daltontrees

I did a big survey for National Grid a couple of years ago, and there were quite a few in the stretch from Meifod to Lllanymynech. Don't know if that counts as north.

I've suspected it of doing that Poplar thing of popping up all round a recently felled tree. Is that your experience?

I've seen it big but usually multistemmed. I'm growing a few and it takes a bit of pruning in late spring to stop it turning into multistemmed. The biggest single stemmed one I've seen was about 350mm across.

As ever if you want to see the true Mr Evans all you have to do is question him. In saying - " if a Homeowner downloads VALID's Homeowner's Tree RIsk-Benefit Management Strategy, or an Arborist does, and uses is, then in the extraordinarily unlikely case of claim being made, the Claimant will also be looking at whether a claim can be made against VALID CIC as well. " the question remains unanswered, all it is saying is that someone relying on the Strategy, free or not, would consider claiming against VALID. Of course they would. It's not saying VALID accepts, or would accept, responsibility for deficiencies in the Strategy. And CIC stands for Community Interest Company, so there might be no assets against which to sue. Mr Evans, is the only Director. I'd suggest that anyone using the Strategy, or anyone else's for free, should appreciate they have to take legal responsibility for it. So make your own minds (or Strategies) up.

Looks more like Norway Maple.

Tree of Heaven is an invasive weed. Unless you like it and want lots more of it you would be well advised to get rid of it now.

For any Arbtalk members who aren't familiar with Mr Evan's style, you'll see soon enough that if anyone agrees with him he will be all pallsy with you, if you disagree he will attack you and if you ask difficult questions he won't answer them. A sort of Arb Trump. And here we go, here he is straight out of the blocks with insults and aggression. I'm not pursuing you Acer, you have only ever come on to Arbtalk to promote something, firstly QTRA and now your knock-off version of it. The waiving of copyright is a thinly disguised excuse for promotion and free advrtising, everyone sees that already. You have a defamation accusation and threat of legal action pending because you aren't man enough to apologise. Latterly you only ever went on to UKTC to promote VALID, and were eventually blocked. On the other hand I contribute freely on a number of tree matters. I'm not bothered if I'm the one that says what everyone else is thinking. I am not and never have been a promoter of QTRA. I use it with modifications that build on its solid foundations. This originated as a quantified system, and it now suits to align it to QTRA as an identifiable peer-reviewed system. It has occasional advantages over QTRA. I used and use the addition of logarithms, something you derided but later claimed was your idea, your epiphany. You're welcome. Regrdless of whether this particular VALID advert mentions the app, it does use terminology that is unique to VALID. One wouldn't get far seeing the strategy through without using the (paid-for) VALID training. The very thought that you have any altruistic motives is hilarious. Let's get straight to the point and see what worth there is in your free publications. You've so far avoided answering this plainly anywhere else. A strategy/policy/plan for risk assessment and management can take the tree owner from the position statement and documents of the National Tree Safety Group to individual risk assessment and management, and as I see it your publications are your personal interpretation of what a tree owner needs to do to meet their duty of care. Do you accept responsibility if a tree owner adopts your strategy/policy/plans and is found negligent on the basis of inadequate policy? It doen't matter that they are 'free'. See if you can break the habit of a lifetime and give a straight answer without resorting to insults and digression. Arbtalk is a place for sharing views and experiences, not trading insults.

Just on the generality of there being a free Tree Risk Management Strategy/Plan/Policy, the use of the policy rests on the adoption of the VALID risk assessment method, which in turn rests on using the app. The app is free but Mr Evans stated on UKTC that it would be dangerous to use it without the training. Which is definitely not free. There may be use in a free policy that could be used with any risk assessment system (VALID/QTRA/TRAQ etc.) but you could not use the VALID policy with any published method.

The appeal was only challenge to the judge’s findings of fact and evaluation of the evidence. It was not a challenge to whether the right witnesses had been called or whether the sides had argued their cases better or worse than the other. I've been involved in a few cases where one side has failed to pick up on points or to present the right evidence and has lost the case partly (or wholly) as a result. You get what you pay for. I can't be bothered getting into the minutae of the evidence, it's water under the bridge now. The useful bit about the appeal is that it was taken as read that the original judge had applied the correct legal principles of tree owner's duty of care for negligence cases. These were quoted from the Stagecoach case as - (a) The owner of a tree owes a duty to act as a reasonable and prudent landowner; (b) Such a duty must not amount to an unreasonable burden or force the landowner to act as the insurer of nature. But he has a duty to act where there is a danger which is apparent to him and which he can see with his own eyes; (c) A reasonable and prudent landowner should carry out preliminary/informal inspections or observations on a regular basis; (d) In certain circumstances, the landowner should arrange for fuller inspections by arboriculturalists. This will usually be because preliminary/informal inspections or observations have revealed a potential problem, although it could also arise because of a lack of knowledge or capacity on the part of the landowner to carry out preliminary/informal inspections. A general approach that requires a close/formal inspection only if there is some form of ‘trigger’ is also in accordance with the published guidance referred to in paragraphs 53-55 above. (e) The resources available to the householder may have a relevance to the way in which the duty is discharged. The mention of 'insurer of nature' is useful. That's the bit where you don't ahve to foresee harm or damage in freak weather conditions. I was involved in a thread on here a few months ago in which this was discussed, and I had reached the conclusion that a good defensible position was to adopt the design wind speeds that building designers adopt for sites, from BS 6399-2: 1997 Loading for buildings — Part 2: Code of practice for wind loads. It's really important in a risk survey report to let a client know the limitations of the assessment, and the best way to do that in my opinion is to express the 'insurer of nature' limitation in a suitable form of words. This is not to cover the consultants a&$£ but to cover the client's, and spare him the expense of unnecessary risk reduction works. And it's slightly different to saying freak weather risks can't be quantified, it's saying they don't need to be.

