty wrote:

Alekhine wrote: A nice surprise for an unsuspecting gasman trying to read the meter. I wonder if Mr Norton would accept liability if his bees put someone in hospital. There are lots of people dangerously allergic to bee stings.

Try reading the article. 3rd paragraph, first line.

Well quoted that man.

Try reading the second paragraph. The bees have been there for almost 2 years. You have a lot of trust in Siemen's procedures.

Funnily enough I did read the second paragraph. Regrettably Mr Norton put his trust in Siemens, but found out the hard way that they are full of B.S. Struggling to see your point here; presumably you work for Siemens...

No, i don't work for Siemens. My point is that you are trusting Siemens not to send anybody to read the meter over a 2 year period since being advised (presumable 2 years ago) about the bees. . This looks like recipe for an accident to me.

Good for you. I think that you may have mis-read the position: Para 4 says that Mr Norton advised Siemens about the bees, received the necessary assurances, then a few hours later the bee colony was dead. Instead of doing the right thing, Siemens took the easy option and have earned the resultant ill-feeling.

My original post was simply the question who would be liable if someone got injured.
.
Ill feeling to Siemens aside it appears the bees were there for 2 years but Mr Norton only advised Siemens of this a matter of hours before the workmen turned up.
.
Must have been a long time since Mr Norton had the meter read - very lucky for him as he would be liable for not reporting the hazard.
.
Caveat gasman.

Cheers.