10 Bears

What are you doing with the cut material? If you are leaving it to drop to the ground you could be perpetuating the problem as any section of JKN with a node can potentially regrow as a new shoot ~ 1m per month. Also, you say you are spraying weedkiller down the tube - but are you breaking the base of the tube with a point first, so the killer can get directly in to the root stock? Oh - and 360 g/L glyphosate as the active ingredient is standard in most (all?) of these products, so the difference may only be the presence or otherwise of adjuvants.

Id second that absolutely. I suffer from whitefinger a bit and the heat really helps with this too. Also, its a great feeling putting your gloved hand on the handles when its raining hard, and after a few minutes your hands are warm and dry. Small comforts are worth it as an old forester once told me, "any fool can be uncomfortable".

I use clinic ace and find it does the job as intended. The only difference is that it is slower to cause browning/die off at a slightly slower rate but IMO, it always gets the job done and is much cheaper then Roundup.

I used to be a dealer in a former life (equities - nothing dodgy!) and was asked by a client to place a very large deal. He asked for shares of a particular stock, I asked what was the size of the investment he replied, "50,000". Now, these shares were trading that day at £55.00 each. That makes this investment worth £2.75M! I had an upper authorisation limit of £1M, so had to seek immediate approval on the deal. I double checked all calculations before running to see the dealing floor supervisor. All the while, the stock price was going up... The supervisor comes over and enters his code. It was over his limit. So, we went to get the dealing manager and it was over his limit. Then the Lead Investment Manager and yep, over his limit! In the end, I had to get the CEO of the company to give me authorisation to place the deal. His hands were genuinely trembling and he had sweat on his brow as he put in the code. There were 8 managers by now all around my desk - all a bit twitchy at the size of the exposure in one deal, and insisting I double and treble check the calculations! The client was on the phone, and just as I was about to place the deal on the market I confirmed back to him, "So, that's buying 50,000 shares of....", "What! No, I wanted to spend 50,000 pounds!" I just managed to pull the deal from the market at the last second, and had to explain it all to the 8 managers - which was fun! As it turned out, I placed the deal at £50K and it all worked out in the end, but he paid something like £58 per share instead of the £55 I could have got the bigger deal at. The kicker in the tail is though, if I had placed the deal of 50,000 shares at £55, the client would have made £500,000.00 over night. The stock went to £65 the very next morning....

Now that's a really unfair comment - basing his likely actions on his appearance! Bear in mind that he has just gone through a near-death experience and wants people to know about it so that others don't have to suffer the same. I haven't watched the video - no time today, but, you should read my points about negligence and do some research on the subject yourself (it may help with future coursework?). The point is, legally speaking, that as the council are responsible in law they have a series of statutory duties to fulfil. If they don't execute those duties, then someone's nuts will be on the block and the chap who now has to take the bus is entitled to see that someone recompenses him for their failings. Another comment suggests that there could have been drive-by surveys (conjecture of course), but this would not be acceptable practice, so again, he has the right to make them pay for their negligence.

I get a lump in my throat every year when I think about what the fallen did for us. Its too easy to take our freedom for granted, when they were brave enough to give everything they had and lost their lives. Thank you just doesn't seem enough, but I still offer my gratitude and a promise to never forget.

Genuinely impressed with your work. You are very artistic. Unfortunately, I do not have an artistic bone in my body!

I suppose it depends on a couple of assumptions I will have to make - but Ill list them for transparency: 1. Is it actually the local councils, or perhaps highways, or other? 2. Was the incident foreseeable eg signs of decay etc? 3. Is there a defensible tree inspection system in place, and if so when was it last inspected? 4. Are there any compounding factors eg recent building/trenching works that have excavated roots? So if there answers are Yes, Yes, No (dunno?), No - then it is likely that the council are negligent in their duties. If, however the first answer is No, then liability passes to whoever is the owner/agent/occupier. A key part of negligence are the following elements: 1. Someone has a controlling mind (of the situation ie are responsible) 2. They ought to have been aware 3. They are professionally/legally duty bound to do something about it 4. They have not exercised their duties properly - or at all. If these four points cant be proven, then there is no negligence. Accidents happen, and no where is absolutely safe of course, but with regards to tree management by the council, they are legally bound to protect trees, and also protect the public from potential dangers associated with them. So, possibly neglect as you say, but there needs to be a bit more information about it. A squashed car can be dealt with. At least he, nor anyone else was seriously hurt.

