When a forester fails to predict that a tree might fall and it kills someone, he is arrested. The same goes for a train mechanic who fails to repair a carriage, a cook who poisons a customer and a builder whose house collapses. They didn't mean to kill, but they failed to forecast what might ensue from their defective expertise.I am not sure I follow the argument. Workers and professionals of exercising their job as described above are not in the prediction business, neither are they giving advise to public bodies. They simply do a bad job which will land them in trouble. They could be guilty of negligence or manslaughter.
Why does the same not apply to the professional scientists, experts and pundits on whose predictive genius so much of our life depends?
The Aquila case is different. Scientific experts issued public reassurances which were arguably not warranted on the basis of their scientific expertise. We have seen many cases in the past, from assurances about the risk free nature of nuclear energy to the safety of British beef. And we see poor predictions in meteorology and economics, the two areas most visible in the public eye.
Here Jenkins makes a reasonable point when claiming that the Met Office has issued "persistently pessimistic" forecasts. The reason for doing so is blame avoidance but has the side effect of deterring tourists. The Met Office never seems to review their errors publicly. The same applies for economic forecasting.