daltontrees

I'm not saying it is At but it could be. Mainly just saying don't rule out Armillaria just because of lack of ring. I don't hav ethe experience of At to know if it succeeds Kd, especially in fruiting mode. I was out in a semi natural feeling woodland yesterday, Lime, Beech, Sycamore, Elm. Stuff of all ages, dead big stuff on the ground, vigorous stuff, weak stuff, and Armillaria was everywhere in rhizomorph form. Crawling all over everything, a regular pitched battle in slow motion with trees beaaring minor wounds mainly sustained by other trees fallign against them. Not one single 'shroom of Armillaria, and I wasn't confident in pinning down the species of Armillaria at all. It only seems to fruit if it's got nothing left to feed on and can't move on by physical contact. I'd say I am not confident of ever having seen tabescens fruiting bodies.

Yes unfortunately the glands are not a perfect diagnostic, somethimes they are subsumed in the leaf and almost invisible, and in individual leaves can be absent completely. but I'm pretty sure you've got a Prunus of sorts, towards the plum department.

Bear in mind though Armillaria tabescens the 'Ringless Honey Fungus'.

No sense of scale to judge the length of the needles.

Looks a lot like plum. I have one out the back of the house on Council land that looks a lot like this, including the mullered top and millions of sprouts. I think the lower leaves on stem epicormics are larger and more cherry-like than in the tree proper. Have a look for hte distinctive cherry glands on the base of the eaves or on the petioles. I had always assumed it was Prunus cerasifera, but not the 'Nigra' variety that is popular as a street tree.

I meant to add, 'or collaborate with other organisations to run joint events'

Paul, as you probably know the AA has just published its "Arboricultural Association Training courses and events for 2018" calendar. There are NO events proposed in Scotland this year. This sort of thing doesn't go unnoticed by people up here. I'm afraid it does add to the sense of wondering if it is worth joining or remaining in the AA. The AA is generally anglocentric anyway. As an aside, I am reminded of the time that I pointed out to the AA that one of its website pages (TPOs and Conservation Areas) needed to be changed to point out that it was only correct for England and that there were differences in law in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The pages got changed, for sure. By adding something like 'this page does not apply to Scotland'. Hmmm... If the AA wants to carry Scotland with it, perhaps it should consider subsidising a couple of events that it feels will not be self-supporting?

Thanks, true, but it doesn't protect the emplyer because, as the HSE guidance says "If your insurer believes that you have failed to meet your legal responsibilities for the health and safety of your employees and that this has led to the claim, the policy may enable the insurer to sue you to reclaim the cost of the compensation." The requirement to insure comes from the '69 Act, and the prohibition on not paying out comes from Regulations in 1984. And so it appears that the condition contained in the model ELI policy published by Sun General Insurance I looked at last night is either unlawful or voidable. I suppose the legislation makes sense as it should be there to encourage the prevention of accidents and to compensate employees. But when the dust settles, the outcome would be the same, employee does not need to sue to get compensated, instead insurer sues employer to get the money back.

I wouldn't bet on it. What I posted last night was taken from the model conditions of ELI insurance from a household name insurer in the UK. It clearly says that if you don't comply with conditions like H&S, the insurer doesn't have to pay out. Car insurance may be different.

Ditto, thought there was a ring. But still not convinced of Pholiota. Hopefully someone who knows will come along and save us all.

What is a 'system audit' scenario? If you have responsibility of the actions or omissions of this organisation, you are exposed. Pointing out their deficiiencies could or could not be enough to remove your exposure to a claim by one of their employees, but only for a short while. Standard stuff in ELI is the insurer indemnified insured against injury compensation claims from employees, but it is also standard that insurer shall take reasonable precautions to prevent accidents and disease and shall comply with all statutory obligations. It is also standard that the due observance and fulfillment of the terms of the policy in so far as they relate to anything to be done or not to be done by the Insured shall be conditions precedent to any liability of the Company to make any payment under this Policy. What that means is, the insurance is worthless if the insured hasn't complied with H&S basics, and the insurer won't pay out. So if there is a H&S deficiency and an employee is injured without contributory negligence by him, the employee sues successfully, liability is established, the insurer ducks and the employer has to pay up. His directors will probably be liable personally, and so might anyone having collective responsibility. H&S legislation, aparallel but separate matter, is there to encourage the prevention of accidents and to punish failures to look after employees. ELI is instead there to protect the employer and to some degree the employees. What it is not is a viable alternative to looking out for them. Depending what your 'system audit' scenario is, you may not have the option just to get peeved about this, and reporting to the co to HSE would not be a substitute for putting fresh air between you and them (legally, that is). Oh and not being in any of their dodgy workplaces, from a personal wellbeing perspective.

If anything the sightly decurrent gills and stem ring are reminiscent of Armillaria. .

All the common Pholiota have attached gills but never decurrent. If anything they're sinuate. So Id' say these ones possibly aren't Pholiota.

Yes, looks like a straight A. davidii.

Erm.. no. Cones are upward, ruling out Spruce, and very much ruling in Fir. Needles are too flat to roll between the fingers, ruling out Spruce. Flush, round needle scars, ruling out Spruce (peg attachment). That light bark is not like Spruce either. All in all, with bracts visible, and all other diagnostic features, I'd say it was a planted-out Nordmann (Fir) christmas tree. Could have got a few bob for the crown if you'd held off for a few weeks.

