Yorkshireman

monday 5th jan

All valid points but only realistic if those persons feel the net result of finding & accessing those forums & commenting are taken into account and given due weight which is proportionate reasoned & representative to the whole of the field. & lets face most wont bother when there is a clear disreguard of existing rules, Petes post point in case with little or no visable proactive support to those genuine businesses who would wish to comply but due to market presures simply cant .....

KF so basically what your saying is that the tens of thousands of pounds that this will have undoubtedly cost the tax payer to get this to the consultation stage is a complete & utter waste of time resource & money which at best will force more onto the dole que Those funds could have possibly been directed to catch bad practitioners such as the chap picutured in petes Post.. increasing the likely hood of promoting those who do work safely & probably pay their taxes too, thus helping the economic situation...etc etc interesting .......... aint it

when they state c types, this is because they have statisics some trousers Ie sip freedoms are a happy blend of the two, with calf protection in addition to the a type spec I wonder how many injurys climbers have sustained in the back of their thigh from a chainsaw. I would be interested to see the stats on that one re climber on the ground ready to assist without delay , if you have a two man team then the ground guy is going to be suttling to and fro with arisings, should he be wearing a harness & if so he cant then use the chipper As guidance states non snag clothing, so a build up of arisings will happen ususlly in a confined area which leads to the increase in trip hazards, muscular injurys sorting through a crows nest of brash once the climber has decended from the tree or a three man team lead climber + 2 one groundie & one climber ,can two not be in trees at the same time without another available guy & kit what happens when holidays or absence or resignation mean only one climber, can the groundie stand must they be coc'd, who pays for all this training who provides all this training who pays for the equipment & the checks I approached our local college & was told April for courses Do these people understand the practicalities of urban Arboriculture ?

its nice of you guys to collate a list that your insurers can use to justify an increase !!!...

the hse like all agency's have a resource limit & lets face it its all about productivity/targets within the public sector so its easier to send 1 inspector to one company that employees hundreds or even thousands than it is for the same inspector to visit hundreds of company who's employee list is more modest. less time, less paperwork,same number of ticks in the box. that said its not just the Hse what about hm revenue or the local auth who have to pick up the flytipping generated by such people..... this is not just about the HSE its a multi agency problem, that they cant deal with as it will open a whole can of worms.. again leading to more resources needed to deal with a rogue, as opposed to the relevant ease when you deal with the guy who has paid his taxes worked hard all his life & contributed to society who also just happens to have the most likelyhood of being traced prosecuted & will pay the FINES to the government purse.. if he is a statistic, then that will no doubt increase our insurance liability costs. That no doubt he wont be paying either along with tax I wouldnt wonder,leading to a knock on effect to profitability of reputable firms, increasing the likely hood of increased company failures due to these guys sweeping up the work that is out there these failure will inevitably leave more of the market open for his cousins yep more than likely, I have never been asked by a private customer for qualifications or insurance or any certification whether for loler waste or nptc ALL THEY WANT TO KNOW IS HOW MUCH !!! & thats what it comes down to if your price stops them from getting another bottle of wine in their tesco shopping basket & the other guys dont well enough said ! Great isnt it keep the faith Pete Well Done for standing up for your principles

ppe sum total investment 15quid for high viz bomber jacket, I knew I was over doing it !!! & using a tophandled saw too, did you report this to the HSE Pete ?

the main issue is WHY BOTHER As those that these guidance notes really need to affect seem never to be brought to book, or much less care... we can debate the finer points but untill the HSE get of their arse & sought out the cowboys all that effectively happens is the professionals end up with more infrastructure & cost issue's whilst trying to remain competitive in an uneven market.. that then leads to appathy which undermines the real benefit that could be brought if the industry felt its engagement with the Hse would develop, rather than a fake attempt to deal with this issue of safety. its okay to discuss debate & develop gentlemen, but at present this is a muted point & many companies are facing very real difficulties out there and have to survive in the real world. why burden them with this now when their are so many that simple ignor the rules & are ignored by those who should act to deal with these operators I have personally contacted the Hse several times about major issues I have observed, No PPE etc no harness's no etc etc, it did exactly nothing, they the Hse could not react within hours more like days,, it seems that they can only react when the wheel has come off ,, so whats the point in a proactive body that cant act proactivly or even reactively I dont presume to tell people how to do their job, even 'when' I can do my own

just imagine the response if Pete had been in the crew , Her cucumber sarnies could have been missing, & poor little tiddles bowl had been emptied too ....................

dave Lol some folks have very little else to fullfill all those lonely hours, sat at home with only the cat for company never mind eh bless !!!! these window lickers are a very special breed, at least she wont need to pay a window cleaner, Thankfully its you suffeners that seem to have a plague of them, you should put them on a pontoon drag it into the harbour & napam em !

http://www.aie.org.uk/download/law_cases/atkins_scott.pdf # here you go start reading

very sad but preventable 65 & up a ladder with a chainsaw ....... tie the ladders to the tree but not yourself ?