Ah - now I see where your perspective is and I can understand the confusion. Thats the problem with forum posts - little issues that could be resolved in a 5 minute chat take days to come out. A couple of points Ill explain further: No - encroachment is where a tree is wholly situated inside one boundary (so wholly owned), but the roots/branches are going into another's property and causing damage. The encroachment is the travel of the tree tissue, and the damage caused is an actionable nuisance as Mr. Another has the legal right to remedy it. This is where different principles are beign mixed up. Ownership is not about liability per se - but it could infer liability to more than one responsible party should a hazardous situation arise. The example I gave referred to liability following failure of a common ownership tree - not merely branch/root encroachment. It could have been the way I explained it in the first place as Jules pulled me up on this as well - I didn't write it in the way it was taken (or so I thought!) Right - so I think I've covered this but to recap: apples are basically private property if separated from the tree - but not the chap whose garden they happen to land in. Liability is only in affect where there is absolute ownership (potentially by more then one), and related to hazardous events. Encroachment is an element of actionable nuisance. No, I don't - but this is related to what I've just covered i.e. encroachment is something else. Well, yes they are - but they are related and there has to be encroachment (coupled with subsequent and provable damage) for there to be an actionable nuisance. Yes if it stays in their sole ownership Yes you can of course chop back to the boundary (deeds are absolute remember), and it must be offered back as any arisings are the private property of the individual owner. If it is common ownership then you have just hacked away at your part of the tree under a misunderstanding of the rules of play. I got a bit lost on the last couple of sentences you wrote there - but I think its going over the same information. So, I think that explains it. If I haven't managed to, then I just don't know how else to put it! All the best...

Do you know that I only realised this morning whilst having a scrape, that I am generally describing the principle of Rylands Vs Fletcher. I didn't intend this when I wrote this, but it does follow ie don't allow something on your land, or should it escape, you are liable for the consequences. I know R Vs F, has been superseded by other judgements, particularly pertaining to trees, but I thought this demonstrated the principle at least.

Good. The planning system works then.

Yes, it is the same person. Bob was one of my lecturers at the Rigg too. What is funny about the book , is that all the hand drawn images and information is exactly the same as the class handbooks he used to issue for each class. I had a copy of this book in a paperback, serial form, years before it was published!

Give me a lever long enough and a fulcrum on which to place it, and I shall move the world.

Not a problem at all. With 31K posts on here, I would expect a little strain on the eyes!

Sorry Kevin - merely used as a colloquialism term

Thanks for your comment Stephen. This was also posted by the author of the thread: I take its meaning to indicate that there was some request by the authors boss to do something 'dodge' - verb used is 'pushed' in fact. So, yes I believe I am on track for this thread.

I should have explained this further, but was looking for a quick example (I am trying to get some work completed today - Honest!). I was thinking of a situation over a longer time-scale, the actual amount of time is irrelevant, but if you have taken on the management/care of your 'half' of a tree that was not originally yours/on your property, then due to OLA/DoC and the acts of a reasonable man in law (as a layman not knowing what the fungi is is one thing, but ignoring the fact the tree is obviously dying and is colonised with fungi throughout the base, lumps are falling off and subsequently doing nothing about it), then yes, liability would pass to the occupier of both bits of land. I am going to finish my work and turn this off for a while, but there is definitely a section on this in my copy of Mynors. If needed I will raise it again, but I need to finish some work first!

No, not entirely though I am aware of these principles. My interpretation of this comes from reading (or is that Reiding?) - Reid: Nature Conservation Law.

