Homeowner | Tree Risk-Benefit Management Strategy (it's free!)

[daltontrees]

Just on the generality of there being a free Tree Risk Management Strategy/Plan/Policy, the use of the policy rests on the adoption of the VALID risk assessment method, which in turn rests on using the app. The app is free but Mr Evans stated on UKTC that it would be dangerous to use it without the training. Which is definitely not free.

 

There may be use in a free policy that could be used with any risk assessment system (VALID/QTRA/TRAQ etc.) but you could not use the VALID policy with any published method.

[Acer ventura]

16 hours ago, daltontrees said:

Just on the generality of there being a free Tree Risk Management Strategy/Plan/Policy, the use of the policy rests on the adoption of the VALID risk assessment method, which in turn rests on using the app.

I was wondering when you’d continue your disturbing pursuit of me as a self-appointed QTRA Brownshirt.  Ironic that it’s on here, where your single white male obsession was first kindled in 2013 because I was part of QTRA back then, and you were boasting your superior home-knitted system to quantify tree risk.

 

If you’d bothered to read the post and the strategy before frothing at the mouth, you’d see it’s for the Homeowner.  There’s no scope to use the App.  It’s not even mentioned.  If a Homeowner sees an obvious tree risk feature they ring an Arborist.  It doesn’t even say ring a Tree Risk Validator.
 

Edited May 22, 2020 by Acer ventura

[Acer ventura]

On 20/05/2020 at 12:32, Andrew McEwan said:

In response to your additional thoughts you mention scaling up to government survey level, that seems an odd justification for your homeowners policy content surely?

Why?  Otherwise, you’re imposing a greater duty of care on a Homeowner than you are on a State Government.  Generally, it’s the other way around.  Just to clarify that’s part of the Plan, not the Policy.  I’m not being a pedant, the distinction is important.

 

Hey, no problem with registering concern and putting an alternative take on it.  I’m very much aware that it challenges a lot of preconceived and accepted practices.  But when you look at it closely, the practice of removing all vegetation to access the lower 2m of a tree to try to find hidden defects without obvious tree risk features to justify it, but not trying to find hidden defects elsewhere doesn’t stack up.  Not least because it’s disproportionate to the overall level of extremely low risk.  This point is laid out in the Policy, which is why it’s so important.  To quote someone who is way smarter than me on the subject of risk.

 

"…the prospects of reducing the risk from tree failure below the current level are remote and comparable to finding a microscopic needle in a gargantuan haystack."
Public Safety and Risk Assessment (2011), Professor David Ball, Centre for Decision Analysis and Risk Management

Quote

Saying it is the duty holders choice seems a bit of a cop out

 

It’s not a cop-out.  The duty holder is the decision-maker.  They’re responsible for the management decisions.  The NTSG and ISO 31000 is really clear on this.   One of the problems that the duty holder is faced with is Arborists going beyond risk assessment decision-making into risk management decision-making.  They’re not trained to do this.  I’m not sure you’ve grasped the importance of those traffic light coded risks in the Policy that you’re mocking in favour of inspection training.

 

Quote

If experience of species, wind loading, water logging, soil type, snow loading, previous failures, past land use etc etc, leads me to think I need veg removal I recommend it>>

 

They’re obvious tree risk features to you, and a good reason to want to have a closer look.  They’re not obvious to a Homeowner though.  If Homeowner is worried, for whatever reason, and they call you in and you gave these reasons to want to have a closer look, then I really have no problem with that.

 

If, on the other hand, you were to routinely say that with any obvious tree risk features you wanted to see whether there were any hidden defects in the lower 2 m of a tree, but not the other parts, and said they had to remove the vegetation themselves or pay you to do it, then from a risk-benefit management point of view, I think we have a problem.

Edited May 22, 2020 by Acer ventura

[daltontrees]

5 hours ago, Acer ventura said:

I was wondering when you’d continue your disturbing pursuit of me as a self-appointed QTRA Brownshirt.  Ironic that it’s on here, where your single white male obsession was first kindled in 2013 because I was part of QTRA back then, and you were boasting your superior home-knitted system to quantify tree risk.

 

If you’d bothered to read the post and the strategy before frothing at the mouth, you’d see it’s for the Homeowner.  There’s no scope to use the App.  It’s not even mentioned.  If a Homeowner sees an obvious tree risk feature they ring an Arborist.  It doesn’t even say ring a Tree Risk Validator.
 

For any Arbtalk members who aren't familiar with Mr Evan's style, you'll see soon enough that if anyone agrees with him he will be all pallsy with you, if you disagree he will attack you and if you ask difficult questions he won't answer them. A sort of Arb Trump. And here we go, here he is straight out of the blocks with insults and aggression.

 

I'm not pursuing you Acer, you have only ever come on to Arbtalk to promote something, firstly QTRA and now your knock-off version of it.  The waiving of copyright is a thinly disguised excuse for promotion and free advrtising, everyone sees that already. You have a defamation accusation and threat of legal action pending because you aren't man enough to apologise. Latterly you only ever went on to UKTC to promote VALID, and were eventually blocked. On the other hand I contribute freely on a number of tree matters. I'm not bothered if I'm the one that says what everyone else is thinking.

 

I am not and never have been a promoter of QTRA. I use it with modifications that build on its solid foundations. This originated as a quantified system, and it now suits to align it to QTRA as an identifiable peer-reviewed system. It has occasional advantages over QTRA. I used and use the addition of logarithms, something you derided but later claimed was your idea, your epiphany. You're welcome.

