Pollards, the forgotten art-discussion

[Mark J]

No they dont.

 

I have come across qualified people left right and centre who are absolutely useless at what they do.

 

Toyota technicians I can run rings round.

 

I think there should be a degree course in common sense.

 

I have no regard whatsoever for qualifications, degrees or doctorates, they mean nothing to me.

 

I know loads of people with fancy letters after their names that are thick as pig shite

 

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha. Merry Christmas.

[Darren]

i shall read this later with interst, thanks

 

Pigs can be considered forestry work and at a push so can chickens.

 

I hope this helps. I thinking of living in the woods myself. One of my woodland neighbours lives in a static caravan.

You need to have a official address as well, maybe a friend or family can help with a address.

[Stephen Blair]

No they dont.

 

I have come across qualified people left right and centre who are absolutely useless at what they do.

 

Toyota technicians I can run rings round.

 

I think there should be a degree course in common sense.

 

I have no regard whatsoever for qualifications, degrees or doctorates, they mean nothing to me.

 

I know loads of people with fancy letters after their names that are thick as pig shite

 

i am going to read this again once i geta coffee so i can spit it out:lol:

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

i am losing the will to live!

[skyhuck]

No you don't. Have a look at this PDF file http://www.rushcliffe.gov.uk/upload/public/attachments/163/tacaravansiteexemptions.pdf

 

This bit

 

"Agricultural and forestry workers

 

7. Subject to the provisions of paragraph 13 of this Schedule, a

site licence shall not be required for the use as a caravan site of

agricultural land for the accommodation during a particular season

of a person or persons employed in farming operations on land

in the same occupation.

 

8. Subject to the provisions of paragraph 13 of this Schedule, a

site licence shall not be required for the use of land as a caravan

site for the accommodation during a particular season of a person

or persons employed on land in the same occupation being land

used for the purposes of Forestry (including afforestation)."

 

A season in a recent test case is 364 days.

 

The farmer next to me wanted to get a static for a farm labourer, he was stooped, the NFU appealed on his behalf twice, he failed.

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

I would say were going off topic but topping and caravans are closley linked! lol

[skyhuck]

when i was hammered in 18 months theft wise it took EVERY ounce of resource to stay operating, even to debt, then they came and took the truck and chipper to finish me off, at the same point i lost my partner (long story abusive alcaholic, lost my best mate (cared for elderly uncle) to liver cancer and my own mother and her sister tried to sell this my home from under my feet. i had to take a sharks mortgage, pay of that and 54 grands worth of company debt, i have a mortgage that is 250 a month MORE than high st rates, and when i cant keep up, i get hit with late charges by all and sundry.

 

 

This is a very sad tale.

 

What I fail to understand is why you were not insured?? and how could your mother be in a position to sell YOUR property??

[Catweazle]

thanks sky, as you DONT for sub terra! caravans a poor choice compared to a funky semi underground "warren"

 

Do you have a link to confirm that no planning consent is needed for subterrainean housing ? I'm not sure you're right.

 

Re; caravans, the previous poster is correct, you can have one on-site for woodworkers for a season, defined only as being "less than one year". A caravan doesn't need wheels, but must be portable and delivered in no more than two sections. I can't see any reason why you couldn't move it off site for one day a year.

[Albedo]

Rubbish.

 

 

If we cannot have robust debate without it getting personal, then a forum is useless, IMO.

 

quote skyhuck last year ”Its this kind of patronising extremist that puts people off”.

 

That was referring to me in ‘Glyphosate and Trees’ last xmas – 31,12,08 - Post 57

 

If that’s not personal, I don’t know what is. However I may well have been guilty of being patronising, if we put your comment in context, and I think I admitted guilt at the time.

 

The reason I bring this up, is not to have a pop at you skyhuck, I like your blunt style, and find your opinions well informed.

 

However, as a newbie to forums at the time, the whole, being involved thing did my head in. I stayed away for this year, but after a lay off period started to keep an eye on Arbtalk again as it is so useful, for all kinds of info, that you often didn’t even know you needed.

 

I just started posting again, and the first (actually second) thing I do is the facetious, completely unhelpful, post I made earlier in this thread. I did this, because I found your style a bit preachy Hamad. I couldn’t help myself! and was quite pleased when it was completely ignored, as I would have had a job defending it.

 

The Glyphosate thread got 104 posts and 3,393 views (the guy who started it, made his post, then didn’t look for a while so he got quite a shock)

 

Hamads thread has 297 posts and 3,800 views, when I looked before I lost my connection, so you beat the last Christmas record – congrats mate

 

My point is that this forum thing is indeed tricky, its not like normal communication as you don’t know who you’re talking to.

 

The one thing I would like to come out of this post, that I am now making, is that if you want to have a serious debate about something, you really do have to reference, your data (as I think Paradise said). Otherwise it is purely subjective. I know this is not always possible, but some attempt would be nice. In fairness to you Hamad, you have said when something is your own opinion and from your own observation etc. This is fair enough.

 

As an afterthought, are you familiar with James Lovelock of Ghaia fame. His model – ‘Daisy World’ of the earth as a self regulating organism, might be of interest to you. He’s one of my heroes, and refers to the ‘scientific straight jacket’ in one of his books. He was a big cheese who invented an electron detector for the Gas Chromatographer. (This is the means by which we detect how much of something is in something else). He couldn’t let loose with his real thoughts until he retired because ….. anyway I digress and this post is long enough.

 

seasons greetings and positive posting to all, may many trees be based next year, and may we all pay off our chippers

Edited December 24, 2009 by Albedo
sounded wrong

[Doug Blease]

I think thats a load, you really dont need any qualification to get on in life, i would employ a man with experience and knowledge over a cocky numpty out of college demanding top whack any day.

 

If ypou are good at what you do people will sniff you out and pay the appropriate huge cash sum..

 

Not being funny mate, but not everyone at college is a cocky numpty. In fact a lot of US have more experience than you would ever imagine.

 

In order to complete my current education I will likely be in approx £10'000 in debt plus a huge loss in potential earnings during that time. Therefore expansion of my education has come at a real financial cost and sacrifice to my family.

 

To be classed as a cocky numpty is bang out of order. Stereotyping is equal to racism in my book. This is a sensible thread with measured responses. Lets keep it that way, then we learn more from each other. Not a slagging match.