All Activity

I would speak to your insurance company and get legal advise.

Shut the fck up again. I have a firm, well-founded opinion about something important. You don't have the capacity or interest to argue like an adult so you're trying to deflect by calling me a nutter. Cheap.

Wordle 1,600 5/6 ⬛🟨⬛⬛🟨 🟩⬛🟨⬛⬛ 🟩⬛⬛🟩⬛ 🟩⬛⬛⬛🟩 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩

Knife Crime Statistics | The Ben Kinsella Trust BENKINSELLA.ORG.UK Explore knife crime statistics and essential articles with our comprehensive overview...

If the trees over hang your property (property being the entire plot, garden, buildings etc) you can prune them back to the boundary without permission from the tree owner. Other restrictions may apply I.e. tree preservation orders and conservation areas. This would be at your expense. The council do not have to do this for you, as you have the right to do it yourself. The need to clean your gutters annually is not a valid reason to request the trees are pruned, beyond what's mentioned above. That is simply the management required for being fortunate enough to live next to trees. A nuisance in a legal sense will not cover the damp, its evident from your post this just needs regular maintenance. A nuisance with trees may typically be direct damage, such as a tree branch knocking a gutter off or tapping a window not damp through a lack of maintenance relative to the environmental factors your property is affected by. It is feasible, and common that council owned blocks of trees are poorly managed and would likely benefit from thinning which would simultaneously better your situation. They have no obligation to do this though and only have to fulfill their Duty of care and ensure they are safe enough, it doesn't matter if they are otherwise poorly managed. In short from what you have described its not the councils problem.

To the knife thing, it is a very rare occurrence, despite the best efforts of the Daily Mail and Telegraph to portray it otherwise. Advocating that we should all arm ourselves with a gun seams a bit over the top and doesn't actually cure the problem of people wanting to carry a knife, nor the fact that you pull a gun on them all you're doing is shifting the problem to someone else who doesn't. Criminals will then assume that the people are armed and just go for bigger guns. Look to the states who have more guns than we do, concealed carry and so on, and yet, they still have the full range of street crimes that we have and in large numbers too.

As if in comic reinforcement of my previous post.I am out of this discussion. All the best Mike Hill

Very pretty but as far as I can see it is a complicated/expensive way to save a small amount of time.

Shut the fck up. No I'm not. I'm coming across as an advocate for individual rights because that's what I am. Accusing me of instability and creepiness is as distasteful as when Mark quietly suggested Dave on here was unfit to keep firerarms because of his social/political views (about a hundred pages ago, probably). A crass trick, used by bitches, tyrants and people who can't argue like an adult. Pack it in. And no. I live in an uncilvilised country where it would put me in prison. I know what they look like, I know what they weigh and I know loads of people do carry them. But you don't need to worry about me. You worry about you. That's the ease and joy of individual choice. Did you wake up on Monday and decide to disagree with whatever I said this week as a form of mental exercise?

Please call first.

Alex Have you carried a pistol on a daily basis for own or others defence? Until you have done so ( I know you have not) ,please stop with the if,if,if.You are coming across as unstable and creepy.

What ways have people come up with for a attaching a fixed ring or something to the rear handle of a ground saw for hanging it off a caritool? Up until today I used to hand them of the front handle. But I know want to rack it bar facing down. The idea being similar to the fixed points on the husky top handles. It's always in the same place unlike the ring on the strop aswell as holding the saw higher.

Yeah. I've played parts bingo before... I'm slightly annoyed the guy didn't vac test it when he had it. How much is the gear for doing that myself and can I use it on other engines, things like Honda GX?

OK, as above my guess is the trigger sensor. But, I still don't think you can rule out an air leak until you have p&v tested the fuel lines, carb and cylinder. My understanding is that autotune can mask problems and compensate the fuel mix so the saw doesn't blow up as quickly as old saws did. Also I find spraying carb cleaner at a saw doesn't always reveal problems. You could roll the dice and DIY replace the sensor at £40 if the alternative was the labour of a repair person.

If if if if if. If nobody had stopped him, maybe he'd have butchered the whole carriage and the next one, and the next one, then somewhere else, then somewhere else. It comes down to individual rights again. An individual on the first train, sitting quietly with a gun in a pocket, has the right to not be butchered. They should do their best to shoot safely but at the end of the day they're trying to stay alive, which I think we can agree is fair enough!

I know what the political and legal landscape looks like. I'm clearly talking about what could be and should be. And importantly, until very recently, has been. People had these rights not very long ago at all. I'm not interested in Darren and Sharron. I'm interested in me (and then people I like). Criminals who want guns get them. Or knives. And if someone's got a knife, I want a gun. I don't mind if you find guns bulky and can't cope with how they fit with your cute autumn short jackets. I'm talking about indidivual rights. You do what you want. I'll do what I want. I could carry safely. Loads of people could (and do). My facebook feed last week was for some reason full of women's carrying systems. The memorable one was a full size appendix carry that didn't print in a skirt. The woman could carry a child at the same time etc. I'll say it again. It comes down to individual rights. You can't see it working. Fine. You don't have to. But you (anyone) shouldn't be telling other people (via voting for politicians who would cage decent people for carrying to protect themselves) that they shouldn't be allowed to do something just because you don't think you're capable of it. You wouldn't try to drive if you were blind but you wouldn't then tell me I shouldn't drive with my good eyesight. And yes, @Stubby. I didn't say anything about licensing. That's its own issue. https://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/about.htm

See the bit "Word origin"... offensive term for someone with Downs Syndrome.