 

Regrdless of whether this particular VALID advert mentions the app, it does use terminology that is unique to VALID. One wouldn't get far seeing the strategy through without using the (paid-for) VALID training. The very thought that you have any altruistic motives is hilarious.

 

Let's get straight to the point and see what worth there is in your free publications. You've so far avoided answering this plainly anywhere else. A strategy/policy/plan for risk assessment and management can take the tree owner from the position statement and documents of the National Tree Safety Group   to individual risk assessment and management, and as I see it your publications are your personal interpretation of what a tree owner needs to do to meet their duty of care. Do you accept responsibility if a tree owner adopts your strategy/policy/plans and is found negligent on the basis of inadequate policy? It doen't matter that they are 'free'. 

 

See if you can break the habit of a lifetime and give a straight answer without resorting to insults and digression. Arbtalk is a place for sharing views and experiences, not trading insults.

[Acer ventura]

With apologies to everyone else.  For the public record I'm going to deal with just a few points in this, as briefly as I can.

 

Quote

For any Arbtalk members who aren't familiar with Mr Evan's style, you'll see soon enough that if anyone agrees with him he will be all pallsy with you, if you disagree he will attack you 

Given that your first post in this thread was insults and aggression,.  Clearly, what you’re doing here is called ‘projection’. Your history on here, when I first encountered you in 2013, and on the UKTC when you migrated over there later, shows you're incredibly uncomfortable with anyone daring to disagree with you.  It makes me wonder whether you’ve got a history of coercive control and gaslighting elsewhere.

Your fact-lite, off-topic, insults have merely escalated from your first post. Including the weirdly affected ‘Mr Evans’.  That rather sounds like you’ve found a barrister’s wig in your dressing up box, and might be an alarming window into your staggering sense of self-importance.

 

Anyone can check my postings on here (and this thread) where I'm not dealing with your ravings and vested interests, and form their own opinion.

 

Quote

firstly QTRA and now your knock-off version of it

Oh, dear me.  You do like to wear your ignorance on your sleeve and then shout out loud about it, don't you. As I'm sure you can imagine, with your legal action nonsense later, this made me snort with laughter.

 

Quote

I'm not bothered if I'm the one that says what everyone else is thinking.

Blimey, are you so deluded you genuinely think you represent everyone?  I take it everyone includes these people?

 

Tree Risk-Benefit Assessment & Tree Risk Management Training | VALID

TINYURL.COM

---

An elegantly simple solution to a complex problem - all in the palm of your hand!

 

 

Quote

You have a defamation accusation and threat of legal action pending

Really?  Isn't this just you playing dress up with wiggy and being a blowhard again?  I've not heard anything more about this since your unhinged rant threatening it on the UKTC some months ago.  See above.  Please don't try to pass it off as a thing outside of your head on here.  The accusation is even funnier in light of your public 'QTRA knock off' claim above. BTW I'm not blocked from the UKTC, but again, why let facts get in the way of your weird campaign.

 

Quote

One wouldn't get far seeing the strategy through without using the (paid-for) VALID training. The very thought that you have any altruistic motives is hilarious.

The first part is self-evidently untrue, as I've demonstrated but you've ignored again.  As for the second part, VALID is a registered not-for-profit Community Interest Company. As 'hilarious' as that might be to someone who runs a commercial company to make profit, and is the self-elected attack dog of the QTRA for profit tree risk assessment system.  It's another one of those pesky fact things that seem to infuriate you.

 

Quote

Do you accept responsibility if a tree owner adopts your strategy/policy/plans and is found negligent on the basis of inadequate policy?

It's pretty self-evident that if a Homeowner downloads VALID's Homeowner's Tree RIsk-Benefit Management Strategy, or an Arborist does, and uses is, then in the extraordinarily unlikely case of claim being made, the Claimant will also be looking at whether a claim can be made against VALID CIC as well.  Helpfully, the address of VALID's website is hyperlinked in the footer of each page.  I guess it'd be the same with the NTSG if anyone followed their Chapter 5, 'How this guidance could be applied'.  The risk of either happening is Acceptable.

 

Quote

Arbtalk is a place for sharing views and experiences, not trading insults.

This, complete lack of self-awareness at the end, is just too funny.

Edited May 23, 2020 by Acer ventura

[Stubby]

This is great .  Such control and composure . Love it . I don't under stand most of it but am riveted . ?

[Acer ventura]

On 22/05/2020 at 09:16, Acer ventura said:

If, on the other hand, you were to routinely say that 'with' any obvious tree risk features you wanted to see whether there were any hidden defects in the lower 2 m of a tree, but not the other parts, and said they had to remove the vegetation themselves or pay you to do it, then from a risk-benefit management point of view, I think we have a problem.

Sorry, 'with' should be 'without'

[Acer ventura]

33 minutes ago, Stubby said:

This is great .  Such control and composure . Love it . I don't under stand most of it but am riveted . ?

I've been told that I shouldn't get involved in this kind of thing, but I think if it's let go without challenge some of the mud sticks.

[Khriss]

14 hours ago, Stubby said:

This is great .  Such control and composure . Love it . I don't under stand most of it but am riveted . ?

Behave Mr Stubby..... Tho we both know that rarely happens  ?  K

Edited May 24, 2020 by Khriss
????? this weeks best post ?

[Topper]