daltontrees

Leylandii plus a 'dead hedge' of Hawthorn and if you stick a few cuttings of live hawthorn in in the spring they will probably take and replace the dead hedge with bristling thorns in no time. Pyracantha's fairly vicious and quick to run riot too. Longer term better quality is Yew, grows reasonably quickly to start withtne settles in for the next 1000 years of slow growth. Poisonous to animals though, so keep it on the outside face.

Just beene mailed through from AA today, draft of the Industry Code of Practice for consultation. I imagine AA Tech Paul would have posted it up anyway, but the call for expression of interests about it a while ago was hidden away in the AA section so I am just thumping it on the pub table here. It's a chance for all the SRT afficionados to have their say, for example (yes SRT is mentioned as valid, but with some limitations). Don't contact me about it, I'm just flagging it up. The AA site has a feedback survey thing online. I'm generally intersted to see what folk think. It can only be a good thing, but only if it has the buy-in of the average saw-monkey and brash-rat. ICoP for Arboriculture Draft for Consultation now available - - Arboricultural Association

I would like to bin my suggestion of H. annosum, as it is not annual and certailny your section looks annual. The stringiness of the flesh is reminiscent of Meripilus.

Asterids is a taxonomic level below phylum but above order, but not as clear-cut as a class. But if Sycamore fasciculates, and it's not an Asterid, then my theory lasted about 20 minutes before you killed it [boo hoo]. I want to see photographic evidence though... Dandelions are asterids!

I haven't seen it on Forsythia, but I will henceforth be on the lookout. If enough speceis susceptible to it are recorded some conclusion might e reached. so far all 3 genus mentioned are 'Asterids'. Too early for a conclusion. Any fasiating non-asterids?

Hurting my head too so I flipped the pictures

For anyone interested in fasciation, her eis an example on Ilex aquifolium from my garden. A few leaves have been taken off for ease of seeing.

I think it could be a relatively rare instance of Heterobasidion annosum on Platanus. I wouldn't rule it out until someone who properly knows what it looks like on broadleaf trees comes along.

Steve, glad to see the recent posts suggesting violence as a solution being removed from the thread. Let's keep it a civilised Forum and not a wild west saloon.

If you advise and the advice is acted upon or relied upon, you could be liable in negligence, whether you charge for the advice or not. There's probably 2 main things that could go wrong and result in you getting sued (i) you overlook or misjudge a hazard that presents an unacceptable risk, and someone or something suffers if the tree fails (ii) you specify the wrong work for the species, situation, time of year etc and the tree dies because of the mistreatment. CS40 shows you are competent to do the work, not to specify it. If you perform it incompetently, you could also be liable but under this slightly different principle. You are allowed to give free advice, that's not illegal. But if you get it wrong you will be liable and if you are found to be lacking in qualifications and relevant experience there will be nowhere to hide in the courtroom. So to reiterate, split your potential actions into those 3 elements, risk assessment, tree health/aesthetics specification and competent work. If you are uncomfortable with any one aspect, decline to do that aspect and get someone else in. I do reports for contractors, I never meet the client and they present a quote with my report attached, in the name of the contractor. The client cannot rely on the report unless they use that contractor. The client sees a seamless professional package forn the contractor that's backed by this consultant's insurance and qualifications, and 9 times out of 10 the contractor gets the job. I hope this helps clarify. Don't pretend to be contractor and consultant unless the downside risks are trivial (usually small trees) and you are prepared to take it on the chin if you get it wrong and importantly unless you feel that it is within your general experience and good working knowledge of trees.

Unfortunately this is not the case, if you give negligent advice that a customer or potential customer relies on and something goes wrong, in law it doesn't matter that you didn't charge for it, you may be liable. It seems unfair, but that's the way it is. Put it another way, if you give free advice it may just be to get the job or to enhance reputation, both with the ultimate aim of making money. Not charging for specific advice is not a get-out.

Rhodotus palmatus?

Correct!

you got the second one right.

How 'bout these?

