Andy Clark

Jaime, you seem to be taking all this somewhat personally. Don't! I appreciate you may not have all the answers, but I think it fair to say that there have been others who have involvement in/knowledge of the scheme that have also posted within the thread. If they have now gone quiet and left you as the last (wo)man standing, then maybe you should re-think trying to respond to comments/questions you're not necessarily equipped to answer. Like I said before, we are all volunteers on here, and we're all equally dedicated and passionate about the things we believe in. We wouldn't be on here otherwise. Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

Unregistered visitors/guests? Length of time the thread has been open? Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

No, that's the number of members that have viewed the thread Jaime. It doesn't record 222.7 repeated views by the same 100 people. . . And no, I never trust statistics - you might want to check out the "What's your job title?" thread on the General Chat forum. Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

Ok, let me be clearer...... I believe from experience that having a grading system that creates 5 different grades for a groundsman is non reflective of the wider aspect of the industry - either in it's current state, nor in a way that is in fact sustainable by the wider aspect of the industry going forward. If the working group would like to discuss my experiences in this field that lead me to make this assertion, then by all means, please pass on my statement and also my contact details. Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

I have no "point" Jaime. I was replying to your post as quoted, and questioning what you had written. From what I've read of all of the background paperwork so far, I'm "enjoying" putting this all in to context and actually finding out all of the relevant details that seem lacking within this thread. I refer to my earlier post in questioning why this level of info was not freely provided by those seeking support for the scheme when faced with the questions asked. Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

I have already attached a link to the Lantra report Jaime. All the details of the questionnaire/survey are contained within. Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

Are you asking me if I think 5 different grades for a groundsman is excessive? Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

Not sure I understand the relevance of your comment Jaime. The idea of the scheme dates back to circa 2007, and predates the Lantra report. The report was conducted by Lantra et al as an appraisal of the current size etc of the trees and timber industry, and the scheme is something that, ok, started as an idea back in 07, but has been revisited as a result of one of the outcomes of the report. Not sure how changes to the scheme within the last few weeks, are therefore relative to the 2 year age of the report. Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

I'm sorry Jamie, I have no idea what that was supposed to mean. Could you perhaps re-phrase your question? Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

Couldn't agree more Jaime. Drawing from my own 27 years time served in the Scout Association, including 15 of those being as a volunteer member of campsite service crew and adventurous activities instructor, I can fully vouch for the sense of pride and well being that comes from being so committed and dedicated to something you believe so strongly in. But let's not forget, not one of us on Arbtalk is paid to post on here. Not one of us draws any form of salary from the respective pearls of wisdom that we pass on to others via our sharing of our own individual knowledge and experiences. Everyone on here is a worthwhile volunteer. . Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

And from what I've digested from the background docs. so far, that's exactly the outcome of what this will produce. Appreciated, the way the industry finds itself currently it is extremely dispersed and would undoubtedly be like herding cats in trying to culminate all that into one centralised focal point........ But 5 different grades for a groundsman??? Surely that sort of mentality is only ever going to work to exacerbate the problem, not improve it? I'm still going with the 2011 Lantra report, so will come back to this when I've fully grasped the in's and out's. Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

Keep it coming folks. The more the merrier. And if we can stick with it and try and keep it simple and on topic, then that would be much appreciated. Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

I just wanted to carry out a little informal exercise off the back of a.n.other thread, and put something to the test. What I'm asking folk to do, is just post a reply with your job title. It doesn't matter what it is. Ideally, if poss, it should be what you're known as within your company/organisation. ie groundsman, tree surveyor, contracts manager, climber, lead climber, head climber, foreman, senior foreman, lead arborist, lead climbing arborist......... whatever. I'll start the ball rolling....... Arboriculture and Grounds Maintenance Manager Cheers peeps. Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

I think the point that seems to have been missed Jaime, as has been the case with schemes of this nature previously within this forum, is that various members involved with the scheme have posted all the glitzy "salesman" type patter in order to "sell" the idea of the scheme, but yet don't appear to have been very forthcoming with much in the way of technical detail or straightforward and robust answers to straightforward and robust questions. Take the links and documents that I've posted for example - nothing more that 5 mins on google, but yet has provided more detail and background of the scheme and its roots, than has been provided by the people that are involved and supposedly keen to sell the scheme and see it progress. Do you not think that it's perhaps better to change tactic, and actually start learning not to underestimate the "market place"? I mean yes, the steering group may well be reading these posts - but lest we not forget that so are the rest of the. 2227 views that this thread had received as of 18.22 this evening. Pleeeeeeeeeeease steering group and Lantra et al, stop making the same old mistakes. Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

And have also found the report that started it all..... http://www.lantra.co.uk/Downloads/Research/Research-reports/Trees-Timber-Industry-in-Great-Britain-Size,-Structure-Skills.aspx Now THAT is something worth reading!

