Pete Mctree

That's crap. Time to be more vigilant I guess

Just the determination to get out of wales!!!!!

Great work and a joy to watch

Like any approval of contractors it is fraught with legal pitfalls, especially by such aas a council body. Compliance is often the criteria rather than excellance , both of which should be prerequisits.

he is probably checking the condition of the cord within the knot.

All of the above. Mainly td's at this time of year though

IMHO if you are qualified and honestly impartial then do your own. You might have to introduce some caveats into your policy to allow yourself to do it. It is not advised as has been stated before due to financial considerations. Grey area, but then again it's not the only one in the industry one more thing, What's with the Mcgirlypants Ed? You still sore because I outed you as the dandy cottaging fop that you are?

I have a 12ton bottle jack with a plate welded on the top. seldom used but valued tool

double bowline. Nice and easy to tie midline if necessary

Scary all round. I own a pair of those boots and have already nicked the toecap. Closer shave than I first thought!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

As a point of discussion, on the oak vid at about 3.12 onwards there are 2 cuts made where 2 tie in points are used. The rigging keeps the cut pieces quite close to the climber and myself would have prefered single tie in, perhaps even just to finish the cut, giving myself the escape option

Great vids, one of Gerry and one of Frans, Bodean et al. Enjoyed them

Rain not too bad here this morning, shame the garden is so waterlogged that the customer won't let us work. Not that I blame her. Not fond of working in the rain but gotta pay the bills

you've got balls Steve? Oh well everyone else must be telling lies then!

Just ignore and delete it if you find it not to your taste. I have no problem with peoples beliefs but I do have a problem with spam such as this

Was that ash tree supposed to go sideways Ed? Looks like it took a bit of a dive. Last one I felled did the same, heartwood was mush

There's nothing stopping you joining them Lee and charging the same money

Well the appeal has finally been completed and it's got a couple of interesting points of case law in it. Especially points 16 and 64 http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2007/1353.html Not easy reading but might be relevant for some of you out there. Here the two bits that set some alarm bells ringing for me 16 # It must be kept in mind, first, that – in making the application for consent – the applicant must be taken to have accepted that it was not necessary to fell the tree in order to prevent or abate the nuisance. If it were necessary to fell the tree for the prevention or abatement of the nuisance the 1974 order would have no application: section 198(6)(b). There would be no need to seek consent under article 2 of the order. Second, that the application was for consent to fell the tree: there was no application (so far as appears from the statement of agreed facts or from the refusal notice) for consent to carry out works of topping or lopping: in particular, there was no application for consent to cut the encroaching roots. Third, that the factors which the local planning authority may take into account in deciding whether to grant or refuse consent under a tree preservation order are not the same as the factors which would lead to a decision that it was, or was not, necessary for the prevention or abatement of a nuisance to cut down, uproot, top or lop a tree in respect of which a tree preservation order had been made. Indeed, as I have pointed out, it is only in cases where it is not necessary to carry out the proposed operations to the tree in order to prevent or abate the nuisance that the question whether to grant or refuse consent to those operations can arise. 64 # If, as is obviously the case, the underlying purpose of the legislation is to preserve trees which are the subject of tree preservation orders, it would seem counterintuitive to that purpose, when considering what is the minimum necessary that needs to be done in order to prevent or abate a nuisance caused by a tree that is the subject of a tree preservation order, to ignore altogether steps that may be taken other than to the tree itself and, instead, focus simply on works to the tree, albeit that the works to the tree are to be the minimum necessary. Take the case of an overhanging branch which, if it falls, will damage a structure on the neighbour's land. Why should the legislation permit the lopping of the branch which, let it be assumed, is the minimum work to the tree (in the way of cutting down, uprooting, topping or lopping) to prevent or abate the nuisance when, by the use of, for example, a prop which will cause no damage to the tree, the imminent danger can be avoided? Why should it be permissible to dig down to cut an encroaching root which threatens to damage buildings foundations on the neighbour's land but impermissible to consider, having dug down to the roots, the insertion of a barrier which would be as effective?

Well Pete all I can say is you either lied about the christmas pig out or you did get those fairy wings you asked santa for!

Give them the cash. They work hard for it!

They are the best value for money pant available. I wear mine in preference to both my pairs of strech airs

if you know all that why act dumb?

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!! READ IT AGAIN!!!!!!!!! FORCE AND MASS ARE DIFFERENT YOU RETARD!

French prussic or a vt as a hitch with a rope guide. I will see if I can get a pic of my old FS for you over the next couple of days, it's not fancy but worked well

this dilemma is as old as the hills. If you can afford to turn work away then OK live by your ethics.I personally am in the position where The paying of bills and staff are a priority, with so little work on the books choice would not enter into the equasion