tommer9

Cheers Ian. As i sort of expected, they didnt come good. I keep meaning to chase them up on this, as they had a hefty reduction on the price on the proviso that they would do it. Thanks for the reminder.

I thnk the 130 is 3.5 ton gross isnt it?

Haha.......its a subject fairly close to my heart. I find the hard headedness of business absoloutely stomach turning, and what is worse, the blind faith with which people parise supermarkets. It is all down to the culture of selfishness that prevails nowadays. For most people a favour wil only be done if something is in it for them. I find that that isnt a favour, but a service, and i find it dsitasteful to say the least. I was brought up to put others first and that it is better to give than to receive. Unfortunately i thn that few others seem to adhere to that policy (i honestly wish i dint at times) and that it has become the norm to be putting number one before all else.

Nd another, which suports the argument that supermarkets are creating a consumer demand that is fair for only one set of people, themselves, through a huge media misinformation campaign, and basically, lies. They rely on the unquestioning, sheep like nature of most of society. Rise in price of veg is a supermarket scandal 4 Apr 2009 Joanna Blythman YOU probably won't be surprised by the latest figures which show that food prices rose by 1.7% in February alone, taking the annual increase to a hefty 11.5%. Expensive food has become a feature of our 21st century predicament. The spiralling cost of everything from bread and butter to rice and sausages can be explained away by world shortages of cereals (much of which is used as animal feed) caused by drought and flood brought on by global warming, as well as a booming world population. But it can't account for the enigma of UK vegetables prices, which have shot up mysteriously by 19% in just one year. I say mysteriously, because there is no reason for your spuds or carrots to go up more than any other category of food. True, last summer was a wet one, but this is nothing new in rainy Britain. So what's really happening? The pricey veg mystery was elucidated most convincingly recently by a particularly articulate vegetable grower on Radio 4's Farming Today. The figures he reeled off were scandalous, offering more evidence of how supermarkets are crushing Britain's farmers and growers and leaving us recklessly dependent on imports. Jeffrey Philpott gave the example of cauliflower, although his computation is doubtless typical of supermarket profit margins on other vegetables. It costs him 44p to grow a cauliflower, yet the supermarkets will pay no more than 36p a piece, even though they sell them for a cool £1.19 or thereabouts. Giving supermarkets the benefit of the doubt, each cauliflower may cost them another 14p in distribution and packing costs. Still, the arithmetic of cauliflower pricing exposes the venality of our large food retailers. There they are, blitzing our TV screens with adverts for "inflation-busting" offers then putting a shameless, near 150% mark-up on exactly the sort of healthy, home-produced vegetable that public health campaigns exhort us to eat. Last autumn, the National Farmers' Union warned that UK-grown cauliflower and other brassicas could vanish from plates unless farmers were paid a fairer price. If only this scenario could be dismissed as the perennial farmers' alarmism, but it can't and must be taken seriously. Supermarket profiteering is driving our native horticulture out of business. In the last 10 years there's been a 24% drop in the amount of land used to grow fresh vegetables in the UK. Our production is down 14% and imports have risen by more than a quarter. Why? Unable to sustain year after year of selling below the cost of production, farmers are diversifying into anything else as fast as they can. Great. Just when the world is running low on food and every sensible country should be building up its future self-sufficiency, our growers are giving up the ghost. Last year it was a shortage of caulis, this year already we are having to import carrots from as far away as Australia because we haven't enough of our own. Price-aware shoppers have long recognised that supermarkets are expensive places to shop for fruit and vegetables. Anyone who uses an independent greengrocer, farm shop or even farmers' market stall can expect to slash their fruit and veg bill by a good 40%. But when most people felt flush, they didn't baulk at paying £2 for four overpriced apples in a shrink-wrapped pack. We haven't had a clue about what the going market rate for Canary cherry tomatoes or South African grapes might be, so fruit and vegetables have given supermarkets a licence to print money. But in the current economic climate, this profiteering has one very tangible result: people eat less. Last year, fruit and vegetable sales went down by a knee-jerk 12% when prices first began to soar, demonstrating the direct relationship between price and consumption. Since 2001, the Department of Health alone has spent more than £6 million pushing its five-a-day health promotion message (the minimum intake to ensure wellbeing), and that's before you calculate the cost of similar initiatives in Scotland. It might as well have saved its breath. The last review of the Scottish Diet Action Plan, which prioritised this message, found that in a decade, there had been no increase in consumption; in fact vegetable consumption had dropped, so you'll be lucky if most Scots eat three a day. It's a miracle that we're not all coming down with scurvy and rickets. It's not just the nation's health we should be worried about. As concerns about the world's ability to feed itself mount, bodies such as the United Nations are urging us to eat less meat and eat more home-produced plant food. But the supermarkets are ruthlessly subverting these messages with their rapacious mark-ups. We need a Scottish government inquiry into fruit and vegetable prices, but don't hang around for that. Ditch the supermarket, cherish the independent greengrocer, farm shop or market stall, and if you can, grow your own. Supermarkets are depressing the uptake of fruit and vegetables through their greed and endangering our future food security along with it. They must be stopped.

This makes very interesting reading.... Last Updated: Thursday, 9 March 2006, 10:32 GMT Q&A: Supermarket competition concerns Tesco shopper Critics say supermarkets have too much power in the retail world The Office of Fair Trading has been under increasing pressure to investigate the supermarket sector amid competition concerns in the sector. Despite its ruling late last year that there was "insufficient evidence" to prompt such an inquiry, the OFT was forced to reconsider its position after the matter was referred to the Competition Appeals Tribunal. The tribunal quashed its ruling and ordered the OFT to reach a new decision as soon as possible. The OFT weighed up a number of questions before it decided to refer the matter to the Competition Commission. Why are supermarkets causing concern? Significant worries have been raised about the relentless rise of supermarkets and their hold over consumers and suppliers alike. According to market research group TNS Worldpanel, the UK's big four - Tesco, Asda, Sainsbury's and Morrisons - now hold almost three-quarters (74.4%) of the grocery market. Tesco, the UK's number one supermarket has the biggest share and now takes £1 of every £8 spent by consumers in the UK. When you consider that UK retail sales totalled £246bn in 2004 - more than the combined economies of Switzerland and Ireland - that's a significant amount. According to the All Party Parliamentary Small Shops Group, half the UK's 278,630 shops are owned and managed by a sole trader. However, these local shops are now losing out to supermarkets, which are moving into the convenience store format. According to the Association of Convenience Stores, in the 12 months to June last year, 2,000 independent convenience stores closed down as supermarkets moved in. What areas did the OFT examine? The OFT looked at two main issues - competition worries surrounding the local convenience stores market and whether supermarkets are abusing their relationships with suppliers. Last year, the OFT ruled that the grocery market was not restrictive, prompting widespread derision from local shops and action groups. The OFT also ruled that there was no need to reform the way the supermarkets deal with suppliers, despite claims that the "big four" had engaged in "bullying tactics". However, in its latest statement, the OFT now says there is "some evidence to suggest that the big supermarkets' buyer power has increased". Why are people worried about the convenience stores sector? Local, or corner, shops are becoming a huge growth area for supermarkets. As the big four - Tesco, Asda, Sainsbury and Morrison's - face greater planning restrictions, one of the key ways they can expand their business is by targeting the convenience store format. Tesco petrol forecourt Tesco plans to change many petrol stations to its Express format Such a tactic also allows the supermarkets to target "cash-rich, time poor" consumers who can pick up a few groceries on the way home. However, the strategy has drawn fire from MPs and small shops groups. The recent all-party report by MPs warned that the invasion of supermarkets into the convenience store sector could destroy the local community. Friends of the Earth and the Women's Institute also highlighted social and economic concerns raised by the increasing dominance of supermarkets. The Association of Convenience Stores warned that predatory or below-cost pricing by supermarkets was driving small shops out of business, as they were unable to compete with their bigger rivals. It also argued that the OFT's decision to divide the retail market into "convenience" and "one-stop" categories had allowed supermarkets to expand into the convenience store sector unhindered. Consumers have voiced concern about having less choice on the High Street, and in-store, as consolidation and expansion in the market continues. Why the beef over supermarket suppliers? Campaign groups like Breaking the Armlock Alliance are up in arms over the OFT's original ruling that supermarkets are sticking to the Supermarkets' Code of Practice and treating suppliers fairly. They allege that suppliers have been too scared to complain of any code breaches, for fear of losing key contracts. Critics want an independent watchdog to oversee complaints made in confidence. Under the current system, complaints from suppliers have to go through retailers. The National Farmers Union (NFU) also wants the OFT to acknowledge that there is a problem, saying "many farmers live in fear of losing contracts if they speak out - they're not the greatest deals but they are all they've got". Suppliers and campaigners want clear, transparent information on buying prices. Other groups complain that the code also fails to protect workers overseas and ensure they get a fair, living wage. What do the supermarkets say to all this criticism? Supermarkets have long argued they are simply giving UK consumers what they want and treat suppliers fairly. Tesco has denied that smaller shops are at risk, arguing that consumers use both supermarkets and corner shops at different times. The British Retail Consortium (BRC), which represents supermarkets, says consumers are the best regulator of the sector. It argues that supermarkets have grown as they have met the changing demand of shoppers, and in turn, competition has benefited consumers by offering lower prices, greater choice and high quality produce. Have any big names raised concerns about supermarkets? Any criticism mainly seems to come down to gripes about market leader Tesco, which currently has a 30.2% share of the market - way ahead of Asda (16.6%) and Sainsbury (16.2%). Asda shopper Even Asda is feeling the squeeze from Tesco But rivals have spoken out about its expansion, as the group plans a rapid rollout of its Express format stores across the country. Asda's owner Wal-Mart has called on the government to investigate Tesco's continuing domination, because it was so difficult for rivals to try to catch up. Remarkably, smaller rival Waitrose - owned by department store John Lewis - has also added its voice to concerns about declining competition in the convenience store sector. While insisting it was not anti-Tesco, the retailer recently revealed it had been prevented from opening stores in many towns as it had been outbid by Tesco. Local authorities fail to consider competition, service and social issues, instead concentrating purely on who pays the highest price, Waitrose added. How long before an inquiry goes ahead? Now that the OFT has decided to refer the supermarket sector to competition watchdogs, a four-week open consultation will take place, ending on 6 April. It will then make a final decision on the matter next month. If it does decide to go ahead with a full investigation, the process could take months and cost big-name supermarkets millions of pounds.