The law doesn't begin and end with the High Court and s.284., and with England. I am certain that the superior courts would take a case that had sufficient prima facie prejudice and ultra vires. The cases you cite pre-date the latest court rules, but that's stil not the point. It would not be in society's iterest to allow a situation to arise where someone has surrered loss beccause a staturory body has wilfully or negligently failed to exercise its powers correctly. The law never stands still. Denning was famous for being unhappy about the inadequacies of law, and often codified law in written judgements. He virtually wrote the law of CPO compensation single handedly, and in my former life as a surveyor I held his written judgemnets as the clearest and most logical deerivations of scant and often inadequate statute. His rantings in case law are partly what triggered the current statutory position for judicial review. But I bet if Denning was still around he'd now caveat his previous position along the lines of what I've said above. The remedy (or even the action) might not be to have a TPO set aside, but the wronged owner would get some kind of redress. Your 6 weeks is not the end of it. It's just the end of the High Court. In England. For now. I could have got by without your last paragraph, but now that you mention it, when statutes contain mistakes, who plugs the gaps? The courts. They are reluctant to interfere with the exercise of statutory discretion, but they never stand by when potentially endemic unfairness emerges. Thus the judiciary is actively involved in helping and making the law evolve. I have more faith in them than I have in Parliament.

Might be Betula x aurata, the hybrid between Silver and Downy Birch. Definitely leaves are too rounded to be pendula, but the bar is too rugged to be pubescens. I see these hybrids quite often, they really are halfway between Silver and Downy, in every way.

Spore..k?

Cheek! I don't know, there was no agreement. Non sawmill and non-brash, everything stackable in between? The stuff I like because you can usually get away with not having to split it.

I expect our disagreement on this comes from a difference between scottish law and English. The appeal court in Scotland is the Court of Session. We have similar substantive and procedural Ultra Vires tests grounds for appeal against a TPO. In both Scotland and England the 6 weeek period stars from when the Order is confirmed, but clearly if the owner or intersted party was not advised of the confirmation of the Order, there would be procedural Ultra Vires and the right of appeal would subsist beyond the 6 week period. In England I really don't know if it would be taken by the High Court or by the Court of Appeal, since the High Court woud have no statutory basis to take it. Whichever court took it, I hope it's clear that since it would be the interested party's first appeal, it could be made on either procedural or substantive grounds, and if it were the Court of Appeal, the matter could be deferred to the High Court to deal with the substantive issues. The Law Commision's review of these sorts of rules in 1994 neither ruled in or ruled out the need for a Court of Appeal appeal (whether in the aforegoing scenario or otherwise), but if there was a public interest to be served a common law natural justice appeal would I expect and hope be accepted. One must always remember that the actions of courts can be the subject of appeal, and quite rightly, because they can and occasionally do interpret and apply the law incorrectly. Perhaps partly because of this moot point, Mynors (1st edition) mentions that the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 allowed appeals only if the High Court gives permission, thus satisfying the public interest aspect. As the 1st edition suggests, I believe this has been replaced by changes to the Rules of the Supreme Court. I haven't followed this up, sincerely hoping never to need to know the nitty gritty. And back to the beginning, the Court of Session in Scotland is the statutory court of appeal in the first instance but may (in the inner house) also take a natural justice appeal of the type I am referring to or any other breach of natural justice or the questioning of the validity of an appeal decision in the outer house. Clear as mud! In noted in passing an error in the english Regulations, Regulation 8(a)(iii) refers to s.284(a), I think it should be s.284(1). Just goes to show, even statutory laws can be flawed. So, a TPO could be challenged after the 6 weeks, if the High Court (or Court of Session?) was unsure of its interpretation, or if the Order had not been served correctly.

Indeed, indeed... It's really simple. A Cord is a volume of wood. Cordwood is a type of wood. Cordwood may or not be sold by the Cord. Trying to link the definitions of Cord and Cordwood just because they both have 'Cord' in them seems, beyond that, pointless.

I reckon some praise is due to Edward C for taking the time to set out the situation clearly. It's as good a treatise as I have seen anywhere on the internet. As for axe-grinding, that's irrelevant and distracting. The law is the law. But there's a wee clarification due. It's true the validity of an Order can only be challenged in the High Court, namely challenges of the lawfulness of the processes followed on making the Order. But that's not the end of it. A TPO can be challended on judicial review, rare and expensive and risky as this may seem. The Council's actions are subject, like everythign else they do, to common law rules of natural justice, and if they have made an Order based on no evidence or the decision to make the Order is was unreasonable or if spurious and irrelevant factors have been taken into account and swayed the decision to make an Order which otherwise wouldn't have ben made, a challenge may succeed. There is theoretically no time limit for a judicial review. The odds are stacked in favour of the Council only insofar as raising a judicial review is a hideously expensive business. Up here in Scotland challenges on planning appeal decisions are not at all uncommon, but there's usually £millions of development value at stake. Awards of expenses usually follow success, but not always, and not always completely. It's a bit of an expensive gamble. Would-be litigants must provide their own salt.

I think the etymology of quintal is from the word 'cent-' meaning hundred, rahtehr than 'quint-' menaing five. If you remember those teeny wee Fiats called the 500, pronounced 'seeng-co-chen-tay', the chen-tay it is hundred, and the pronounciation of it is a lot more like quinte than the 'seeng-co' bit is. The first guy that paid for an imperial quintal and got a metric one must have been well pleased. It's basically twice as big.

Costa Teguise, Lanzarote.

That's the point. Is it wilfiul? As I see it, if the intention is to mount a camera rahter than to damage or destroy a tree, and you have taken reasonable precautions to minimise damage and to make the damage incidental to the purpose of the installation, I cna't see how it can damage the public amentiy that the tree provides. There shouldn't therefore be a case for prosecution.