kevinjohnsonmbe

Yes, I’m sure it is still doing the rounds! We went to Minions to see it first time round. The tiny lanes were choked for miles around, had to escape across the moors! Edgecome, Rame peninsula, Kingsand, , Cawsand, Whitsand etc, still all relatively undiscovered gems (although Rame Conservation Trust experiencing some difficulties with development at the moment)

pics....!!

I don't go Norf of the river (Tamar) Gov'nor.... (well, only very rarely and for special occasions!) Scandalous LA behaviour starting to emerge in Nottingham.... Could there possibly be a connection....? http://www.nottinghamshire.gov.uk/DMS/Document.ashx?czJKcaeAi5tUFL1DTL2UE4zNRBcoShgo=j0gU%2BCxsgJFDfZgiA7wNt8Wcd%2BCsdVhw1WRm77tka44OAEJ%2F4VnXEQ%3D%3D&rUzwRPf%2BZ3zd4E7Ikn8Lyw%3D%3D=pwRE6AGJFLDNlh225F5QMaQWCtPHwdhUfCZ%2FLUQzgA2uL5jNRG4jdQ%3D%3D&mCTIbCubSFfXsDGW9IXnlg%3D%3D=hFflUdN3100%3D&kCx1AnS9%2FpWZQ40DXFvdEw%3D%3D=hFflUdN3100%3D&uJovDxwdjMPoYv%2BAJvYtyA%3D%3D=ctNJFf55vVA%3D&FgPlIEJYlotS%2BYGoBi5olA%3D%3D=NHdURQburHA%3D&d9Qjj0ag1Pd993jsyOJqFvmyB7X0CSQK=ctNJFf55vVA%3D&WGewmoAfeNR9xqBux0r1Q8Za60lavYmz=ctNJFf55vVA%3D&WGewmoAfeNQ16B2MHuCpMRKZMwaG1PaO=ctNJFf55vVA%3D If you get so far as reading the link.... The first blatant, corporate speak BS appears in the Exec summary "...Today CORMAC is one of the most highly-regarded, trusted and well-known companies in the South West. We are committed to delivering cost-effective and innovative solutions which add value to our communities, clients, partners and people..." If he honestly thinks that is true, he's never listened to Radio Cornwall phone in show in the afternoon and he's never had a social media account! It also fails to mention in the Exec summary that all of the staff (and inherent idleness and inefficiency of public sector), all of the plant & machinery, all the habitual bad practice transferred direct from CC to Cormac by way of a 5 year loan arrangement on the notional value of equipment transferred, a profit share and RoFR on all CC highways and maintenance works.... Oh, one more thing it forgot to mention, Cormac is 100% share owned by Cornwall council. By any other name - a cartel.

Haven’t seen that before! Brilliant (and spookily similar to some of my LA interactions....)

Especially given the post discussion summary received by email! ”Solved” Well that’s a new definition of “Solved!”

The conversation me and Eggs were having last Tuesday night after a 100 pints made more sense than that! She’s either given the tax payer subsidised bar an all night thrashing or it’s early onset Alzheimer’s....

?

It's a democratic OUTRAGE Mark!!! ??? The True Blues won the County, and the Bloody Libtards got the council!!! http://www.cornwall.gov.uk/council-and-democracy/profiles-of-cabinet-members/

That didn't go so well.....

Oh, the irony......! Receives unsolicited mail warning of the dangers of 'cold calling' from Cornwall council which seeks (by unsolicited advertising paid for by the council tax payer) to coerce my business into paying an initial registration fee of £150 + £25 / month to be registered on the Trading Standards approved register. When I looked at this system 5 years ago I rejected it on the basis that the organisation supposed to be 'auditing' a company's suitability were ill informed, lacked current industry sector knowledge / experience, the documentation they were supposedly using to conduct the audits was out of date and irrelevant and that it presented a cash-cow, income generation scheme for the organisation administering the system rather than presenting any tangible advantage to the business owner or the consumer. So thanks for the unsolicited mail, I think I'll take the advice contained therein "...good businesses don't need to undertake this aggressive form of marketing..." and I'll be in touch shortly with a couple of questions: What authority do you have to access my personal data for the purposes of "aggressive advertising", are you aware of the restrictions placed upon you by the Data Protection Act 1998, is this a desperate attempt to get your mail-shots out before the General Data Protection Regulations take effect on 25 May 2018 and finally, how do you justify the expenditure of "public" money on the distribution of colour printed documents and leaflets in a very similar fashion to the aggressive, unsolicited manner which you are warning against?

No not at all! Sorry, I was just applying my own example

Much to agree with there Matty, and without wishing to look only at the negatives - as has previously been said in another thread about the merits and potential benefits of learning from ones mistakes, there is some delta between a mistake such as leaving the file box behind and the mistake that has the potential to kill you; one may be learnt from, the other may be your last. In the example of the 2 videos, the big chunk that could quite easily have killed him, could have been done in 2 or even 3 pieces (especially if it was known that the ground crew were 'inexperienced") so as to allow everyone to get a "feel" for how each other, and the tree, was playing on the day. In the second video, after the fall, what struck me was the apparent lack of first reactions from the ground crew before the paramedics arrived. No head support, no spinal bracing, no blanket, if thirsty allow the lips to be moistened but don't allow drinking, he appears to be fairly isolated and alone, nobody kneeling at his side monitoring for deterioration and offering comfort... All of those things are basic elemental incident reactions I would expect (and demand) from the people that put their trust in me and mine in them. I know it's easy to micro analyse after the event, but that is often where the best lessons are available. August states his 3 "essentials" for a good arborist and they are good points, it's possible that I'm only able to suggest a 4th through the benefit of years which has calmed (to a point) the impetuousness of my youth.... I'd add as a desirable attribute - a calm head.

Complacency (ego?) How many accidents / near misses before getting a desk job?? Fair play for posting.... for the benefit of others. Not great advertising though ?

Yes, note to self.... watch “whole” program before commenting!!

Just caught up with Gardeners' World, featured the "forest towers" of Milan. They interviewed the project architect and the landscape consultant.... I wonder if they had any arb input or if that was overlooked and will come to be regretted at the 10-15 year point....??

Heard this on the news at ½ 3 this morning after getting up to let the puppy out for a poop, only just had a chance to read the article... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-43910536 Bloody Tories.... That’ll be Gove taking names and kicking ass in DoE! ?

I wonder if that was part of the discussion after the event.... "...Well, looking at the positives to come out of this Boss, the digger now fits under the bridge....."

?? Ah, understood, no liability to fence, but liability (if not fenced) for damage caused by an animal which strays beyond boundaries. Which one takes precedence then? The railways responsibility to keep people / animals out, or the animal owners responsibility to keep them in?? http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1971/22/section/2 (notwithstanding the additional complexities of Scottish law?)

Looks like the driver had a fair lick of speed on....

Total "de-rail" (?) is the requirement for the owner of animals to fence against them breaking out different for common land? Surely the boundary of the common grazing area should be fenced to prevent animals leaving the common land? Or might this example have historic implications where the railway placed a line through an area of existing common land and accepted a liability to fence? It seems odd since my understanding of the 'norm' (if such a thing exists) would be that the owner of the animal is responsible to prevent it breaking out of the area in which it is kept??

Totally agree, it wasn't so much the engagement of NR that troubled me (it was me that called them in for an opinion which I had hoped would add weight to the justification for the reduction which the LA were resisting) but it was the chummies insistence that, since it was my name on the enquiry form it was me that would forever be liable for any failure which affected the network that I simply couldn't get through to him. I think he said £500/day just for a NR safety bod to be on site so I totally understand how the land owner is tempted to take the cheaper route and avoid having the additional expense of a pro do the job. It's almost like the law of unintended consequences - NR have potentially increased the likelihood of an accident by imposing (what might be considered) unrealistic additional costs leading to chop it and run scenarios.

I once had a NR bod on site to look at some big trees on adjacent land I was surveying. I just wanted his “view” of whether NR would consider them a “risk” to the line in support of a TPO submission for crown reduction. It was a mistake I won’t make again just talking / meeting him. For months after he was hassling ME over potential liability. He just couldn’t understand that liability for the trees rests with the land owner (or possibly the LA if consent refused) not the tree surveyor (I know there are variables in that statement, but in this instance, my recommendations were clear, the liability existed where the LA refused consent to the land owner. ) In his mind, because I’d raised the query, I had to cut the limbs immediately or face costs for train delays. Never met a more corporate bunkered mindset mindset in all my tender years!

Now that is an exceptionally economic use of words to deliver the necessary effect! ????

I would be less worried about the Rozzers (that's not to say he shouldn't be worried about them) than I would the Stasi from Network Rail! Any fines or penalties imposed by the beak (if it goes that far) will pale into insignificance compared to the compo Network Rail could demand if they are minded to. I forget the £rates but it's calculated by the minute for any train affected by loss of availability of the network. So that's any train directly delayed on that line at the time, any connecting train that is delayed as a consequence of any other connecting train etc etc. Very quickly the domino effect can have National implications. The Rozzers and / or HSE are going to be minnows in comparison to the damage NR can impose on anyone found to be culpable.