Pete Mctree

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

NO!! read the thread carefully, the answer is in there and it is important

The pulley will deffo increase the load on the hitch. Try a different hitch, as the icicle does tend to bind when sharply loaded. It's all trial and error in finding what suits us as individuals. After 15 years of running around in trees I'm still not happy with any setup 100% Petzel pulley is ok, but it does have a poor bending radius on the rope. I prefer a larger one. I'd also remove the krab out of the system and replace it with a maillon. Less to damage and less chance of side loading.

You should be able to easily hold your own weight with a straight locked arm.

Price the job and complete to the best of your ability. You are being asked to do a job at there specs after all.

if you want friction in your system telhol why bother with a friction saver? Less friction equals less effort ESPECIALLY at the end of a hard day. I'd try ammending your selftending setup as it obviously has alot of play in the system

Is that somerset road?

If the courses are so expensive then why not just go for assessment only? We all complain about our prices, therefore why complain when another sector of the industry is actually trying to make money? Sorry i just don't get it

Ha and my old 440 pees on your 372!!!!!!:wave:

there is a massive number of companies in my area, which is partly due to the training centre 8 miles from me. If you want to get the work, the price has to be right

Unfortunatley at those rates Lee I'd spend most of my week sat at home!

that was some nice delicate pruning we did there Ed.

wheel clamp and chained to something serious. Anything you can do to slow the bastids down

Or just wrap yourself and the rest of the world in cotton wool! You surley are a prick if you climb anydifferently with or without saw trousers.