Tis seems to have degenerated into a Tescos argument, one which I have to say is very valid, as it is a prima fascia example of the crux of this thread. Tesco ARE NOT responding to demand. If you look at the rise of the supermarket from its first inceprion then you will see this to be the case. Through the use of product placement, the playing on human nature to the nth degree and from offering unneeded services that smaller outfits cannot, and by pushing down prices paid to suppliers whilst hiking up profits, supermarkets have established a position from which they are untouchable. Over 10 years ago Tescos passed the profit threshold at which they were legally required to be broken up, as was BT and Microsoft for exaple, but funnnily enough they werent touched, but Terry Leahy was knighted. This paved the way for the so called Big Four to eat up ANY competition they saw. They write off profits by buying huge tracts of land all over the world, ensuring that no other development can take place. They undercut any other suppliers, yet the quality of their food is way below that of local producers, with less nutritional values and higher fat and salt and sugar content, which coupled with pester power means that they have the home food market sewn up. Adjoin that with the present day social structure that has been advanced by the likes of Tescos, Oldacres, Monsanto etc etc which have all added to the yawning social divide, and the hugely powerful media machine that we have in our front rooms forcing the need for More More MOre and the ideals of Me me me, then the floodgates are open for the likes of tesco to carry on regardless. Someone mentioned about jobs and how technology creates jobs. Utter piffle. The creation of wealth for the minority and misery and hunger is all the the long term reliance on echnological adb=vance has been shown to provide in the post war years. It is important to understand how the 20 years or so following WWII has shaped modern society. The whole world wanted change, Technology from the war effort needed an outlet. Fertilizer was 'discovered' from petrochemicals, which tethered to the wartime self sufficiency ethos allowed this new technology to bloom, alondside the mass introduction of the tractor, in the form of the little grey fergie, and the fordson, which before the war were seen as evil and unnecessary. There was a mass exodus from the countryside and a huge demand for cheap food. The science wasnt there behind it though, and the harm that was doen wasnt realised at the time, until the system was ingrained. The out with old feeling was runnig sterong- technology was seen as the ONLY way. New materials such as prestressed concrete allowed the building of huge (snti)social housing schemes leading to the urban gettos and social deprevaion we see today. As for being owed a job and getting off you arse to make your own way, then that is a very commendable idea, if rather utopian and misguided. For those of us that live in semi or totally rural areas then that IS a possibility, but put yourself in the shoes of a kid who knows nothing but social depravation and the inside of a tower block inhabited by depressed unemployed ill people (the TRUE end product of capitalim as we no know it). What future is there for him? The state of city eduvation is atrocious, the mentality of the downtrodded advances the depression and all the time they are bombarded with TV terlling them that they have to consume and have the lates Tommy Hilfiger jeans and go on holiday to the Bahamas. This only entrenches their depression and hatred and increases their need to blot out the misery of being at the very bottom of the pile through substance misuse. This is analogous throughout the world on a scale of inner city to inter-country. Whether we apply it to the difference of someone in an inner city estate riddled with crime and heroin to that of a farmer with 6 tractors, or the difference between Bolivia and France, the parallels are there. So back to man or machine.....For years those in the position of 'power' (and i dont mean political, but economic) have needed to sell tgheir product in order to make more money, past the point of any reasonable need or even poast the point of normal desire. Welath has become a god in itself. Instead of paying a wge we get a machine, that way the money stays in our pocket, and let everyone else be damned (Im alright jack- sod the next man). It is what capitalism means. This is enforced further by the likes of Thatcher saying that we should all own our own home and a car. It takes the idea of a society and stands it on its head, turning us all into uncaring, non-community spirited individuals who are slaves to money and the state. It has encouraged the formation of themodern society, which in turn is exeplified by the likes of Road Rage, mas fighting in the streets every staurday night as we all look for one-upmanship. The destruction of the family and community. Macines? An unnecessary evil I think. It is a sorry state that we are in, but one which i fear is so entrenched that there will be no going back. I HAVE to stop writing. sorry .