Hello Ed, Any comments here on are assuming that 3.2.3 of my 2002 edition, refers to the same as your 2011 edition ~ and is entitled Fruit and Leaves. If not, then some of this may be out of context, but I have a feeling that this is the section you refer to... So, if this is the case - I feel (my opinion only of course) that you are reading this situation out of context or at least misinterpreting Mynors and not understanding the significance of other points raised earlier. Ill explain further, but if we don't agree - then so be it, as I'm sure neither of us are Judges! The comment here about chopped branches being private property is directly in reference to the information referred to in my copy of Mynors, ie boundary > fruit > belongs to owner of branch > whether in your airspace or not. While the tree is in the ground, it is land property, the same as your house, but when anything is severed, windblown, etc. it is no longer land property, but in legal terms, becomes private property i.e. like a mobile phone that you could place on a table and leave the room, but just because it has become separated from you - does not mean that it is no longer yours, and gives no-one the right to pick it up and take it away. This is the meaning and context of the section at 3.2.3 (my copy!) where Mynors refers to the "branch belongs to the owner of the tree, not the owner of the airspace which it is overhanging". Yes it does. I have covered this principle at length at http://arbtalk.co.uk/forum/trees-law/74382-oak-tree-boundary-therefore-2-owners-7.html#post1120495 here it is stated that if you own the land around the soil - you own the tree. This is an ancient legal tenet (Roman) and is held both on statute and in common law in England (Wales) and Scotland. I think your interpretation of this is that if you plant a tree on your side it remains 100% yours in perpetuity. This is not the case regarding most natural things as nature doesn't know where man has drawn the boundary; 'be aware the quiet onset of nature'. Should a tree grow over the boundary and become defective, then both the owners of the land are responsible for the trees upkeep/maintenance under their duties as prescribed by the occupiers liability act. Should the tree fail into the carriageway for instance, and it has uprooted from both properties - then both parties will be liable. So, in this case, if the tree crosses the boundary so does liability/ownership as evidenced by my comments about deeds/ownership in the link above. I read in to your post, this interpretation of your view of ownership/common ownership, because you also mention encroachment in particular: Do you know, I agree with this as well, but the context that you are trying to apply this principle is referring to the wrong situation. Encroachment is the passage of roots or branches from one property to another only where an 'actionable nuisance' is occurring, ie person A's property is being damaged by person B's tree by the encroachment of aforementioned roots/branches. Ed, this review is not a personal attack - so please don't view it as such. In my opinion, you have a handle on some of the key issues certainly, its just they appear to be applied in a slightly skewed context or of course 3.2.3 in the 2011 book refers to an entirely different section and I have just lost 15 minutes of my life!

You're welcome! Genuinely glad my ramblings have helped someone...

Yes, absolutely. This is my reading of all the literature regarding this, and is no doubt exactly the issue when it is raised in court ie he chopped off my branch and I didn't want him to. This wouldn't be reasonable and would infringe on the aggrieved parties rights. If you think about it, this situation is the basis for the majority of all over-the-fence-arguments ie my perspective is X, yours is Z and we don't agree on Y because you are wrong or you are being unreasonable! Again ultimately it is down the the arbitrator to make the final decision in any case should it come to it, but us chaps on here discussing the finer points of boundary law is actually a good thing in my opinion, and it may help us all inform our respective clients with a greater degree of authority then was taught by certain colleges way back when! Knowledge and law, are not static, they are dynamic beasts and we need to all do our best to keep up with subsequent developments. (Oh no. Am I starting a thread on maintaining CPD now???)

Hello Ed, I am reading it correctly - particularly in reference to my comments about deeds (which are the absolute final say about where the boundary lies), and ultimately going through arbitration i.e. court, which I have already raised in a couple of posts on this thread. If you read my post above and follow the links I provide - you will see that the founding legal principal of tree/plant ownership is who owns the soil around the roots. This tenet goes as far back as when Roman law was in affect in this country. To quote one of the 3 books on the subject that I have immediately to hand, "the proposition that plants growing in the soil belong to the owner of the soil appears to be such a basic idea that it is more or less taken for granted, and any discussion and dispute has centred on its application between those holding different interests in the land" (CT Reid, Nature Conservation Law, 6.1.2, P268). The other two references, Mynors and Neighbours and the Law by Pugh-Smith et al, also say the same. Ultimately, if a judgement is made in court, and decree made that ownership is in common you may argue your case that consent would be needed by each owner to trim the hedge etc - but this does not pass another founding principle of law, ie the test of reasonableness, meaning that this would be unreasonable. You should also remember De minimis non curat lex - the law takes no notice of trifles. Applied to your example, if you and I had a ownership in common, and I trimmed my side without asking your permission there would be no legal case to answer as I have taken the actions of a reasonable man, and there is no Mens rea on my behalf ie that I am not acting with a guilty mind and trying to damage your property - I am only looking to maintain my property. Do you see the difference? Now, to retire to my armchair...

Yep, that's my understanding too i.e. local response rather than a national call centre. My wife is a paramedic, and she explains the benefit of this is that the national call centre will only have access to a national map on screen and when advising the road crew - they wont have any insight to the local area. Using 112, if you get through to a geographically local service, the call handler are often better informed with local knowledge to help the road crew get to you quicker should the sat nav send them all round the houses. It certainly happens - one evening on their way to an emergency call, both the sat nav and national call centre instructed my wife's bus to go down a particular lane with no street lights. It was only when they slammed on the brakes before crashing into the river that they found out it wasn't the best route! Local knowledge could get help to you much quicker when you need it!

When your boss tells you to do something that's pushing the boundaries of safety, and you get injured, you are required to report it to the HSE. Before I get slated - if its not reported and the boss continues with this practice - who's fault is the next accident and the next after that? The first rule of health and safety is look after yourself first, dont expect someone else to do it! You could have a look at this information Make arrangements for first aid, accidents and ill health and see if your boss was compliant regarding the accident - which should be reported in any case. Also this next link provides a good overview of employers liabilities in situations like this Employer's responsibilities: Workers' health and safety . Note the final paragraph with instructions on how to complain to the HSE Ill await all the comments saying you cant risk your job by complaining, or that this is only a small/self-employed company/less then 5 people etc etc - but to me that doesn't matter (remember the first rule of H&S). If your boss is prepared to ask you to inadvertently get injured, then they should be prepared for some consequences when it goes wrong, and in fact, I personally wouldn't want to work for them in any case...

There does seem to be a lot of confusion about the core issue ie who owns the tree. I refer back to my earlier post which basically says the deeds to the property are the key to unlocking this problem. This situation is reviewed by a LPA here under 'Determine Ownership' and in slightly more detail in APN 11 here under 'Who's Tree is it?' You simply cant get away from the fact that trees, or any growing plant in fact, are the legal property of someone, and as such are subject to the ordinary laws of property. In this case, trees are considered 'land property' ie if you own the land around the roots of the tree - you own that part of the tree. If parts of the tree are removed e.g. chop off a branch - it is still owned by someone as you know, but now this is considered as private property, akin to a mobile phone or similar. Comments about if I fell my 75% and it kills your 25% are obviously theoretical (as most of this thread has been!), however, if this were the case then it would give the aggrieved the right to pursue arbitration (again as mentioned in an earlier post). This issue would be to determine whether or not actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea (otherwise referred to as mens rea) was a factor in your choice to fell your 75% - did you kill his 25% intentionally? Other observations about where the acorn falls are distracting as I believe their use to be a somewhat incorrect but often perpetuated interpretation of the law. It is long held that plants belong to the owner of the soil as stated previously (see Roman Law at d.41.1.7.13) and it is both common to both English and Scots Law (see A History of English Law by Holdsworth and Scottish Land Law by Gordon - Sorry, I have access to these books, but couldn't find E-book versions to post here). I'm going on a bit now, so I will stop here for a rest while I prepare for some flak! One final point to recognise though - we are all armchair experts with our individual interpretations of a complex subject matter. Ultimately though, it doesn't matter how we read all this information, the final opinion that counts is that of the arbitrator who makes a final judgement on any arising dispute!