Andy Clark

Again Tony, you might not "know" this to be the case, but i do. Take the already mentioned "AAAC route into LA tree work contracts". Despite the modern stipulation of "best value" that LAs now have to adopt, I still know of some that will ONLY use AAAC for their work. Their reasoning??? Because the AAAC is the only acreditation scheme for proffesional arboriculture. Rubbish! What about Arbnet? What about CHAS? What About Constructionline? What about ISA CertArb? What about ISO? The list of "proffesional" acreditation schemes is long. The scenario is more like, that that particular TO maybe a member NATO, and given the AA relationship with that organisation, it's the only particular acreditation scheme that THEY recognise...... Lets also not forget the failed route that the AA tried to build in with the Highways Agency, regarding auto-accreditation for the NHSS18 scheme. And lets not forget who historicaly sits on the AFAG commitee...... heads of very large AAACs. On one hand you have the AA setting their benchmark, and on the other, you have its members writting the rule book! Considering that i have worked for and with several of these people, belive me, they should concentrate on putting their own house in order first, before taking the role in defining how the rest of us do it. And yes, i do infer that the scheme could do more to prevent what goes on. Why? Because i've been there, and done it! I've written a criteria that is accesible to all. I've written a membership tier model that is accessible to all. I know of that criteria being used by several LA's to draw up their own contractor criteria. I know of numerous RSLs the length and bredth of the country, who have employed that criteria to source its own contractors. I also know that same said criteria was adopted and updated by a.n.other govt. endorsed contractor acreditation scheme. I also know that the membership tier model and the criteria where adopted by a.n.other industry trade organisation. Like i said, i can "back-up" my standpoints..... so just in case you wanna practice what you preach ........ McCarthyism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sorry Nick.... just that i did try clicking on your website, but just got a 404 error come up. My mistake for jumping to conclusions.

I think that the fact that TOs suffer for lack of time is extremelly relevent! Again, drawing from my experience as "proof", of working within and manageing LA tree work contracts, i know of many that wouldn't "police" the contractors....... they'd simply just throw them off contract! So surely adding to the work load of a TO by seeking that they "police" contractors, is exactly just that.... ie, adding to the TOs already stretched resource? Which comes at the expense of the tax payer? Or perhaps you'd like me to share my experience of LA tree work contracts/contractors and little brown envelopes? You make the point of the ISA....... again, i'd beg to differ. I'm an Arborist, yes. I'm also an ISA member..... but i'm not an ISA "Certified" Arborist. Consider the differences in the particular organisations terminology........ "Find a Certified Arborist" versus "Find a Proffesional". Of course the other standpoint to consider, is that "does being an AAAC, actually quantify you as a proffesional?" Surely the manor in which you conduct your affairs, is what deems someone as a proffesional, not which particular trade organisation you belong to? Perhaps I should also throw this into the mix..... REGISTERED Consultant, APPROVED Contractor. I think the point i'm trying to make Tony, is that the english language is an extremely powerfull tool, if used in the right/wrong way........ just ask Derren Brown. And no matter how many times you say "it doesn't imply this or that", it clearly does, otherwise several people on this thread and others, wouldn't have taken it as such, would they??

Tony, just to correct your standpoint....... the matter of "slander" was actually raised by another on an alternative thread, relating to the recent publication of the official AAAC consultation response....... http://arbtalk.co.uk/forum/general-chat/14517-aaac-scheme-public-consultation-summary-report.html McCarthyism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tony, i fail to see how anything i have said equates to "the politically motivated practice of making accusations of disloyalty, subversion, or treason without proper regard for evidence." Having spent many years working with contractors up and down the country, including working within and manageing AAACs, i certainly do have evidence and experience to substantiate and "back up" anything to which I lay claim.