I had to hav 2 pulleys machined when mine was done.

Thats such a good point there Dave. That is exactly how it was when i was growing up farming and other landbased jobs. When it came to combining, one local farmer had a combine, and he would contract iot out to the surrounding area, in return for help with hay/ silage. or trailer work dragging his own corn. What capitalism has done for us is given us the me, me,me attitude, summed up beautifully by this [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkhX5W7JoWI]YouTube - Money - Pink Floyd + Lyrics[/ame]. Comunity spirit has been destroyed by the pirsuit of excess mobney and what the media have persuaded us we HAVE to have, be it tommy hilfiger jeans or the lates Claaas jaguar Forager, or a schleising chipper.

Depending on the quality of the 2 stroke apparently.

|Speak to mid cornwall saw services in st dennis about the blades mate. Tell simon I sent you and they should sort you out.

On a general note, the industrial revolution (which is still going to a certain extent) was the start of the downfall of mass employment, and the move from the countryside to the town, and the unending poverty and social inequality that we have seen since the dawning of the age of steam. 'Bright lights syndrome' has led to a mass exodus from the countryside to the town, leaving us with slums, housing estates, soaring crime rates and drug/ alchohol dependency and all the other social ills. That coupled with a population boom, and also aided by said boom, has led to the situation we now see ourselves in. On top of that the second world war and the 5-10 years following also had a massive effect on the amount of, and the manner of use of, 'modern' machinery. The late 40's and the 50's saw a ballooning of modern technology, and an overburdening desire to embrace that technology. The war effort changed the way that the world looked at working methids, and the way it saw macinery in the work place. On a global scale we were desperate to show that our country (speaking for any developed nation here) was the best and at the cutting edge. It was a time of massive invention (post wartime- the military is and always has been the driving force behind technological advances in the modern age) and enormous promotion of technology- people wanted a sea change which they saw as coming from modernisation. Most people had been involved in the war effort, the upshot being a mass exodus from the countryside and rural life. It was not seen as modern. Those who made their living from the land were bombarded with wonderful 'labour saving devices' and 'technological advances' as were housewives (automatic cleaning aids, vacuums etc) et al. The tractor was the latest thing- the little grey fergie and the fordson were groundbreaking bits of kit, and the media and advertisers were more than ready to get on the bandwagon, in order to overcome astrong resistance and mistrust from the rural workforce. However greed and profit won again, and 'progress(?)' continued. Land based industry was seen as backward and unattractive, on top of which most of the male workforce had been injured or killed, and alot of those that hadnt were persuing more 'modern' jobs away from the countryside. All this allowed machinery to boom. Wages were demanded to be higher too- the war saw an end to the real 'slave labour' and people were coming back demanding more, the answer for unscruplous greedy employers who didnt want ANY drop in perceived profits, was mechanisation. Coupled with technology as outlined above, and a massive demand for food grown at home, the way was paved for mass mechanisation......Then came a population boom coupled with the 'discovery' of petroleum based fertilizers. Suddenly the world couldnt keep up with demand for food, and mechanisation and fertilizer was the order of the day, reaffirming a belief that mechanisation was good and labour bad. We now see ourselves as totally mechanised, and that that is the only way we can be. As a whole we put ourselves before others- the idea of 'each man for himself' has really come into fruition, and so we buy a machine