I had a slightly more sensible response from Dan @ Stihl GB. Still doesn't make a huge amount of sense and I think it shows how much 'out of touch' Stihl GB is from it's customers. \\ Good morning Mr Bartlett, Thank you for your further email. The part you are enquiring about is used on the Rescue Saw version of the MS500i which is not supplied or brought into the GB market for numerous reasons. I am sorry for any disappointment caused, however should our ongoing market research deem a need for this specific machine in the future, we are happy to review it's introduction at a later date. Kind regards, Dan STIHL GB Andreas Stihl Limited //

Thanks. I contacted Ian and ordered one.

Done. All looks smooth.

Maybe obvious, but try running the saw briefly with the top cover off. You might be able to see if one of the throttle parts isn't working.

Well that's damned it, I was hoping to do a whole month without falling head first into a wordle heffalump trap 🙃

No, you mong - British offensive slang for a foolish person, despite the origins the modern meaning has evolved. Even Ricky Gervais knows it has a slang meaning "The modern use of the word mong means 'dopey' or 'ignorant'," said Gervais in a statement. "It's even in modern slang and urban dictionaries." Ricky Gervais criticised over Twitter 'mong jokes' WWW.BBC.CO.UK Disability group Mencap criticises Ricky Gervais for using the word "mong" on Twitter but the comedian insists its meaning has changed.

Hi Hoping someone could help, although I think I am on a hiding to nothing, but even confirmation that this is the case would be appreciated. I have an area of grass next to my end terrace at the end of the road. The land is council owned and planted with fairly established trees. I have owned the property since 2006 and every year, one of the trees in particular, blocks my gutters with its leaf fall, and I have to pay to get these cleared. A few years ago, I even installed brush strips, but these seemingly do very little. I started contacting my council in 2010 to request they do something with the one tree in particular, given the impact it has on my property. Over several months I was passed from one department to another, and nothing was ever done. Tried again a few years later. The council told me an inspector was sent out to look at the trees, but they were deemed acceptable so again nothing was done. And so it goes on every few years. In 2024, due to dampness at the property (mostly because the current inhabitants were causing really bad condensation admittedly), I had a RICS damp survey done on the property. The survey noted: h) The gable side wall is largely sheltered by tree cover from large trees located in the adjoining green. This will lessen the impact of exposure to wind driven rain, however there will be a lack of solar gain thus reducing the thermal performance (retained heat and surface temperatures) of this wall. i) Owing to tree cover it is evident that rainwater gutters are regularly blocked with leaves. It is understood that these were recently cleared, and brush strips fitted designed to prevent blockage of downpipes. Previous leakage has led to saturation of the main wall, evident by vegetation growth to mortar joints. j) The chimney stack is saturated and vegetation growth has taken hold of mortar joints. This has likely led to destabilising of the brickwork along with damp penetration internally. This required the chimney stack to be removed, the wall repointed, the roof timbers that were damp replaced, the gable end interior plaster removed, replaced with insulated plasterboard and replastered. Obviously, all of this was at significant expense. I have written to the council, enclosing a copy of the report, as on their website they state: Things that the council is responsible for • the removal of nuisances, such as publicly-owned trees interfering with buildings However, the council have come back with the following: ‘Council inspects its tree stock on a cyclical basis to monitor condition and address any safety concerns. Tree owners, including local authorities, have a duty of care to ensure that their trees do not pose a foreseeable risk to people or property. However, there is no legal obligation to prune or remove trees in response to seasonal characteristics such as leaf fall, shading, or minor debris. We will arrange for the trees in question to be re-inspected within the next couple of weeks. Please note that we will only consider removal or significant pruning if the trees are found to be dead, dying, diseased, or structurally unsound.’ I also asked for a claim form for reimbursement for the works which they attached but warned me: ‘Regarding the damp survey and your request for compensation: if you wish to pursue a claim against the Council for property damage, you may do so by completing and submitting the attached claim form to our Risk and Insurance Team. However, you may wish to seek independent legal advice beforehand to better understand the rights and responsibilities of property owners living adjacent to trees.’ Has anyone legal any idea of what the rights and responsibilities of property owners living adjacent to trees is as I do not recall anything in the conveyancing documents? However, having tried to follow tree law, I fear there is little I can do. I am grateful the Council are re-inspecting but don't think anything will be done as they don't have to, as I think the law deems leaf fall to be natural and none of the above to be property damage - ie property damage being more likely a falling branch damaging a roof not to shelter etc. Would be grateful if anyone could confirm? Many thanks for any help!

If you are going to use the word make sure you know the meaning of it. BillQ is correct with it's meaning. Suggest a wee apology to him might be in order.