Tony, i'm sorry, but i don't understand what you are saying in this point. Could you be more specifiic? Now, in light of a recent off forum PM, and the resultant but now removed thread relating to the quality of LA tree work, you and i both know that to be untrue. "Proof" of this, can also be found straight from the horses mouth as it where, on the same topic on the UKTC LA Tree Pruning Standards The resultant comments within that forum, mostly by LA TOs themselves, make for VERY interesting reading. Agreed, no, it doesn't "necesarily" imply the inverse....... on face value! But lets not forget that the AA's own Director, recently publicly denounced the BBC over that "tree o clock" issue, as "failing in it's public duty" blah blah blah, DESPITE the fact that the BBC had sought proffesional tree planting advice from numerous organisations much larger than AA. The point in case being, I have grown very weiry of the "self-gratification" tactics, clearly and continually employed. Passive aggression, is aggression nonetheless. Not qualities i expect from a so called "Leading" organisation.

Just out of curiosity Nailer, obviously as you hide behind a pseudonym i have no way of knowing who you are....... are you an AA member? AAAC?? AARC??

Nailer, just to re-iterate the AA standpoint ....... 'Comment from the AA: The AA recognises that better marketing of the AA & AAAC/RC schemes are required along with promotion of the standards. The AA’s new website will be launched in April 2010 and this will prominently lead browsers to “Find a Professional.” ' Now, if those last three words read "Find an Arboririculturalist" or "Find an Approved Contractor", then yes, i would certainly agree with you....... But "Find a Proffesional"??? Belive me, this subject has been a long running issue with the AA for many years now.

I would've said that all depends Nailer, on how that particular "independant charity" conducts it affairs and how those affairs affect others. For example, as in "independant charity", is it fair/just/right for said charity to publicly denounce that those within this industry whom choose not to be members are non proffesional? I would've said that once that line has been crossed, then yes, it certainly does become others buisness as to how they conduct their affairs. Wouldn't you??

3) Again, cross referencing the AAAC consultation report - Comment from the AA: The AA recognises that better marketing of the AA & AAAC/RC schemes are required along with promotion of the standards. The AA’s new website will be launched in April 2010 and this will prominently lead browsers to “Find a Professional”, When considering the approx 30,000 people (LANTA figures) that work in trees and timber, and the quoted approx 2000 of which are AA members, is implying that those contractors not AAAC approved are NOT proffesional, not also tantamount to slander and therefore poses a further possible breach to 4.23?

Below is an extract from the AA Memorandum and Association of Articles....... 3. OBJECTS The object of the Charity is to advance the science of arboriculture for the public benefit (‘the Object’) 4. POWERS The Charity has the following powers, which may be exercised only in promoting the Object: 4.1 To advance the study of arboriculture, including the management, care, cultivation and improvement of trees and woodlands grown for amenity 4.2 To raise the standards of the practice of arboriculture 4.3 To promote or carry out research 4.4 To provide advice 4.5 To publish or distribute information and hold seminars and conferences 4.6 To co-operate with other bodies ....... ....... 4.23 To do anything else within the law which promotes or helps to promote the Object 5. BENEFITS TO MEMBERS AND TRUSTEES 5.1 The property and funds of the Charity must be used only for promoting the Object and do not belong to the members of the Charity but 5.1.1 members who are not Trustees may be employed by or enter into contracts with the Charity and receive reasonable payment for goods or services supplied 5.1.2 members (including Trustees) may be paid interest at a reasonable rate on money lent to the Charity 5.1.3 members (including Trustees) may be paid a reasonable rent or hiring fee for property let or hired to the Charity 5.1.4 individual members who are not Trustees but who are beneficiaries may receive charitable benefits in that capacity I've removed some of the points, however for those that wish to view the full text, it can be seen at http://www.trees.org.uk/downloads/memandart.pdf Please feel free to pick up on anything that I have missed or have maybe taken out of context. Now i've read this thread with much interest - especially in light of the now published response to the AAAC scheme consultation, and i don't want to go repeating questions and responses already posted, but what i do want to do though is start cutting through the "spin", and start getting down to the bare bones "grass roots" matters at hand........ To start, let's take Point 3 - "The object". The objective of the AA is to "advance the science of arboriculture for the public benefit." Perhaps Paul, you could explain a few of the following...... 1) How are the public "benefiting", from having an "industry" that remains unregulated and unstandardised? An ongoing problem which the AAAC actually contributes to, as opposed to doing everything withinin its powers to rectify? 2) Cross referencing to the statement from the AAAC report - '8c- The issue of LA TOs etc. ‘policing’ the standards locally again came up with a suggestion for simplified complaints/notification procedure to be agreed between the AA & NATO members for reporting of incidents.'. When considering that 41.8% of the consultation responses came from LA TOs, how is implying, nay condoneing the use of public funded civil servants, in the public benefit? Considering point 4.23 of the AAs MaAoA, and that LAs now have to excersise "best value", is this use of public funded staff to "police" the assets of an independant charity, not tantamount to breach of the point 4.23?