Came across some interesting background reading today......... http://www.trees.org.uk/aa/news/Professional-Skills-Framework-update-119.html And ...... http://www.hse.gov.uk/treework/hse-communicating.htm. (With specific reference to the first of the bullet points within the sub heading "The role of AFAG") Also, references to the scheme within the attachments. Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk tapaupload1.pdf tapaupload0.pdf

????? I'm sorry Jaime, have we met? I don't recall that we have, so am therefore left struggling to comprehend the reasoning/rationale behind the content and context of your reply. Can I be rest assured that that wasn't the formal standpoint from the Chair of the presentation, and therefore was not formally representative of the standpoint of the scheme? Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

My apologies...... I had planned to be at tomorrows presentation, however unfortunately work has taken precedent and I am now unable to attend. Can I please ask that those concerned and/or anyone else that does attend, give a full debrief on here afterwards. Many thanks. Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

This might be of some use if you fancy a different format from books....... http://www.isa-arbor.com/education/onlineLearning/podcastDetail.aspx?ID=5 Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

Surely the principle of 'nuisance' though as defined, is the same across the board? The only thing that differs is the instrument used to bring the claim, and the resulting verdict based on that instrument - hence the outcome would be either guilty if brought under a criminal act, or liable if brought under a civil act. In terms of the Law Gazette extract though, the matters within the case in question mirror my own concerns as to why the tree owner might be held liable in this instance. For example the extract mentions the defence of Railtrack as being on the basis - 'that a landowner should not be liable for the activity of wild creatures, unless they have been attracted to his land by some non-natural or unreasonable action conducted on the land' . But goes on to say that the Judge held that - '1. The proposition advanced by Railtrack was inconsistent with the law as developed in Sedleigh Denfield v O'Callaghan [1940] AC 880. The claimant had rightly submitted that a person was liable for a nuisance constituted by the state of his property if, when it had arisen without his own act or default, he omitted to remedy it within a reasonable time after he became aware of it. Older authorities to the contrary had been convincingly shown to be wrong: see Liability for things naturally on land (1930) 4CLJ 13 (Professor Goodhart). The fact that the pigeons were feral should not affect the operation of that principle: see Proprietors of Margate Pier and Harbour v Town Council of Margate (1869) 20 LT (NS) 564 (liability for accumulation of seaweed). Nor was it material that the claimant in the instant case was complaining of inconvenience rather than physical damage to its property. 2. The council had not required Railtrack to do more than what was reasonable in the circumstances.' So two points rise from the above principle - 1. On that basis that a person is 'liable for a nuisance constituted by the state of his property if, when it had arisen without his own act or default, he omitted to remedy it within a reasonable time after he became aware of it.'. then does the problem with squirrels using the property (tree) to gain access to a 3rd party building constitute an actionable nuisance? 2. If so, meaning that the tree owner is liable, then what can be agreed as being a reasonable course of action for the tree owner to take in order to abate that nuisance? My argument is that pruning the tree isn't reasonable - based on the consideration of the tree species (Silver Maple) and the increase in the pruning that the tree owner will have to undertake as a consequence of the inevitable vigorous regrowth. This has made my brain ache aaaaaaaall day . Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

Nooooo, I'.m pretty sure "we" don't think that squirrels only climb trees. Well, I would bloody hope "we" don't. But this isn't about us, it's about defending that point to a homeowner who's looking to blame something and get someone else to foot the bill for resolving the problem, rather than just accept the fact that it's just nature. Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

At one point today I did begin to wonder if there had ever been a successful case brought against a squirrel for either trespass or criminal damage....... But then the nurse came and gave me my medication and I felt much much better. Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

Totally. And the neighbour has done so, by saying the squirrel is getting into their loft. No doubt there'll be other bits in there about damage to things in the loft, damage to the fabric of the loft and the items within, damage to the soffets and facias....... You know how these things tend to escalate. Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

No, there's no overhang of the boundary. The tree's next to the flank end wall, and the little critters are jumping from the branch ends to the facias. And the tree is a fairly sizeable Silver Maple, so any amount of pruning is only going to lead to the need to be back there every 2 years cuttng off the re-growth after it goes potty. Rock > < A hard place. . Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

Folks, I do fully agree with all of the above. The problem I have at the moment though, is that my argument on the side of the tree owner needs to consist of a bit more than "cos I said so". The neighboring homeowner is demanding the tree to be pruned, and just isn't going to listen to anything that doesn't contain at least some ounce of substantiated argument. Ah well, time to dust off the Mynors then me thinks. Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk