kevinjohnsonmbe

Nicely done Sir! ? Weme gonna have some fun with this ?

Wey hey Mark! I’ll ‘see’ your Gove (who, I’d be the first to admit, is easy to dislike) and ‘raise’ you an Abbot - who needs no introduction for her fuckwittery) Has anybody made a Tory / Labour pack of Top Trumps yet? Now there’s a game worth a play.....

A right good leveller! This is the big one!! Let's see if Corbyn has got the plums for it now it's on or if he'll change his mind. Now the talking stops.

That'll be your piss and my shit and me leaving the country.... I'm not packing my bags just yet though Duck.

A General Election it is then! Come on you whiny MoFo's, let's have it!

You’ll be in a 20 year old spud crate strapped to a 40 year Telehandler driven by a 60 year old farmer. Look up his SFP subsidy at farm subsidy.org and then slap £2k on top. So long as you spend your money locally you’ll be compliant with SFP rationale.

Well thanks for that! That’s my coffee well and truly spat and nasally discharged ????

Paul, on the one hand I’m sorry for highlighting such a potentially sensitive issue, particularly on a Sunday evening and that you seem to be taking all the flak singlehandedly. Admirably by the way. On the other hand, whilst I appreciate AA is ‘as good as it gets’ in relation to sector representation (and not to be underestimated), it’s not really fair to suggest we at the operational end have some how chosen to ignore something quite so potentially significant. For myself, and I’m sure most, I’ve been playing by the rules I was trained to. I haven’t ignored any part of that. Has AA required and observed 2 ropes per climber at AAAC validation assessments over the past decade? If no, that must be as fundamentally flawed as the training that is still being delivered and which, following on from site discussions this morning, simply doesn’t cover this.

2 ropes to climb - I've been trained wrong, been doing it wrong and could have faced HSE prosecution if I fell. That's a big deal.

This passage troubled me Paul: However, we have seen how the effects of imposed change become implemented over a period of years. For example, the requirements of the ‘Hierachy of Work at Height’ encouraging the use of Mobile Elevating Work Platforms (MEWPs) for tree work have resulted in a period of significant technological development, producing MEWPs that are suitable for tree work and becoming more and more competitively priced. It is very likely that technology will also answer some of the current challenges to the use of two ropes. On MEWPs, I'm not convinced (FWIW) that MEWPs will be seen to be the panacea and first option of choice over climbing as time passes. We've already seen some accidents and fatalities associated with the (inappropriate) use of MEWPs and the picture I seem to have developed from Stateside, where they are much more prevalent, is that the accidents associated with them seem also to be much more prevalent. Sure, tech advances and price reductions are good - I'm actually looking at spiders myself at the moment. But on the 1 rope 2 ends or 2 ropes question, the final sentence in the passage above seems to state that we should (now?) be using 2 seperate ropes...

Thanks for Sunday reply Paul! Didn't expect such a speedy pick up ?? The point I couldn't untangle was - Does ‘two separate and independently anchored lines’ actually translate to 2 separate and independent ropes or (as we are familiar) both ends of the same rope used to achieve 2 anchor points. It reads like 2 separate ropes and that gave the obvious rise to the question, if it is 2 separate ropes, have we all been non-compliant since 'the legal requirement goes back to 2003.' I'm just thinking about the present (for the present), if it becomes 3 later - so be it.

Paul, @AA Teccie (Paul) Can this article be translated into a couple of sentences for simple folk rather than pages of script which left me no clearer on what / when a change might be imposed? Is it saying that HSE require climbing arbs to use 2 separate ropes rather than the 2 ends of the same rope (for those that still dwell in the 19th century?) If so, when is this likely to be implemented? Are we non-compliant now? Is the training non-compliant? I have to admit, after reading it, I wasn't really any clearer on whether a change is imminent now, in the near future or maybe not at all. Love & peace, Confused of Cornwall.. Arboricultural Association - Background to the HSE decision on two rope working WWW.TREES.ORG.UK A range of tree related help and advice for members of the public as well as tree surgeons.

Marcus, come on now, that’s lame! If I was given a bucket full of free tut, I’d spend it locally too ?

It’s easy to over estimate the net return on those so called diversification opportunities J. For 1 - Everyman jack is doing it and supply is in danger of exceeding demand. For 2 - it’s easy to underestimate the Labour (and patience) intensity of these ventures. Customers are horrible, demanding, self opinionated twats and can very easily sap your will to live or sue the ass off you when THEY do something blatantly stupid. (Maybe it’s just me, I’d want no part of that scenario)

So far as I’m aware, stand to be corrected of course, there’s no link between Q and ‘affordable.’ There are other limitations associated with Q but not insurmountable.

Stone me J! Yome sounding more like a Ukipper / Brexit guru with (almost) every post ?

No disputin some parts of the house building / market are inequitable - but that is what it is - a system which has evolved over time. The sale of LA houses was probably the largest single government imposed wobble to natural forces. Aside from another central government systemic change - such as bulk release of Crown / ‘public’ land for co-op or self build, the only other sensible solution is for those that have achieved considerable monetary gain from property to release it to their spawn. That, and the unlikely type of behavioural change which sees folk move from a house (privately owned or rented) which has become bigger than required, to one which more suitably matches their volume. Again, unlikely since sale taxes are punitive. Yome fooked J, maybe time to realign expectations and realities?

Obv’s it’s not ‘my’ humour, but rather funny and just about as credible as Mark’s ???

I think he might have double spoofed you there ??s

Bastard! That's my life summed up in 12 words! ??????

That WOULD be special treatment!

You don't need the philanthropic land donor for that J. You need a government willing to release state owned land. Easily done if the will were there.

I only add this for context, but folks often aren't aware of the comprehensive suite of advantageous trading, tax and regulatory concessions in the ag sector. I'll list a few of the top of my head: Exemptions from planning regs Exemptions from inheritance tax Exemptions from Council tax (farm homes auto reduced by 1 band) Rebated diesel (regularly misused for other business benefits such as haulage and recreation) Add all of that into the direct financial subsidy and the whole package starts to look wholly unsustainable under the current model.

Public money = public access to info. So far as I'm aware, nobody is compelled to take it, but iffum you do, you play by the masters' rules. I do agree however, that there should be a list of welfare recipients too.

The difficulty I have is that 'the system' simply doesn't deliver financial support where it is most needed (setting aside for the moment the argument whether support should be provided at all.) My biggest frustration is that the relative minnows are so passionately addicted to the crumbs which are brushed aside from the table of the big players that they, the ones who should be the most outraged by 'the system', are most often the most enthusiastic supporters and defenders of it - like heroine addicts getting an occasional free baggie from the dealer.