Treewolf

About 20 years ago I bought a railway-style petrol nut runner from a well-known internet auction site. It came from a seller in Ashford, Kent, which I later learned was then (whilst HS1 was being built) the national hotspot for railway plant theft. There were many convincing reasons for believing it was a genuine sale from an honest seller, and the serial number was clearly visible on the tool (and shown in the auction listing). Not long afterwards I was contacted by BTP who were investigating a spate of rail plant thefts and, it turns out, the person from whom I bought the tool, and I arranged to take the tool to show them. They had no evidence to prove that the machine was stolen and there were no reports of that serial number having been nicked, but they were interested in the seller, who was known to them. The advice from BTP was that buying it in good faith, and having it in my possession and using it was not a problem, but if I were to sell it and it turned out that it had been stolen then potentially I could be charged with handling stolen goods, even if I didn't know that it had been stolen. After a cursory check whether the serial number was on their hotlist they showed absolutely no further interest in investigating that particular tool. They did say that they would get in touch if there were further developments, but I never heard any more from them. As for the tool, ironically that was stolen about a year later during a break-in at the heritage railway where I was working. The theft was reported to local police and BTP who issued a crime number and as far as we can tell then did absolutely nothing else. My feelings based on this experience and what BTP said at the time is that even if you are suspicious about the provenance of the machine but can show you have taken the reasonable steps to check if it is stolen, then you are unlikely to be charged. However if it does turn out to be stolen you run the risk that it will be returned to its owner and you will be left out of pocket.

I also have an R-Tech MIG which I am is extremely pleased with. I've also heard good things about Jasic equipment but have no personal experience with them, though I think they are more costly than R_Tech. Oliver Snowball seems impressed with his Jasic (and I am impressed by what he can do with it). https://www.youtube.com/@snowballengineering

The general definition is that a client buys a service (or possibly an intangible product in modern service management vernacular) whilst a customer buys a tangible product or object. Solicitors, prostitutes, hairdressers, builders and so on have clients. Butchers, bakers and candlestick makers and so on have customers. Of course it's not always clear cut. If you buy a house from a builder you're a customer, but if you employ a builder to erect your house you're (probably) a client.

The "old" or traditional way to tie what was once known as the lorryman's hitch (because in those days we had lorries not trucks) used half a sheepshank to form the loop for the running part, rather than the slippery half hitch favoured today. In this form it is usually necessary to twist the loop to prevent it collapsing before you can apply tension. This version works well with natural fibre cordage but not with synthetic and has consequently fallen out of favour. Using the slippery half hitch structure avoids the need for the twists but does mean the hitch won't simply shake out when released, which was a feature of the original form.

The regs changed years ago and are as in the IWT note. All that matters now is the actual weight you're towing, not the plated MAM.

Any trailer over 3500kg gross needs coupled brakes and cannot be towed on a ball hitch, it must be on a suitable pin/ring or pintle/lunette coupling. Many LR vehicles from Series Ones onwards have been rated to tow 4 ton trailers subject to being fitted with coupled brakes. Now it will also cause a world of pain with tachos, drivers' hours, licencing, and all that malarkey. It's not really worth the aggro. I've driven a 2286cc SII with coupled brakes and 4 tons on the pintle and it is extremely tedious and generally a horrible experience. Never again!

Be thankful it's a Transit not a Land-Rover! "We are unable to renew your insurance" is becoming fairly common, and for some models I've heard of premiums increasing from a few hundred to £16,000 per annum. The latter tends to be for the pointless "school delivery system" models like the RR, Velar, etc, but to the insurance computers unfortunately the proper Land-Rovers are all the same. The future does not look very promising!

All that means is that the aspect ratio of the tyre is 100%, i.e., it is as tall as it is wide (in effect it is a 205/100R16).

You can question the judgement but the technique is good. Don't try this unless you know the road, know what you're doing, and have a suitably prepared vehicle.

Ah, thank you for clearing up my misunderstanding. I wasn't intentionally suggesting for a minute that the the starter of the thread wasn't fit to run a business, and I am sorry if that is what you thought I was saying. In fact I applaud the starter of the thread, someone who has identified a problem, isn't sure how to deal with it, and has asked for advice and suggestions. Absolutely sensible and responsible behaviour in my opinion. I would question the judgement of any person who turned a blind eye in such a situation (although we'd never know because they'd be unlikely to ask for advice) I also understand that it is difficult to find staff, and difficult to screen potential staff for alcohol/drug dependence, but that difficulty doesn't mitigate our responsibility to ensure that we are safe. I suspect that we are actually all on the same page. @Tree Brother, I hope that you didn't feel offended by anything in my post, because that was categorically not my intention.

Not relevant in the slightest. My point, which I thought was clear, is this: if you are employing someone to do a job of work which includes an element of danger to them, your other employees, or the public, you have a very clear legal duty to minimise those risks and that includes making sure that your employees are fit to carry out their work safely. That means properly trained, properly equipped, adequately rested, and not unfit through drink or drugs of any kind, legal or otherwise. You may think this is tough, but to most people (at least those who aren't drug users) it's pretty reasonable. How do you think a non-user employee would feel working with a user if you failed to look after his safety? How would you feel when Johnny Junkie causes life-changing injury or death to another employee knowing you had the chance to prevent it but failed? How would you feel if your recreational drug using employee, or the one who arrived at work drunk from the night before, or who hadn't slept the night before, kills someone's wife and kids by driving your signwritten van into them? Like it or not being a good employer carries responsibilities to employees, public, and society at large, and it isn't always easy or pleasant. I actually find it a little disturbing that any employer in this industry at a professional level would not have a documented drugs and alcohol policy. Make it clear to all staff up front what standard you demand and what will happen if they let you down, eg first warning, second warning, goodbye. Firm, safe, fair.

Imagine what would happen if your subbie or employee whom you suspect to be a user is the cause of a fatal in or life-changing incident and it can subsequently be proven that you knew or suspected he was a user and did nothing. I'm pretty sure that your life would take a significant turn for the worse. Is it worth the risk? If the only way you can stay in business is by employing users then you really shouldn't be in business unless you find a way to manage the risk.

Insurance for all recent Land-Rover vehicles has rocketed this year due to the theft problem. They're desirable and very easy to steal. I seem to recall seeing stats which show that more than 40% of stolen vehicles in the greater London area are recent Range-Rovers. Coupled with the general increases due to keyless entry and the fact that EVs are usually written off after minor prangs, many LRs have become virtually uninsurable.

There'll undoubtedly be a reason, but it won't be a good one. There is no justification for this. I also think that the public backlash will make life very difficult for the perpetrators to the extent that they'll probably come to regret it. Joe Public will probably end end paying for their protection. I wonder if the movie is planned yet.

Don't believe all you read on the Internet, for a much more honest discussion read the whole thread on here. See ' 200 year old cedar in Dorset' in the general chat forum https://arbtalk.co.uk/forums/topic/64358-200year-old-cedar-in-dorset/#comments