b101uk

This is all why you should be giving your photo out to companies/tin pot agencies etc who have utterly crap data protection and have NO mandate in law to require a photo of you. If they have sent out a card with the wrong photo on or wrong info on they have failed in there duty to protect YOURS &/or someone else’s personal data from misuse/fraud/etc.

“right and wrong” may be an ideal but UK law permits mitigating circumstance If you fail to see/know that and with your comments like others it shows you are blinded by sentimentally for dogs

It would be illegal to kill someone else’s dog to eat, just as it would be to kill someone else’s chicken, pig, cow, sheep, horse, rabbit and so on for consumption without there permission. I did not say what the police man did was right or wrong, it is wrong but the whole sentiment in this thread is driven by people emotive sentimentality to dogs rather than the sensible judgement. He was NOT doing something that was self-centred like most people who leave dogs etc in vehicles, he may not have been doing something with immediate results like rescuing a proverbial “14 year old girl” from a fast flowing river wile the dogs died but he may well have potentially had the thought of tens, hundreds or even thousands of people lives at a major international sporting event held in 2012 which in the cold hard light of day is significantly MORE important than the lives of 2 dogs or what MOST people have been doing when they have left dogs to die in hot cars, therefore there MUST be mitigation of the circumstance.

I wouldn’t kill &/or eat a “14 year old girl”, on the other hand I have no qualms about killing a dog or any other animal and if I was starving dog would be much higher up the menu than e.g. most vegetables and cheese. You counter argument it totally irrelevant, it is not illegal to eat dog in the UK or humanely kill them, but humane killing dose include throat slitting/bleeding out besides the more traditional bolt/live round guns and as I said at the time he was not carrying out a self-centred task like MOST people are doing who leave dogs in cars.

Mmm, He is involved obviously in the security planning etc of an extremely high profile event that not only has major logistical challenges in policing and has a high “terrorist” risk attached. Its not as if he just went shopping or some other self-centred task, besides they were only dogs which are just food in a lot of places.

You may need to enter the bios (normally the delete or F2 button on start-up before the bios posts) then turn off the touch pad in the bios. On some as said if you plug a mouse in it will deactivate the touch pad on others it wont and you will end up with both the mouse and touch pad working, if the latter it will be via the bios method.

No the “most ridiculous things I have ever heard” is your comment going for the very large and obvious wile seeming to forget it only takes e.g. a SMALL 1kg of wood falling from tree height to smash someone scull killing them, or if we take a “2t branch” falling from high up a big tree that its weight and velocity thus kinetic energy far exceed the force imparted by e.g. a modern 1.5t car travailing at 40mph.

try reading it agene! there are ~2220 deaths on the UK roads each year which works out at ~6.08 deaths per day (this include people killed by bits of tree falling on there vehicles wile driving), if you want to compare statistics then its pointless to compare statistics that are widely disproportioned due to actual exposure to risk. How many people undertake journeys by road each day given there are ~62m people in the UK, you can likely say its more than >20 million people per day, if you took them out of there vehicles and put them in woodland etc for the same duration as there average daily road journey time do you think your BS 10000000:1 would hold true or do you think it would increase the odds of death by tree just because of the massive amount of extra people in woodland etc, even your extremely conservative 10000000:1 yields 2 deaths per day, that 10000000:1 you quote is mostly based on trees in gardens, by roads and in public parks and other space with high tree maintenance and people spending a relatively short period of time under trees. If you band vehicles an made people do there daily commute on foot and let people to traverse the countryside freely as they currently traverse the road network then I can guarantee you the rate of death for a commute would be much higher than ~6.08 deaths per day of road use. You should try and understand the statistics you peddle.

Perhaps “500” is a typo and its really 50 acres

people have been getting "blame" and paying damages for all sorts of things for hundreds of years, we can safely say the little boy who got killed was NOT doing anything illegal and because of his age it is taken that he is not a tree expert and NOT an employee and NOTHING he did caused the event that took place, he would be what you would call blame-less, thus blame must lay else ware. i.e. parent/guardian (teacher/s if on school trip), NT, arb consultant, arb company, etc to name but a few. We can say if the tree had been removed it wouldn’t have happened. We can also say had the branch weakness been spotted and/or acted upon it wouldn’t have happened. We can say had the NT not opened its gardens to the public on a blustery day it would not have happened. We can say had the NT put a fence around the tree at radius equal to >150% of the tree height it would not have happened. We could say the parent/guardian/etc are to blame for taking the kid under the tree BUT who exactly gave them a warning of the dangers posed by objects/features contained on NT property and surly ANY H&S risk assessment for opening NT property to the public on a blustery day would pickup on trees and branches falling on visitors wile they look around the gardens/grounds.

I see both sides of the argument and as with most things I take the contra position to the majority who are mostly of blinkered opinion, I also realise most people in this world have little technical knowledge of trees, I sure most of us arb and forestry lot if they take the family for a walk threw woodland or around a park we naturally are LOOKING at what trees we are walking under and scanning for dangers/risk posed by them. As you bought up statistics, if you closed all the roads for a day and made all road users walk threw woodland, parks and other wooded area for the same duration as they would spend driving/travailing by road how many people would get killed by trees in a day, if it was any more than 6.08 deaths per day it would be more dangerous than the roads, if we however made the same people walk the same equivalent distance as they would drive in a normal day but they have to do it on foot for as many day as it would take to cover that distance there would be lots of deaths per day in the countryside from slips, trips, falls, drowning, hart attacks from exertion, exposure to the elements and so on, so despite the 2220 odd road deaths per year if we removed people en masse from road and made them walk the countryside the countryside would claim more lives and its only because roads have removed masses of people from traversing the countryside that it now appear safer than roads.

I take on board you prior post RE: however laws are tested by courts for validity, so even though the drafting my say "any plant, shrub or tree, of whatever origin, is to be regarded as a natural feature of the landscape" it only becomes truly the case once it has been tested by the courts. if we take the logical point of view as applied for other feature of the landscape (natural vs. man made) and we apply the same methodology to trees then a naturally self set tree in a private woodland with little influence from "man" ware the public are not meant to be and if the public are there they are trespassing would logically have a lower liability than a stately home that opens its doors to the public and has a landscaped garden with trees planted by man in not necessarily natural positions which probably for 100+ years have had “men” messing with them then you could say that has a higher liability. If we take something similar like a rock face, if it’s a natural feature like at the coast or can occur in-land threw geological formation there is little or no onus on the land owner to fence it off or provide warnings as it’s a totally natural feature, on the other hand if the rock face was as a result of quarrying (man made/influenced) then the onus would be to fence it off and provide warning as it NOT a natural feature. Do you perhaps see that the rock face analogy mirrors the two sides “natural self set woodland that is private and NOT open to the public vs. formal gardens ostensibly engineered to look natural but are not and are heavily influence by man and open to the public” I agree perhaps more trees would be lost if my view was taken but that is better than a single child dying because someone was a bit conservative with the proverbial axe, if we were to take things a step further and perhaps embrace keeping trees that may have a question mark over them with respect to safety but want to be kept for aesthetics then what’s to stop a simple fence being put around them with adequate warnings to keep the public out of the possible danger zone, I am sure it would be better to chuck £1000 of fencing around the tree and keep it and the public safe than chuck £1000 a felling etc and losing its aesthetic value etc.

As you used the MoT as an example even though it is quite irrelevant to this thread if the MoT examiner is found to have passed vehicles threw MoT's when they shouldn’t have passed and it has been reported then they can will lose there licence to issue MoT's for VOSA, for car dealers who issue MoT certificates for cars they are selling which shouldn’t have had an MoT in there currant condition there is legal redress should an accident happen in an unsafe car, I know of a few that have been prevented for X number of years or life and subject to retraining, unfortunately in arb there is NO such method of weeding out the less than scruples or inept people who examine trees.

One could argue that a tree that has been planted by “man” in a specific place and/or has had maintenance on it by “man” is NOT a 'natural feature' in the same way a sculpted/landscaped terrain is not, nor a ditch dug by man, etc etc. One could also say that if a tree inspection program was in place and the tree failed between inspections then the person doing the inspecting got it wrong and was not duly cautious or the time between inspections was to long - in either case an amount of liability for failure must rest with the NT and its employees be they the people in the office setting inspection periods or the man inspecting trees.

ergo the people who are more likely to be bigger with bigger jobs who may need a "consultant" would be going with you thus you have devalued your "customer base" and as you are not in possession of work contracts then you can then take the same view as the tax man that nothing is guaranteed work wise ergo not worth a lot.

mmmmmmm Olga Kurylenko

Seams to me it was a prosecution brought on the grounds of ifs what’s and maybes given a lack of testing of structuil integrity of what they were attached to. Without load testing the “guard rail” integrity the HSE were in NO position really to bring a prosecution. If you take the ifs what’s and maybes approach then using harness and ropes etc attached to a tree to ascend it etc as part of “work” that should bring the same prosecution!!!!!!!! It seams the HSE should also be prosecuted for NOT giving adequate instruction to there officers on the dangers of falls from hight as you can bet “he” went near the drop without a harness etc to issue the prohibition!

Mm, I would question the wisdom of putting an 8 to 9 tonne skidding winch on the back of your average 100hp tractor then putting it atop a “steep bank” and winching wile on your own with a remote control. Your average 100HP tractor will only be 4 to 4.6 tonnes. The top pulley of a 9t winch will be ~5ft above the edge of the buttplate. The tractive force will be <9t with most of the rope paid-out. 9t @ ~5ft leverage height is equivalent to 4.5t lifting force ~10ft forward of the buttplate which is well ahead of the tractors rear wheels and not that far behind the front wheels given most tractors have at lest >65% of there weight centred on there rear wheels you have a realistic chance of tipping the tractor over even if its square on to the pull direction, if its not square on to the pull the chance of it going over more than doubles for each 10deg out of square from the direction of pull. Also most 8 to 9 tonne winch need 50kw to 55kw of power at the PTO stub available at engine tickover RPM, it is unlikely that a 100HP (~74kw) tractor will have 50kw of power available at tickover at the PTO stub, given engines in tractors have about half there peak power/torque available beneath 1000rpm (engine) and that is also beneath there peak torque RPM. If your tractor is not up to the winch you are using then you don’t have the capability to do maximum load pulls at minimum line speed especially with electro hydraulic systems given there on or off nature, so all you can then do is rev the tractor to peak torque rpm just so you get the maximum line pull but you then have all that extra line speed and electro hydraulic clutch slip each time you engage drive which all conspire to make fine control difficult and increases the speed that things can go wrong. Given you say you want to pull up to ~90ft3 (~2.5m3) at a time which for the sake of argument I will assume to be green oak at ~1t/1m3 then a 6t winch will have ~3t of minimum pull with almost all the winch rope in yet alone paid-out and ~2.5t of timber on the forest floor doesn’t take 2.5t of line pull to move it, it only takes 2.5t of pull if you lift it vertically!

Just remember there is loads of machines etc in use within businesses that pre-date the inception of CE markings. Also if something has CE marks that is NO guarantee that it conforms to the UK standard even though it conforms to the EU standard.

I would suggest you take a couple of years brake from "theory" and do some work in the profession full time or you will never be taken seriously and will be like the droves of other people in professions who are all theory with limited practical working knowledge. Wile “a good practical working knowledge” may not be a qualification etc it cannot be replaced by theory and will only strengthen your résumé, it only takes a couple of stupid, thoughtless mistakes as a consultant etc and you WILL be ridiculed.

Then you definitely have a problem! As the water should not boil until ~120C due to the pressure in the cooling system from the expansion tank cap. Have you tried a combustion gas detector placed on the expansion tank in lieu of the cap, in case it’s a head gasket problem causing bubbles that gather in the head that then cause a localise hot-spot which in turn causes rapid boil

There is the other possibility that the temperature sender is getting a little old or the wire connection to it is a little dirty so the resistance has changed so the gauge is showing ~95C at a true 85C.

I think Hamilton just needs reining in given his father is no longer his manager, he just seams to lack the thought he did have at one time so has to learn the hard way you have got to be there at the end to get a place and if you drive like an idiot your going to naturally have the stewards being less lenient and keeping an eye on you, after all most racing drivers will make a mistake at some point that may result in someone else and maybe them selves exiting the race and when it’s the exception rather than the rule its normally treated as something very minor or ignored ware as with Hamilton of late its very much the rule rather than the exception. I though Schumacher did well and I have to admit I was hoping he would get on the podium in 3rd

The hydraulic system on the mog only draws up to ~19HP under full load (assuming <55L/min @ 205bar), your chipper may well be working on the more normal ~180bar (<16.5HP) at the point the feed rollers are almost stalled when the no-stress is off with a high feed rate, so it is unlikely that hydraulic load is the cause because even if the chipper had its own pump delivering ~180bar @ 55L/min it would then draw that power from the PTO shaft, so regardless the power for the feed-rollers be if from the mogs own pump or a chipper mounted pump it would ALL come from the engine anyway, also when chipping the duty cycle is unlikely to be very high anyway. The main fan belt the goes from the crank to the pulley mounted on the radiator for the fan can also become hard and glazed on its running surface which can cause moderate slip without associated belt squeal, also the tensioning arm with a pulley on the end (which is required for chassis/engine flex) can also lose its tensioning capacity because it relays on a rubber bush on the radiator to distort to hold tension then eventually the rubber will separate from the inner or outer metal part of the bush which can be masked by the damper on later mogs. The crank/water pump/alternator belt can also glaze up &/or drop down so the bottom of the V-belt s running in the bottom of the V of the pulley causing slip without squealing so the water pump is not going full speed. The water pump its self has a slip clutch affair within it so if the water in the engine freezes the impellor doesn’t get twisted off, over time the "clutch" can become weak leading to slippage of the impellor at high RPM especially when there is some play in the pulley. Obviously the thermostat could be playing its part in not opening fully which it should do by 83degC (73degC if a tropical thermostat)

Just bear in mind the manufactures original GVW and nose weights etc no longer apply as it has had significant modification with structure removed that contributed to the original strength and resistance to flex. (that’s besides the mudguard issue) As it appears in the photos the A-frame along with the structure that supports it is looks very weak and wont resist flex very well without additional suport.