Paul, Just a quick question....... Considering the AAs strict rules on use of the terminology of membership status and that you are the moderator on the AA dedicated forum area, I'm gonna go out on a limb here and ask....... are you in fact "Paul Smith" - Arboricultural Association Technical Officer, Author of the report in question and Scheme manager of the AAAC?

I have just tried to take a more pro-active role on this topic, and post on the new AA dedicated forum..... AA - Arbtalk.co.uk | Discussion Forum for Arborists However as it appears as though one is not able to post threads on that forum, perhaps the AA representatives would care to add to the topic on here instead?? Perhaps "AATeccie", as the moderator for that forum, so i guess spokesperson for the AA, you would care to comment?

Off the back of a recent a.n.other thread, i think it was noted that LANTRA (or someother) currently list some 30,000 people working in the "Trees and Timber industry"....... Considering the 395 validated responses to the consultation, my maths makes that approx 1% of the industry. Positive response??? More like self gratification of the stranglehold that they continually impose on the rest of us. What a missed oppourtunity!

Following on from the Arboricultural Associations recent review of its Approved Contractor scheme, the report from the public consultation has now been published...... http://www.trees.org.uk/downloads/AAAC_Consultation_Report_0210.pdf

Awesome!!! Shame is though, that stuff like this just goes to show just how far behind the times we really are in the U.k. A publicly released "Street tree Census"?? One day, perhaps.

I did say "pretty certain", not "100% adamant" To rephrase though..... "I'm pretty certain, that they were the first UK designed/manufactured/distributed sliding D harness on the UK market......"

Cheers Kenny...... Much appreciated.

If my memory serves me right....... they were the result of a design collaboration between Merrist Wood students and Honey Bros back in the early to mid nineties. I'm pretty certain that they were the first "sliding D" harness on the market, which makes it the grand pappy of all modern harnesses we use now. Best bet is to drop Honey Bros a line, and ask for any info that they may still have on the project.

Shhhhhhh!!!!! I'm having trouble convincing the missus as it is!!!

A noteworthy thread B2..... don't worry, i have been watching it with much interest. I think the key point to remember though, as was also highlighted on the UKTC thread (I forget by whom) is as to the scenario and point during the process that the respective TO finds him/herself in. For example, IF a conciencious developer plays by the rules (recomendations), and enlists the 5837 services of an Arb consultant from the offset, then there is very little need or even opportunity for a TO to start slapping TPO's on things......... BUT if a TO finds him/herself faced with an over-eager "fell everything cos we need the space" developer, then common sense alone would surely dictate that the TO will use everything at his/her disposal to ensure that the developer is put under a measure of control..... including temporary TPOs. The matter, as always, is more a question of interpretation of the act, and the objectiveness/concienciousness of the respective TO.

It's very rare that you actually see a TPO revoked - I think more often is the case, whereby consent is granted to remove but with a stipulation to re-plant elsewhere on site. I've even heard of at least one LA using the CTLA/CAVAT "value" of the tree to set a re-muneration figure for replacement planting costs... ie, "Yes, you can remove that tree with a £2k value, but only on condition that you spend £2k on replacement planting" The biggest 5837 topic of the moment though is from the opposite end of the spectrum - TPO's being placed in order to STOP development! But that's a whole other kettle of fish.

I'd be carefull of advertising stuff in this manner Marcus. Steve has a very strict advertising policy in place on the forum, and I doubt all the others that get charged for advertising will take too kindly to someone flouting the rules for a freebie.

You can jump in with me if you want Tony.