Making the news today....

[topchippyles]

 

13 minutes ago, Big J said:

 

Informally yes. I kind of need three harvesters to work behind. Most of the operators in that area who do first thinnings use Rottne H8s, as they are very good machines and Rottne is only about an hour from us. They typically produce 12,000 cubic metres a year. I would like to extract 10,000 cubic metres a year. So with three to work with, I'd be pulling a little over a quarter of their individual outputs, and I think I can do this comfortably on 3.5 long days per week (Mon/Tues/Thurs/Fri one week and Wed/Thurs/Fri the next week). This gives me more time at home with the wife and kids and more time to enjoy life and the income is easily sufficient to live comfortably.

 

My wife (an architect by training) is going to spend the first 6-12 months doing SFI (Swedish for Immigrants) as she hasn't picked up the language as quickly as me, but she's also training at the moment, doing a TEFL (Teaching English as a Foreign Language) so that she can teach English there. Most likely at the school in the village.

 

We're moving the last week of July.

Superb jonathan hope it goes well for you. Have a roaming eye i bet for those swedish blondes.

 

[Peasgood]

1 hour ago, Big J said:

 

I think that's the issue though. 

 

Because the English have so precious few access rights to the countryside, they bitterly hold onto the ones they do have, and with unreasonable possessiveness. They forget that it's not their land. 

 

With open access, all land is accessible, and then no one place sees constant pressure, no one landowner constant hassle. Perhaps people even start to learn that universal access is a privilege that comes with responsibility....

 

It made work a little easier in some respects in Scotland. If you had to close a route, it wasn't so much of an issue because the member of public had dozens of other options. 

 

Down here, you find that the public get tremendously irate if you restrict the little access that they have, and kick up a much greater fuss.

 

I don't know though. I appreciate that it's a difficult and emotive subject and that a significant proportion of the public are total f*ckwits. 

 

Perhaps an amended right to roam where if you abuse your access rights then you're immediately shot?! 😁

If badgers, fly tippers, trespassers and uncontrolled dogs were put on the general license a great many of this country's problems would be solved overnight.

I don't have a problem with footpaths so much as the self important twats that use them. I don't mean the ramblers as they are very nearly always polite, courteous and stick to the path. We regularly had massive amounts of kids traipsing through doing their DoE awards, they were fine as they generally stuck to the paths, didn't leave any litter and were always very polite. We did have a bunch through from a school in Stockport that I would prefer never to see again but have to accept that a day away from wherever they lived most likely improved their lives a great deal.

The ones I really cannot stand are the ones that just wander anywhere other than on the footpath usually with a dog three fields away from them running amok. They are the ones I would shoot first, most especially before they even got chance to tell me that they were good friends with owner and he had given them permission ( I am the owner and I have never set eyes on the twats in my life!)

[Khriss]

12 hours ago, Big J said:

 

England could just have the right to roam. It would be simpler.

I just carry clip board n have hard hat on, works every time. K

[Robbyrasta]

Quality reporting

[donnk]

19 hours ago, Big J said:

 

I think that's the issue though. 

 

Because the English have so precious few access rights to the countryside, they bitterly hold onto the ones they do have, and with unreasonable possessiveness. They forget that it's not their land. 

 

With open access, all land is accessible, and then no one place sees constant pressure, no one landowner constant hassle. Perhaps people even start to learn that universal access is a privilege that comes with responsibility....

 

It made work a little easier in some respects in Scotland. If you had to close a route, it wasn't so much of an issue because the member of public had dozens of other options. 

 

Down here, you find that the public get tremendously irate if you restrict the little access that they have, and kick up a much greater fuss.

 

I don't know though. I appreciate that it's a difficult and emotive subject and that a significant proportion of the public are total f*ckwits. 

 

Perhaps an amended right to roam where if you abuse your access rights then you're immediately shot?! 😁

 

issue is 99% of jockland is worthless so it matters not who wanders all over it. England on other hand farmers invest a lot of money into and i dont blame them not wanting any tom dick and harry wandering over it.

Edited February 18, 2022 by donnk

[sime42]

So Jacob Rees Mogg likes to eat foie gras, and his wife likes to wear fur. Surprise surprise.

Ministers set to drop UK ban on foie gras and fur imports

WWW.BBC.CO.UK

---

The proposed measure is likely to be dropped from an animal welfare bill, after ministers raised concerns.

[Stere]

Was thinking why is fur seen ethically as worse than meat or leather?

 

 

 

foie gras does seem  cruel but probably isn't much worse than battery hens?

[trigger_andy]

Was thinking why is fur seen ethically as worse than meat or leather?
 
 
 
foie gras does seem  cruel but probably isn't much worse than battery hens?

Agreed. Nothing wrong with fur in the slightest if the animals living conditions are to an approved standard. As you say, if you wear leather, use glue or any other animal derivative then you need to take a look at your perspective and ask yourself if posting that link is due to the persons clouded and biased views of a certain party.

[sime42]

Exactly. I've no particularly strong feelings about either. Foie gras is actually rather tasty. They should probably both be stopped really but they're very small issues in comparison to the whole factory farming/intensively reared livestock industry.

I suppose fur, and leather, is worse if that's the only part of the animal that's used. If the meat isn't eaten as well then it's a waste. Worse still if it's wild animals being killed just for their fur.

[trigger_andy]

Exactly. I've no particularly strong feelings about either. Foie gras is actually rather tasty. They should probably both be stopped really but they're very small issues in comparison to the whole factory farming/intensively reared livestock industry.

I suppose fur, and leather, is worse if that's the only part of the animal that's used. If the meat isn't eaten as well then it's a waste. Worse still if it's wild animals being killed just for their fur.

I’d personally prefer wild animals to be used for fur if they’re dispatched humanly and they’re not endangered. They get to lead a good life and in the blink of an eye they’re gone. Much better than farmed animals that have had a pitiful existence.