Dammit, so obvious.

I have had some limited involvement with this and I would suggest that if you are serious about it you have to get a patent agent, it is an immensely complex subject, not so much applying for patent but as others have said seeing off the chancers, nutters and misguided. And if you get a patent it is probably because you have something that is worthwhile and some **** in China will copy it for a quarter of the price and you will bankrupt yourself trying to stop them doing it. A business plan is the fundamental. How much does it cost to make, what is the demand and the retail price and for how long before it is obsolete and the mark up. Basically is it worth patenting so that the time and money you put into your R&D and inventiveness gives you a financial return free from copyists.

OK, I have spent 20 minutes on it and I give up. I could gobe you a long list of things it is no, but that doesn't really answer the question.

Inonotus dryaeus?

Common Ash Fraxinus excelsior. The lack of distance betweeen the buds probably indicates extremely low vigour in its final year. I wonder what was up with it? Something that caused it to fall over.

Oh but it does. Start with the Healt & Safety at Work Act, it provides for regulations and for Approved Codes of Practice to be admissible in criminal proceedings. Then move on the PUWE Regulations, it imposes specific dutues fr training and competence. I don't think the law requires tickets as a prerequisite for insurance, but insurance is not immunity form the law. You might want to look into whther you have 'grandfather rights' and whether these are in law an adequate substitute for tickets.

How much does it cost?

All I would add is that tere are instances in H&S Regs where an operative has to be competent and there are instances where the operative has to have demonstrated competence. LANTRA training courses are for getting competent, NPTC tickets are for demopnstrating competence. I think using a chainsaw is an example of the latter and using a chipper is an example of the former. You might be very experienced and totally competent, but if the law says you have to have demonstrated it by getting ticket and you haven't, you're a bit stuffed. But nly, I would guess, if the claim relates to that competence. so for example if someone falls into a chipper you're insurance might not be invalidated just because you don't have the chainsaw ticket.

Skyhuck, apart form a bit of gentle sparring here on Arbtalk, all good-natured exchanges of professional opinion, I don't know you from Adam and frequently disagree with you ,but even though I have never walloped a cod in my life I have to find myself agreeing with you on much of this. Mr AHPP, I think you are suffering from some sort of society-fatigue that we all feel about many things in the industry and in daily life a lot of the time. But it doesn't make it right in any sense that you should want to portray yourself as equal to insured parties who have tickets. There seem to be a couple of overlapping issues here. For someone to be covered (and I don't mean their own a*ses, I mean those of the public and clients) you need to be good, you need to be insured AND you need to be able to demonstrate competence. All of these need to have been addressed. You can have 1 or 2 out of 3 but if it all goes horribly wrong you can't complain if your insurer leaves you standing when you injure a punter or an employee. If you have tickets and are nisured but you are a poor climber, commercially you will fail. If you are insured and are proficient commercially but cannot demonstrate competence in accordance with the H&S legislation, it is clear to me why your insurer won't cover you for accidents. Try this. Get car insurance by claiming falsely that you have 20 years no-claims discount and a trailer license. Then get into a crash and see if your insurer doesn't do a bit of investigtion then drop you like a stone. Yes it's rubbish that tickets are more valuable on the face of it than grandfather-rights. But that's the way the world is. Success is not by tickets, it's tickets plus ability. If you are competent, get the tickets. If you are assessed and pass, good and your insurance will be valid and you're covered by your insurance. If you are assessed and fail, well ... Me, I've paid for my tickets and I pass on a fraction of that cost to each and every customer. I'm not fond of competing with people who don't have to do the same. I think what we all need to remember about insurance is that if there's an accident the public is covered and then if it turns out the insurance is invalid because of false declarations or omissions by the insured, the insurer will turn on the 'insured' and rip the shirt off their back. Getting insurance without tickets may well be possible, but it's just gambling because you won't really be covered at all.

To accompany my conclusion-jumping I will now do a bit of over-generalising. If it's that high up and has gills, it's not killing just feeding.