10 Bears

I thought the same in regards to the "bloody mad" comment, but to be fair, its all been in black and white since 1973... http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1973/57/enacted Note section 7 point 2. Its been this way for years...

Interesting thread. Getting back to this point you raised with regards to wind loading, this could be the root cause for the force "F" as shown in Jules' envelope diagram. The Venturi Effect, is a fluid dynamics concept where liquid/wind is forced through narrowed gaps, taking the overall volume from an area of low pressure eg wide bore firemans hose, to high pressure eg narrowed pointed nozzle. You also have to consider flow/constriction rate and back pressure to understand it fully - but that's a bit much for this basic explanation. The net result though, is the same volume, under higher pressure and increased speeds. So, without seeing the location in full or the surround area, your idea that the other canopies may be causing an effect is actually plausible. It could of course be exacerbated by building position and winds being funnelled through 'canyons'. Having seen the area in detail - do you think this is a possibility as the source of the force?

I wonder if the server is being hammered! It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest, although the conspiracy theorist in me thinks it could be a deceitful ploy to reduce the number of negative comments and objections....

I used to use a Holder A50 in small woodland work. Fantastic machine, punched well past its weight, was stable on slopes (as long as you didnt do anything stupid), was frame steer so you could spin it in tight circles and handles a 3T winch with no problem. Parts are dear though, and good A50s are becoming harder to find, but if you get a good one you will be very pleased at its capability.

That's good work, and pleasing to know it was part of the conditions, although large may not be the right description - I have been told that large sets can run to 100m+ You need to get the spade back out and keep digging!!

This is an issue that I guess most of you wont have heard of as its been kept out of the press for several reasons. In short, major corperations in the US and EU have been having secret negotiations with EU governments (including ours) to try to create a Transatlantic Trade Investment Partnership (TTIP), which in other words is a free trade agreement (FTA) between the US and EU. Now, while that sounds good, history has shown that FTAs have been pretty disasterous despite all the promises of jobs and prosperity that they were expected to bring. For example, the North American FTA (NAFTA) between the US, Canada and Mexico which was intended to create more wealth, has been shown to have caused fewer jobs in the US, created higher poverty in Mexico, and created a situation where a US fracking company was allowed to sue the Canadian government for CA$250M - because the Canadians didnt want fracking. That doesnt sound right does it? However, under the terms of FTAs, and this is also included in the proposed TTIP between the US and EU, the respective companies and banks have the right to sue the Government if a decision like the fracking one goes against an organisation that is in the FTA! This is called Investor-to-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS), again this is included in the proposed TTIP that our Government is currently in negotiations to sign up to. Why is this a bad idea? Well, aside from the history telling us FTAs dont work, if in our weakened economy state we (the UK) were sued by a bank or organisation in the TTIP it would generally mean higher taxes, less investment in the member state, higher national debt etc. etc. This video provides an easy to understand overview of the TTIP: There is currently a consultation that is open on the TTIP but it is only open for 2 days! So, if any of this has struck a cord with you, then you may want to lodge your objections to the whole idea of the TTIP, or simply your objection to ISDS should you be so inclined. The easiest way to do this is via the group 38 Degrees, who have created an on-line form that you can populate to voice your objection and that will be deposited on the necessary consultation. The link to this is here: https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/page/s/tell-ttip-negotiators-not-to-let-corporations-sue-governments#petition You will have to write an individual objection, complete a "Captcha" (the numbers and letters validation process), and you may get a security warning as the data will be passed from one secure site to another - but it is secure and safe. Then its all done. I'm not overly a political person, but sometimes issues like this arise and I wonder how on earth can our Government be so stupid? Hence, this call to arms. I hope that many of you see the right thing to do, and spend a few minutes to lodge your objections to the TTIP or the ISDS!

No, it seems that in the past (2012) he has seen fit to deprive vulnerable people from their money: Rogue trader uncovered on TV is jailed (From Oxford Mail) Rogue gardener admits more offences (From Oxford Mail) Words cant describe the contempt I have for him and his ilk. Not in polite company at least. I cant comment on tonight's show - cant get it on the i-player yet and I have a scaffold over my satellite dish!

Ah - should be available here shortly: BBC One - Watchdog, Series 33, Episode 7

Jason Butcher of Oaklands Tree Care apparently. BBC One - Watchdog - Rogue traders update Having a bit of trouble with the i-player...

I would have thought that the first point above about the EPA 90 would have been the relevant one in your case, and possibly the HA 86 if the smoke drifted over the highway. Purely conjecture, but my guess is that you were speaking to someone who's job it was to answer the phone and read from a sheet rather then have informed knowledge. Just a guess mind!

To be honest - it looks like strimmer damage. Keep a 1m weed free area with mulch and it *may* recover...

