Squaredy

4 minutes ago, skyhuck said:

I don't think so, they are simply playing the game the government create. Pimlico are providing many people with employment and apparently pay pretty well.

Yes the article quoted in the original post said he made six figure sums some years.  That sounds like a self-employed wage not an employee's wage with benefits like sick pay and holiday pay etc.

I bet lots of genuinely self-employed arborists would love to earn that money.

For some reason plumbers have become very greedy in recent years.  How often will a plumber work hard tracing a fault and rectifying it and simply charge you a fair hourly rate?  More likely they will condemn your boiler and charge you £2800 to fit a new one. 

I am sure there are exceptions of course.

6 minutes ago, skyhuck said:

The guy was happy with the situation when it suited him, less tax etc.

 

We are becoming a population of parasite, always looking to get something for nothing.

Yes it stinks doesn't it. 

It is only made possible of course by UK tax laws and employment laws being so complicated that you need specialists to interpret them, and even then those specialists often disagree.

Maybe all income tax and NI should be abolished and we all keep every penny we earn, and then taxes increased on what we spend (ie VAT) to make up the difference.  What a lot of time and administrative cost that would save.  Luxury goods of course would be most highly taxed and essentials taxed least.

10 hours ago, Gary Prentice said:

So you can take possession of someone else's property, keep it for a number of years and then the law says that it's yours?

It usually only affects large landowners who have land or property they totally neglect or fail to use.  In many ways you could say it is very fair that if you allow someone to use your property for 10 years and treat it as their own and take no action then maybe you don't really need it.  In a lot of cases the land is unregistered and the ownership has been lost in the mists of time.

Of course if you go back far enough how did anyone acquire land......just by enclosing and using it.  

17 minutes ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

Can’t help thinking, and some quick searches don’t seem to help, that this scenario, whilst possibly, technically, in some defined circumstances, may be possible, that it rather sits better within the urban myth bracket. 

 

Has as anybody ever heard / known of a successful claim??

 

 

Here is an example.  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3589749/Pensioner-s-anger-squatter-wins-right-400-000-house-faces-losing-flat-pay-legal-bills.html

11 minutes ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

Can’t help thinking, and some quick searches don’t seem to help, that this scenario, whilst possibly, technically, in some defined circumstances, may be possible, that it rather sits better within the urban myth bracket. 

 

Has as anybody ever heard / known of a successful claim??

 

 

You might be surprised how common it is.

Here is some info about it. 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/adverse-possession-of-1-unregistered-land-and-2-registered-land/practice-guide-5-adverse-possession-of-1-unregistered-and-2-registered-land-where-a-right-to-be-registered-was-acquired-before-13-october-2003

There have been some very high profile cases in the news over the years, where squatters have eventually taken posession of a large town house because the council who owned the house failed to kick them out.

37 minutes ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

Adverse possession Alex, I’m thinking this only applies if the subject land is unregistered? If ownership is registered, all the time and all the maintenance in the world is irrelevant, you can’t ‘claim’ that which is already in ownership.

Actually no quite the reverse.  You can indeed claim registered land.  I think the timescale may be different but it certainly can be done.  You have to prove posession for the required time.  And you have to prove it is adverse - ie without permission.

Funny isn't it that you can just start using someone else's property and if you get away with it for long enough you can make it your own legally.

3 hours ago, Commando said:

Unless the image quality is good enough to stand up in court (most of the gear available on Amazon is not), tbh you are wasting money. If you want a decent system I would recommend using a pro provider/installer.
The way ahead is ip cameras that record off-site and allow you to monitor via any internet connection or phone. Stay away from any that want a monthly fee.
Video motion detection turns a passive system into an active one that will alarm you to any activity at the site (any decent digital system can have this facility).

Any camera can act as a deterrant, as long as it LOOKS at least functional.  But the real key to yard security is not in CCTV.

I apologise as you may well be fully aware of this, but the most important steps are to do with making sure kit is not left at a vulnerable site, and/or the most "nickable" kit is in secure strongboxes; and maybe even getting a locakable shipping container.

I find the most effective way is to have kit that looks old and knackered....they don't bother then!  My experience of having a break-in and having it all on CCTV is you show the footage to the police, they say they will circulate it and nothing more happens.  Unless you or they have an idea who the toe-rag is then what more can anyone do?

8 hours ago, Steven P said:

the woodland (its small) is a council wood

Well if it is a council owned wood you should have a very easy solution.  Contact the council tree officer and explain there are dangerous looking trees in their wood which you know children play in.

It goes without saying they have a responsibility to keep their woods safe, so especially if you point out one tree seems to be moving.  They will have their own professionals and sub-contractors whom they can easily employ to make it all safe.

12 minutes ago, headgroundsman said:

As a wheelchair user I wish there were clearly marked places where people can park and where they cannot. It is so accepted that people will park on the pavement to keep the road open that no one ever thinks if it would then block access to wheelchairs and pushchairs

Agreed; a bit of clarity would be helpful.   And consideration for others when parking.  

1 hour ago, aspenarb said:

When I was a gobby teenager I got endorsements on my license for parking on the pavement. I was unloading my van outside my house and plod asked me how my van got on the pavement, I told him I drove it there ( plus a few other things  )  and I  was duly knicked for driving a vehicle on a public footpath. Plod back then used to deliver a summons by hand and when they turned up they also parked on the pavement outside my house, shame camera phones were not around in those days.

 

Bob

That is very interesting.  As you say it is illegal to drive on the pavement but not apparently to park on it (outside London).  So in theory the police could nick you for driving on the pavement to park on it.  Funnily enough the police national database states that securing a conviction for driving on the pavement is likely to be problematic due to the need to secure witnesses.  So it sounds like you were a bit unlucky to be fined for this!

For my part if I am ever issued with a fine for parking on the pavement I will contest it and quote advice like this from the RAC website:

If you are parking along a narrow road, where parking wholly on the road would stop other cars, and particularly emergency vehicles, from getting through, then it is a sensible option to park partially on a pavement, providing there are no parking restrictions and providing you are not blocking a wheelchair user or pram from using the pavement.

Why do we make everything so complicated in this country?!

We have been chatting at work today about pavement parking, as it is in the news that it may be made illegal in more parts of the UK. 

I thought it already was......!  Our street had a clamp down on it about four years ago and my next-door neighbour had a fixed penalty notice as well as several other neighbours.

However, it seems the law is not at all clear.  In London it is illegal currently - that is nice and simple.  Also the local authority has the right to make it illegal in an area or a road, in which case they must display signs stating this (there are no such signs in my road).  So what about the rest of us?

I have been looking into it and found this https://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q387.htm and the RAC website basically says exactly the same.  My neighbour was certainly not obstructing the road, indeed by parking partly on the pavement he was leaving the road clear for any large vehicle that needs to pass.  Could he have been issued the fixed penalty notice for obstructing the pavement?  It is a wide pavement (2 metres or so) but he may have largely blocked the tarmac part and left the grass verge free.

If it is the case that you can be fined for blocking the pavement then it is pretty much the case that it is already illegal to park on the pavement.  Or could it be that the police officer who issued the fixed penalty notices had no right to do so?

By the way, the street I live in works just fine because everyone who has no drive (or has too many vehicles for their drive) parks partly on the pavement.  If all the vehicles parked on the road, then the road would get blocked as there are no yellow lines and so presumably people would park on both sides.

Arbtalk seems remarkably good at clearing up these mis-understandings so please help me understand!

Well Philh I guess maybe the answer then is no.  Certainly I haven't used it.  Or heard of it's use for that matter.  Will you enlighten us as to its uses?

31 minutes ago, Graham said:

They didn't.  The South Downs did.

 

Yes the South Downs are recognised as a factor, but I think also the local authority is credited as having helped.  I don't know how to be honest, but as someone who sometimes sends timber by courier (very rare - usually we only deliver locally in our own vehicle) I am aware that there are local laws in place meaning I am not allowed to send or take Elm into Brighton.  In fact here is a very interesting link giving details of how the local authority have helped https://www.brighton-hove.gov.uk/content/leisure-and-libraries/parks-and-green-spaces/elm-disease

10 minutes ago, AshleyBuck said:

oh for sure! Ive employed a few people who wear their pants on top of their trousers! and the clear up on jobs is like a proper pet hate of mine to the point where my lads have labelled my blower wife 2 haha. But we all started somewhere :-)

Ah yes you have reminded me of a peeve - employees who stink.  Had a couple of them over the years.  Really difficult to deal with.  Especially when they don't believe you when you tell them.

Needless to say I no longer employ them....

36 minutes ago, AshleyBuck said:

wow this topic has distracted me! Why cant we all just do our thing and be happy ey ? doesn't matter what everyone else is doing reallt does it

Totally agree with you, very sensible.  But surely there are some things that just wind you up.....?

Behind our sawmill this morning in the Forestry Commission (now NRW) forest I heard an awful noise so I investigated and found a walking floor articulated lorry and a very large chipper with loading crane munching through old stacks of milling size logs which have been abandoned and taken over by the wildlife.

Does anyone know, have NRW suddenly decided that an old pile of logs that the purchaser has not collected is a danger and must be removed?  The particular pile that I watched being devoured this morning was at least a full lorry load of Spruce that was past it when I first noticed it in 2011.  It would have been very rotten now and I struggle to see how it could be of much use even as biomass.  It is a bit upsetting as these logs must have become quite a valuable habitat to vast numbers of critters.

I am no expert in woodland management so I would be delighted to be informed of the logic of such an expensive and apparently destructive operation.

1 hour ago, Big J said:

Out of curiousity, do folk here use their vehicle speedo or sat nav speedo for the basis of their driving? I've had sat nav in my trucks for the last few years, and with my excessive height, actually struggle to see the analogue dial on my old van. As such, I always use the digital speedo, and it seems to keep me at the same speed as the lorries through speed limits. Why are vehicle speedos always so far out?

I personally use the speedo.  I don't often use satnav. 

You should try a double cab truck and remove the front seat and sit in the back seat Jonathon...

31 minutes ago, kinderscout said:

Simlar to these

Very nice.  You must do a lot of chopping...  

20 minutes ago, kinderscout said:

Its only in the first two foot of the boards

Nice board, but don't get too excited about the ripple.  If you get a long board rippled more strongly you have something special.  That said, it looks like the board is pretty special anyway.  

What are you making with it?

1 minute ago, kinderscout said:

 

Just planning this board up is it ripped olive ash

 

No but it is rippled ash.  Very slightly rippled.  Got a pic from a bit further away?

The local authorities around here (Newport and Cardiff) have started using wildflowers in verges in places.  Some of them are just lovely, though some just look a bit neglected in late summer.  I suspect it is more of a cost-saving measure than anything else but as long as they use the right mix I guess the bees will love it.

29 minutes ago, Graham said:

incessant use of upward inflection

Yes agreed....Stephen Fry put this into Room 101 years ago.  Back then it was a bit of an Aussie thing, but maybe it is spreading?

Not a collosal peeve, but certainly makes me wonder what planet people live on at times.

I run a very small sawmill business so I am not an arborist.  I get phone calls or emails from customers who have a tree they want removed asking what I will pay them for it.  Usually once I take into account transport costs the answer is "Not much" or something similar, and sometimes the response comes back "It is worth more than that as firewood".

Well yes it may well be, but you will have to chop it all up, split it all, season it for a good while (or build a kiln and kiln it) advertise for buyers, deal with all the enquiries, deliver it to multiple addresses, etc, etc.  

And even better is the odd picture I get sent of an overgrown Leylandii or similar in someone's garden asking if I will cut the tree down and pay them.  I always refer them to local tree surgeons.

3 minutes ago, openspaceman said:

They are not if they are under 7.5 tonnes as the limit is 70 on motorways. It's single carriageways that they are limited to 50 and dual carriageways  limit is 60.

Thank you Openspaceman, in that case I am wrong about motorways, it is just dual carriageways and single carriageways where the limit is less.  That is well worth knowing, if even more illogical!!

My one full time employee recently attended a speed awareness course and was duly informed that most vans are only allowed to do 60mph on dual carriageways and motorways and 50 on single carriageways.

I doubted this at first but found it is correct.  It is rather important for me as I sometimes ask someone to do some driving for me (in my work Transit) and would feel awful if I failed to inform them of the lower speed limits on the vehicle and they were then fined.  Our work transit has a speed limiter fitted at 70mph, but legally can only do 60.  More surprisingly my daily driver, a 2004 little VW Caddy van, is also only allowed to do 60.  I have driven similar vans for at least 30 years and am shocked that I have been maybe breaking the law all this time.

It seems the only type of vans allowed to do car speeds are classed as "Car derived van" on the registration document.  My little Caddy says "Light Commercial" on the reg document.

I am aware that long discussions have taken place on this forum regarding pickups and how some of these are classed as Dual Purpose Vehicle and some are classed as Light Commercial, but I could find nothing really about vans.  How many white van drivers bombing along the motorway at 80mph know they are actually going 20mph over the limit?