Regardless of cost.. its the implication of necessity of their approval to be included or lack means your excluded that matters here. I just wonder how or why this particular La has come to be pro the AA at the exclution of any other criteria/standard Mmmmmmmmmmm now lets think !!!! I wonder why the AA are going for Iso accreditation, could it be that it supersedes there standard ???????? All that glitters isn’t always gold not be fooled boys & girls,,, Do your own research,

BOB in response point 1 If we are already upto the standards & can meet the requirements set down by the issuing authority. Why then should we have imposed on us the need to, as is being suggested in the Tender I posted, be forced into joining / paying any none regulated self appointed club. this financial burden is not something that should be placed on contractors irrespective of whether or not they can afford it. 2nd point Why should we not complain about a pre exclusive condition that is not permissible... I don’t see not being an arb approved contractor as being a bad thing, in fact to the contrary, companies can & do achieve very good & sustainable standards, without any intervention from external sources. Why do I think this, they remain independent with free choice. They aren’t bound to having daft rules imposed on them I.e. all their tie wraps must bound in bundles with the fixing end all at the same side. they direct their company as they see fit, to suit their commercial operation and client profile. & save a significant sum of money. 3rd point if you were in that position, Handing out large contracts you must satisfy yourself (statutory duty of care ) that the company are fit for purpose & meet the specifications & standards set down in the PQQ & tender document & within legislation. Further more that you are spending the public purse within the guidelines set down re Best value, you DO NOT mitigate your responsibility by importing an assessment criteria, that is set by a using a none regulated or mandated club. There are good & bad AA aproved companys that we can all bring to the discussion, some that really dont meet up with the standards many none approved companies deliver, so wheres the value in dumbing down ? along with some that well .... thats for another discussion. So if thats the standard that the council / La want then the bloke YOU who engages them is on a hiding to nothing & if you did insist on an AA inclusion only clause & it affected my business, you'd very quickly get to know me & my legal representative. are those sought of reasons enough for you !!!!!!! Iain

thats my thoughts on the matter, exactly .

well I do !!!!! its public monies , clear & transparent , therefore they cannot exclude anyone , in so far as they dont belong to a club, they can However ,, specify terms & conditions of works , but if you can match / do that, then thats it ................. no if 's, why's, buts, or maybe's........ ,,,,,,,,,they cannot do it ......... but some misguided souls seem to think they can.. A quick letter to their legal services will alter it, quick sharp .

should be now known as the ' Sarnie poacher ' or Mcbuttie

its not my patch boys , if you are excluded & wish to be included then !!! read above

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Title: ARBORICULTURAL SERVICES Quote Ref: GO 08121037/01 2. Awarding Authority: Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, Town Hall, Hornton Street, London, W8 7NX. Tel: 020 7361 2767. Fax: 020 7361 3704. Email: [email protected]. (STEPHEN FULLER). 3. Contract type: Services. Competitive contract notice. 4. Description: Contract for the provision of maintenance and planting services for the Borough's tree stock. The contract will be let on a schedule of rates basis for a term of 6 years with the option to extend by a further 3 years. The borough currently has approximately 7,000 street trees which are pruned on a 2/3 year cycle. Contractors will be required to be approved by the Arboricultural Association, to demonstrate a proven ability to plant and maintain trees for an urban local authority, to work safely to exacting standards and be able to demonstrate in particular, a proven ability to undertake all aspects of arboricultural work within intensively used and congested areas of public highway. For a copy of the Tender documents please apply in writing to Mr S. Fuller. 5. CPV Code(s): 77211500 6. NUTS code(s): UKI11 7. Main site or location of works, main place of delivery or main place of performance: Delivery to: Inner London - West. NUTS code: UKI11. 8. Reference attributed by awarding authority: Not provided. 9. Estimated value of requirement: Category F: ¿1M to ¿5M. 10. Deadline for expressions of interest: 24.12.2008 (17:00). 11. Address to which they must be sent: Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, Town Hall, Hornton Street, London W8 7NX. Tel: 020 7361 2767. E-mail: [email protected] (Mr S Fuller) 12. Other information: TKR-20081210-CB-256718 13. Submitted date: 11.12.2008. topNew Search | Previous Contract | Next Contract | Back to List | Respond to this Opportunity --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# Ah so you have been t'up north then ,Lol

Ouch Harsh !!!!

Whats this then A suffener trying to be accepted ! Lol