Couldnt help myself... Procrastination again... If you burn waste generated through commercial, trade or industrial activities, or if you burn waste of any type on industrial or trade premises, then you may be committing an offence. Burning is not an acceptable way of disposing of commercial waste. Burning waste produces smoke that contains a range of pollutants which can pollute the environment and have damaging health effects. It also increases background levels of air pollution. Laws exist to protect people and the environment. This means that burning activity of any sort can result in criminal prosecution and substantial fines. Operators of commercial, industrial and trade businesses and premises should be aware of the following:  The Environmental Protection Act 1990 places a duty of care on every business to make sure that all waste produced is disposed of in a suitable manner. Burning of waste is not considered as appropriate and anyone found disposing of waste in breach of their duty of care responsibilities risks being prosecuted and fined on conviction.  The Clean Air Act 1993 makes it an offence to burn anything on an industrial or trade premises that gives rise to dark smoke. This would include plastic, insulating materials (e.g. foam), tyres and treated/painted wood. Offences made under this legislation incur a maximum penalty of £20,000 for each offence  Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 smoke from any type of fire can be judged to be causing a statutory nuisance to neighbouring properties where the smoke is affecting their enjoyment of their property – e.g. if they cannot sit in their garden, put washing out or must keep windows closed. A legal notice can be served requiring that the smoke nuisance is abated and failure to comply with the requirements of the notice can result in prosecution.  Smoke emissions from flues, stacks or chimneys are controlled by legislation including the Clean Air Act 1993 and the Environmental Protection Act 1990.  Anyone lighting a fire and allowing it to drift across a highway faces a fine of up to £2,000 under the Highways (Amendment) Act 1986.  There are no set times in law which specify when burning may or not take place  A person who burns casing and/or insulation from a cable with a view to recovering the metal core(s) shall be guilty of an offence under the Clean Air Act 1993. Maximum penalties of £20,000 apply.

It also refers to Northern Ireland and Scotland - so may not apply in England/Wales (Ive not searched for any other relevant Regs - will leave that to others with more time!). Whereabouts are you TimberDelf?

Sorry Chris - but in the context that was being discussed at the time by Matt ie causes of subsidence and/or potentially heave, the shrinkable clay content of the soil is the only thing to consider - not the water potential of the tree as was also raised.

This is an interesting one. Personally, I always take the view that I am the last acting professional on site, so if I notice something out of the ordinary, which I may not have been there to look at in the first place, I will raise it with the client - verbally and backed up in email. Its been useful more than once for covering my back so to speak, and Ive even had extra work off the back of it.

From the distance I would have said Taphrina betulina too - It does need a better picture though

Yep that's right.

You have a contract with the shop ie you paid them in exchange for their supply of goods, these rights are afforded under the Sale of Goods Act (1979). You can claim that it is not fit for purpose and has developed a defect through expected use, so is therefore, not of satisfactory quality. These terminologies are all prerequisites to a claim under the Sale of Goods Act. The reason is that the contract that you entered into was that in exchange for money, the retailer would supply an item that is fit for purpose, of satisfactory quality etc. As they accepted my payment, but did not manage to fulfil their end of the contract, the contract is void and you are entitled to your money back directly from the retailer. The only sticking point you will have is to determine what is a 'reasonable time' between the purchase of the item and the development of the problem. Unfortunately this is an argument that you will have to have with the retailer - but you can go in forewarned! Take the supply/product code from the helmet and contact the manufacturer. Ask them specifically when was this batch produced? If they say 5 years ago for example, then you have a better claim against the retailer for selling old stock at current market price. Its up to the retailer then to make a counter claim against the manufacturer/supplier. There is some really good information on the which site here: Sale of Goods Act - Which? I've followed this advice before and got good results from SoGA claims.

Well, you're right on here, but the clay content (type) is the only factor really. No shrinkable clay = No heave/subsidence, therefore no problem. Good advice to get an arboriculturist in, but ideally one that is AMIUG trained so they can provide an informed assessment of the soil as well. Whereabouts in the country are you Jack? There are probably folks on here who can help, myself included.

Well you do get to see them - you just have to know where to look: https://data.nbn.org.uk/Taxa/NBNSYS0000011448/Grid_Map As you are on the Wirral - there is actually an area just near to you...

Elm definately. Not Wych as it doesnt have the 3 points, so I would also say Ulmus procera

What you describe doesn't sound fun to me. I think Ill stick to my red wine...

I always understood Fly Agaric to be poisonous - and not in a nice trippy way either. I wouldn't fancy experimenting with it in any case.

Hmm - dodgy editing. If you put back in the rest of what I had written for context you should see that pretty much the points you try to raise have already been addressed - particularly when it comes to the legal entitlement of the aggrieved.

Never seen it with spray paint, but there is an artist who does fabric wrapping for a similar illusion: Zander :: Tree, Line. wonder if its the same guy?