Crataegus crus-galli or a close relative. Cockspur Thorn. Similar in many ways to Crataegus monogyna, the more common Hawthorn, except in leaf shape. Treat it as you would a Hawthorn and you can't go far wrong.

The leaves are Lime, the wood could be Cherry.

I think you need to explain a Tree Health and Safety Report. What is that? Is it something different from a Tree Risk Assessment?

Quite! You didn't know sycamore as well as you thought you did.

Looks like Wild Cherry or Gean (Prunus avium)

Interesting question. 'Poisonous' is a bit dramatic. There is documented evidence of Broom being of low toxicity to grazing animals. That is, if it is ingested (swallowed). I can't find anything that suggests that it would be toxic if inhaled. Unlike gorse which can be dry and dusty when cut, Broom seems to remain green and wet when cut. I can't imagine throwing up so much particulate matter during cutting that its ingestion could give rise to any measurable toxicity. If there was the slightest breeze I wouldn't even consider wearing a mask. Maybe if the terrain was particularly enclosed. Masks can be misleading, though, unless you are sucking every breath through an appropriate grade of material they may merely give a false sense of protection. I have always found hard physical work while wearing an effective mask pretty challenging, after all you are needing to draw in a lot of air and get a rid of the same amount of damp air.

Fabulous set of pictures, thanks David.

The BCT methodology is free. The microguide is free. Bat awareness training is about £140. Worth doing the endoscope training too.

I've seen a copy but don't have it. I'm not planning to get it either. 90% of it is way beyond arb use i.e. it specifies specialist training or qualifications. You'd need to be an ecologist to use some parts of it, and a bat license for other bits. But crucially, ecologists don't use it anyway, they prefer the BCT methods. Are you looking to do surveys professionally? If so, the very minimum you'll require is bat awareness training and the microguide. I do about 1 report a month, and have found that the microguide is not enough to sign off reports confidently and competently. A more thorough grounding in the BCT methodology, records of local bat populations, habitat awareness and a bit of experience in ruling out unsuitable features is needed. If a client relies on your report for a planning application, you need to be able to back up your findings at appeal.

Here's my assorted comments. I have or have had Sony Vaio, Acer and HP laptops. The Acer is the best by far. The HP is the newest and works fine except the mousepad and driver combination is a pain in the arse, so much so that I will never buy a HP laptop again. That said, apparently Microsoft is going to force manufacturers to adopt its mouse drivers in future, bringing HP's legendarily bad mouse performance blinking into the light of the 21st century. Solid state drives are the bizz, but always back them up regularly. I found out the hard way that data on failed hard drives can be partly salvaged but when a SSD goes, it goes, and there's nothing left. I run Libre's free Excel and Word equivalents on the HP, wouldn't pay Microsoft the annual fee again. On the older Acer I still have a perpetual license Office suite, it's not updated any more but that makes no odds to me. It might even be worth buying an old laptop and taking the Office off it onto a newer machine. Another good thing about Libre is, it isn't constantly checking with Microsoft for non-existent updates and licenses. What always slowed down my laptops was the anti virus. I tried McAfee and Norton and they were hopeless, felt like the latop was their slave. Bitdefender was really quick and didn't slow up the boot. But for the last 2 years I have done without any AV, just using Windows Defender which seems to do the job for free and minimal interference. Now and again it does a full scan without warning but it can be scheduled to do this during the night. My conclusion is that no matter what hardware you have the gains in speed will be negated by software, it's always the slowest factor unless you're gaming or streaming. And no matter how lazy I am about deleting old photos, CAD drawings, pdfs etc. I never come close to worrying about memory capacity. Software is the killer, some programmes you never use can be massive and can be scanning your files regularly in the background. You just need to have a clear-out now and again, switch off all the unnecessary checks for updates etc. And go with the lightest AV, if at all. And always do back-ups. I have learnt over the years to shun Chrome and Internet Explorer and all their successors. Firefox is without doubt the best option, it's privacy settings are simple and mean that Google and MS are not farming you for data and slowing things up. I have used Firefox without a single hitch for 5 years now and although I have Chrome on my phone and on one laptop for emergencies it is the font of evil unless you have an IT degree to allow you to tame it. Conclusion of the conclusion, for simple set-ups any laptop will do (except for the HP mousepad issue). It's all about the software.

Amelanchier. Besides, Zelkova flowers are nothing like that...

You are totally out of order. Sticking a couple of smileys after comments doesn't make them OK. If you could see yourself as others see you when you post on here, you might reconsider your approach to trying to be persuasive. It's not just this thread, it's a view I have arrived at over many threads. I can't stop you posting but I don't have to stand by while you misinterpret and then have a go at the opinions of someone as reasonable and gentle (and extremely unwell) as Gary. You might apologise, if you've got it in you. You're entitled to your opinion, and your behaviour appears to me to be of the sort that only the anonymity of an assumed name on an internet forum will let you away with, but don't imagine that your rhetoric is in any way persuasive.

NO, that sort of language should be deleted. This is a public forum and there are more imaginative and less offensive less crude ways of expressing opinions. If that sort of language is not controlled and censured then there's no end to it.

Don't waste any more time looking - there are no restrictions.

That's a very compelling argument.

One of my favourite artists, Paul Signac "Sunset, Herblay", I was delighted to find an example of a tree painted by a Pointilist. Pointilism is creating a picture with dots of different coloured paint. The lighting in the gallery was rubbish, photo is not the best.