Amelanchier

Entry form available here - http://arbtalk.co.uk/forum/tree-climbing-competitions/25516-cutters-climbers-2011-a.html#post427445

CUTTERS AND CLIMBERS COMPETITION - 16TH & 17TH APRIL 2011 In its sixth year, the annual Cutters and Climbers Competition is being held once again at the East of England Game Fair. As those who regularly attend will know, we pride ourselves on making the event bigger and better every time around. The competition is open to all qualified climbers and chainsaw operators regardless of age and gender. It consists of three individual climbing, spiking and chainsaw events with separate and combined prizes for each. The vast majority of competitors compete in all three, with the chance to win the much coveted ‘Most Employable Person’ title, based on scores from all three events. Climbing event, a solo simulated work scenario tests climbers with a variety of targets and aerial challenges such as our hair trigger limb walk which challenges competitors to get as far out on an artificial branch as they can without setting off an alarm. Chainsaw event competitors are expected to fell a standing stem, de-limb and cross cut an artificial tree with points will be awarded for the precision of cuts and the time taken to achieve them. Pole climb pits two competitors head to head up the largest poles we can transport down the road. Although these fall short of the 80ft monsters that you might find at the UK championship, they more than make up for it in speed and splinters. Team relay events (Spiking/Felling/Snedding/Axe Crosscut) Whilst we do take entry on the day, those that pre-register get free entry to the game fair (which you need to get into the comp!) download the application form below and email/post as directed. Any queries, either PM me or email [email protected] I look forward to seeing our regulars, some new faces and maybe some jaded defectors from that other inconviently timed event... Blank Enrolment form for cutters and climbers competition.doc

What exactly did you have in mind?

Also, a billion hours is a shade over 1900 years making it even more unlikely for certain bodily incarnations to still be present. Stone age is roughly right though (Mesolithic in Europe). I would rather be alive today than 100 years ago. I'm likely to be more affluent, less likely to succumb to a range of unpleasant diseases, less subject to class discrimination, generally better educated and profoundly unlikely to be involved in two world wars.

The AA are just about to publish details of a revised scheme which includes proportional criteria for smaller companies (<5 employees). See Paul's threads below; http://arbtalk.co.uk/forum/aa/24609-arb-approved-chas-less-than-500-per-year.html http://arbtalk.co.uk/forum/aa/24944-new-arbac-pack-now-available.html

True enough Lee. I've even seen tree reports that aren't even really about trees!

You do understand how all this works don't you?

We don't have a conflict; you asked for my thoughts - I posted the acceptable ones.

Yes. Insurers are not arboriculturalists.

I have three thoughts; a) You have badly misjudged the response of the membership of the site. b) This site doesn't need members with your approach to conflict resolution. c) If you do this, I hope you get caught and taken to the cleaners.

Nice find! Self grafting (properly know as inosculation or anastomosis) is common in a number of species - there's a few good examples hidden in this thread... http://arbtalk.co.uk/forum/tree-health-care/6163-interesting-biomechanics-16.html

If you stick at the lifting, you'll be in no danger of catabolising the beefcake.

I'll be putting a bigger thread up soon I hope...

I'm sorry to hear of your difficulties. I will repost this in the ISA section and email the certification liason for you.

Make sure that when you do, you choose your words with more care.

I think all unauthorised works are limited to 6 months but I would advise checking on that...

They'll need to get their skates on then...

Indeed it would! It establishes the reasonableness of checking! I'm not trying to worry anyone. As I said, given the above information, it doesn't sound like they are particularly concerned with you. You'll probably end up with a nice little warning letter that you can frame in your office. If the LPA is anything like mine was, a TO/ enforcement officer will collect a bunch of evidence, take it to their manager, who will take it to their manager, who will decide whether to ask for an opinion from legal, who will regurgitate all the legal waffle that the TO already knows before mulling over the following various considerations; Is the tree properly screwed? Was it a nice tree? Has the evidence been collected properly? Is the evidence good enough? Is there a public benefit to legal action? Will the person concerned take a formal caution? What are the chances of a win in court? How much will it all cost? What's the weather like? Where are we going for lunch? How many chickens must be sacrificed to Belial? Will we ever find a single unifying theory of everything? Was Eastenders good last night?). Then they'll probably sit on it until the statute of limitations expires. Just out of interest, when did you say this happened? IIRC statute of limitations is 6 months for unathorised works in a CA...

I guess it possibly would - my point was that the OP had been asked in for FI regarding an offence under a certain part of the law and that that particular legislation did not exlcude anyone from liability. Decisions about whether its reasonable for those individuals to have checked the constraints are subjective and not measured against an agreed guidance - the bloke in the wig will decide! No I wouldn't. Mainly because I left the Council over a year ago but also because I agree it would be ridiculous. However, I can't agree that they wouldn't be at risk of committing an offence as a result of that opinion!

In any case, from the warm comfort of my considerably well furnished ivory tower where I sit happily in full armchair legal expert mode - this doesn't look like they are considering taking action against the OP. I'd go for the college.

I dunno Rupe. There's nothing in the legislation or the guidance that indicates that LPAs need examine the company heirachy to attribute liability. Depending on the order there are two seperate and distinct offences listed. In the most recent model they are as follows (these apply to CA trees by virtue of section 211 [my emphasis in bold]:- "...no person shall; (a) cut down, top, lop, uproot, wilfully damage or wilfully destroy; or (b) cause or permit the cutting down, topping, lopping, uprooting, wilful damage or wilful destruction of, any tree specified in Schedule 1 to this Order..." So its fairly inclusive really. This means that both the person who commits the offence and the person who asks/tells him to are both at risk of prosecution. Whilst there may be a convention for aiming for the boss (or indeed prosecuting the person with the most money), there is nothing that specifically and categorically excludes the bloke on the saw (even the subbie) from potential liability.

The same offences apply to CAs as they do to TPOs, including unauthorised works. Essentially Section 211 of the TCPA 1990 sets up a number of possible defences against the strict liability offences listed in 198 3) a) (i.e., those that you are guilty of unless you can prove otherwise). One of which is the (6 week) notification of intent.

If you create additional attachment points, the last thing you want to do is use them up by spreading your existing system all over them. Elegance and simplicity is key. you want to take things out of the system, rather than add them in. That setup is gonna be clanking and jarring all the way up the tree and you'll have to buy new biners at the end of the week.

Aye, tis much awesome. When it comes round to faffing with your setup, the golden rule is:- Simplicity wins. Oh and that mallion will gladly tear huge LOLER failing chunks out of your petzl bollocks. Get rid.

Indeed, and whilst we have no problem with detailed discussion of its contents we aren't going to condone theft (even if the ludicrous price prevents its wider exposure). For that reason, I'm obliged to close this thread. A good search on this forum will find you the draft (or a link to it on the UKTC). You'll not find much of the core info has changed but its context and structure has, so if you need to quote chapter and verse, you'll need a published copy.