instead of paying wages, as then the money stays in our pockets, but to what effect- socail misery and inbalance- the haves and the hav-nots, the break up of community spirit, fuelled by television and advertising, and the culture of fear that our media have been allowed/ encouraged to promote. The thatcherite dream....me, me me. There was a time, in the last century even, when the idea of putting others before yourself and a community spirit was what drove most people, and the world WAS a MUCH better place for it. This has been totally replaced now by a consumerist selfishness- so often i hear people complain that they cant afford labour rates, yet they will spend tens of thousands on eqipment, which then costs hundreds if not thousands to keep going and to repair etc etc, whilst at the same time making the world a worse, more uncaring, more polluted place, but making the individuals life easier, or so they are led to believe. Progress they call it....I prefer to call it the demise of humanity....or just 'modern life' and it makes me pretty sick. Maybe thats why i will always be poor. Rant over. Ish.

Lee- is that a joke question????? If not then 50:1 like any other husky.

Good point Dave.

No worries mate. Now get those blades sharpened.....

I have one, but dont use it often for that very reason. Most fo the farmers round here are too tight to buy a landy, so use rice rockets or rangers. Are you sure Rob? I have yet to see one not fitted between cab and ladder rack.

Wow what a steal that would have been. Under 3k. Nice.

Isnt the back the side you spike up........? lol

I have NEVER used spikes other than on a takedown, or on a limb where the whole limb was being used. My point is that we can get a bit hung up on things at times.

And they're not made by Foxconn......

I think it comes down to aiming for minimum impact. The argument that using spikes causes a few small wounds that will heal is perfectly valid, especially when you think of the damage done to trees by boring insects, woodpeckers, squirrels, windy days etc etc- the trees survive, fine in 99% of cases. They have an inbuilt machanism, which is wht they have outlastd most animal species. However, the point of not using spikes, and of catrrying out BS3998 pruning cuts, is surely little more than trying to minimise our impact from what we as a race see as essential works (safety of humans, making space for developments etc etc) and being able to hold our heads up and say 'I have been of minimum impact, therefore i can sleep at night@. I mean, nobody checks the pruning cuts in the middle of a wood after a windy night and then complains about the bark tears from the damage, and the tree surives perfectly well in our absence, Furthermore we are now, as an industry and a forum, examining such things as 'Natural Fracture Pruning'(ripping branches off which is a millino miles from 3998) or coro cutting, again which bears no resemblance to 3998. I think it is very easy to get overburdened with worrying abiout the effects of what we do, I am in no way condoning what has been done as regards best practise, but I think we could run the risk of getting too 'precious'about it if you get what i mean.

I agree- by the time i have griound out the crack and rewelded, I would expect there to be not much more weight than before. I have welded a propshaft before and not rebalanced......

TBH I dont think warn have the edge over superwinch nowadays. In the 9000lb sort of range maybe, but once you get up to 12000lb or into hyd or PTO units superwinch seem to have the market share- certainly for the power utilities co's.

I would think that mac would make a fairly poor hedge TBH. We must have the monopoly on it down here, and it grows too fast to make a decent one i reckon. Not being funny, but what about the dreaded leylandii- after al, that is a cross between mac and nootka cypress, and makes an excellent hedge if looked after as we know. and i would say better than mac. (BTW thats a mac log in my avatar)

No worries mate.

I dont think I have anything planned tomorrow. Just give me a call before you come or text me.