kevinjohnsonmbe

As I explained to the homeowner today who thought he wouldn’t be paying for the damage.... Where do you think the council gets it’s money from matey? Out of YOUR pocket that’s where!

You know full well what the great lady said!

When it suits him! Pics below indicate main difference between wood pellets and wood pallets! Wood pellets break down to dust and the idea was they’d provide traction without being harmful (ala rock salt) to the environment. Tried and tested in Canada. I think I linked example. Wood pallets simply wouldnt work in the same way ? Flail hedge cutting, unlike wood PELLETS, are large material pieces, washed down the road after flash flooding resulting from poor soil management, to a low point where they combine to block 500mm drains.

First off, I’m totally shocked that Aldi are giving away frogs legs! Second, if they paid 14k for that box section roof I’m a f*cking Dutchman - but since its many of the same muppets involved with that hall as are parish councillors, I’m not at all surprised they have no idea how to manage public money.

Come on....! Don't tell me I was the ONLY one wondering why Hairy wanted a sofa for the 'local girls?" (and if I was then, yes, I was "asking for a mate" because I suspect Mr Bolam would be similarly intrigued...) PS - where is this legendary sofa by the way.....? For a mate loike... ?

Please elaborate......! ?

A LOT last night! We knew it was coming, there's a fail proof way of forecasting Summer rain storms and flash floods hereabouts: Council out gully clearing Wednesday. Road side hedge flail cutting Friday (just to make sure all the gullied are filled up again) Heavy rain and flash floods Saturday! Been exactly the same every year!! Branch tips - lower slates, facia boards etc, no windows no water ingress apparent yet. LA tree inspection regime with many years of documented concerned from local residents. A similar age class Beech failed in the cemetery a couple of years ago (although that was Merip and it fell into the cemetery rather than outwards.) Even so, given the age class, considerable lateral growth, the stem separation visible from ground level, the target rich environment... I wouldn't want to have had my name on the inspection report since I would expect to be reaching for my insurance documents and burying my professional reputation in the cemetery, but in this case, no one will likely be held to account, the council tax payers will ultimately foot the bill (either through increases later or reduction of service elsewhere) via council tax. Brings my urine to evaporation point! PS. Happened early evening yesterday. The Community Hall was packed in the afternoon for a BBQ & social which had been brought forward from the planned evening event. It's only a wriggly tin roof, there would have been fatalities had the event not been brought forward. The inside of the building is full of tree!

TPOd tree in a “Closed” Cemetary in LA control ? Clearance due today. I’m acting as Vicars’s liaison, apparently she’s busy this morning? You get voicemail? Tried call last night - just a catch-up.

A bit of drama in the village last night:

Following the Multione ethos of max utility, unless a drop weight post knocker is essential for some other reason, having a post knocker head for a concrete pecker unit provides 2 options from 1 unit - not sure I’ve explained that so well as I might have done?

Just having a bubble Gazzer! i was careful not express an opinion either way ? It’s not the ‘group’ that is important, but rather the sentiment that I interpreted from the post: ”....”my” group is not so bad as you all keep saying, you’re all blinkered and prejudiced....” “...What about that other group? They’re all scum of the earth....” You’re quite right to highlight the strength of my natural generosity, empathy, warmth and humanity though, a very astute observation! I like to apply the mantra “...everyone is a cant until proven otherwise...” Works quite well ? Anyway, peace & love brothers from another mother (unless you work at HMRC in which case you can kiss my ?)

There’s some irony in a post which has +/- 96.48% content which seeks to validate, encourage and support the need for broad acceptance of identifiable ‘groups’ within a society...... Then, in the closing sentences, appears to single out identifiable ‘groups’ as being intolerable. Are we to assume then that its only OK to dislike the ‘groups’ within a society that we do not subscribe to?? And so the cycle continues.... ??

All good tips so far! I’d add, FWIW, a tirfor can sometimes be a very useful, and sometimes over looked option. Recently had a row of hedge stumps to remove (and another similar but larger scale job coming along) They are small diameter (<150mm ish) using one to pull the next in the row allows both to be loosened / pulled out at the same time. Appreciate this is only smaller dia stuff, but it was quicker & easier than grinding. Not a a big fan of grinding but will offer the ‘up-sale’ and do it if required. Priced to reflect the mundane / potential risks associated with this work.

For those that genuinely believe in a world without borders, I salute you (in all your cranky idealistic weirdfulness) For everyone else, denial that ‘migration’ should be managed is just as cranky and weird. It’s all or nothing, either borders with control or none at all. Farting around in the middle is no more than a waste of time, money and effort. Where depravation exists, the humanitarian solution is to create ‘in-region’ safe zones rather than to create, facilitate and assist, through well intentioned naivety, routes by which organised crime can further exploit the aspiration of the fortunate (whilst simultaneously depleting a country / region of those most likely / capable of improving it.)

???? 93/100 with some gobbledegook to improve by image compression and some other stuff I didn't really understand....

How do you do a page speed test Steve? Just tried adding a link to my webpage on my profile signature block (which I seem to remember being in User CP on the previous update - can't find how to do it on this new format)

I had that case in mind Ed - and in reality, no one would really believe there wasn't an obvious beneficiary / likely culprit in that scenario. He was bang-to-rights (cause or permit) and probably still prof'ed from the final outcome. I'm thinking along the lines of an isolated woodland (without the sort of control which might be expected within a private domestic garden) where timber is lost (stolen in effect / criminal trespass / criminal damage) and the landowner could (if the LA were so minded - and I suppose that is the key factor) then be hit with the requirement to re-plant. I suppose the answer is yes, action could be commenced by LA and if it was the landowner would have to weigh the cost of legal challenge & potential for success against the cost of re-planting whilst the LA are simultaneously making a similar / opposite calculation of potential of success weighed against the loss of amenity / public interest. I think I'm going to have to put it in the "no straight answer" file and watch daytime TV instead...

I see that 206 "says" that it should be the landowner to replant, but if there is an absence of "cause or permit" as in 202C(2) and whilst acknowledging that "saying nothing" can be interpreted by the Court as it sees fit (it was probably a bad choice of example to attempt to demonstrate where the burden of proof lays since they wouldn't say nothing, they'd say all that might reasonably demonstrate that they had not caused or permitted.) So whilst 206 might state landowner, could it ever realistically (a) get to Court if there was no 'accused' and (b) stand a chance of a successful outcome? 206 appears to me, to have the potential to unfairly penalise a landowner that has already suffered no fault loss and the direction that they should re-plant (further punishment without trial) appears to contradict basic tenants of English Law. Mindful also of 208(1)(aa), if it did go so far as the Court, could it withstand appeal? Maybe it's just one of those anomalies that was never quite envisaged when 206 was written and will be added to the list of things we have to wait for a judgement on before we ever really no for sure....?

Agreed, and spookily close to the hypothetical set of circumstances I'm playing with! ? As a criminal case, the burden of proving the defendant's guilt is on the prosecution, and they must establish that fact beyond a reasonable doubt.

I think not, not just on the basis that they are the landowner. It wouldn't (ordinarily) even proceed to Court without a better than reasonable expectation of success. Land owner presents evidence that he was oversees during the period in which the offence was believed to have occurred, he's not even charged let alone appearing in Court. They wouldn't even have to show that they'd been overseas, the burden of proof rests with prosecuting authority to produce sufficient evidence that the accused 'did' rather than a suspect having to provide evidence that they 'didn't.' For example, the inalienable right to silence... If the prosecuting authority cannot show that he 'did' and he says nothing, it goes no further... That's where I'm at with it, was hoping there might be a nugget of info that might take us down a different path....

Similarly, where the contravention has occurred, but the culprit is unknown, I can find no detail that would support an assertion that the landowner would bear the liability for replant/restitution.

Appreciate what you're saying, but... Without sufficient (any) evidence of who did the deed, nobody would have been in Court because there isn't an 'accused.' There is a requirement to have sufficient evidence to frame a charge in order to progress any further.... That's the tricky bit.

Finding this a tricky one to resolve since it came up in conversation recently. Mynors is clear enough on the matters to be proved by a LA in order to secure a conviction for felling in a CA without having provided notice of intent (28.5 p809), but what might be the procedure where there is no "accused" (since nobody knows (or will say) who done it?) Can the landowner be compelled in any way to undertake the replanting / prosecution since they exercise a degree of control over the land but are not physically in a position to mount a sentry to prevent unauthorised access where 'others' may have an interest in removing trees for their own nefarious reasons? Any opinions / suggestions / pointers appreciated.

Don't go reminding him that he has a good memory.... He'll go remembering that I promised to call for a yarn last week and still haven't done it!

Like this POS that had me shouting at the TV last night: