kevinjohnsonmbe
-
Posts
12,034 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
73
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Classifieds
Tip Site Directory
Blogs
Articles
News
Arborist Reviews
Arbtalk Knot Guide
Gallery
Store
Calendar
Freelancers directory
Everything posted by kevinjohnsonmbe
-
I'm on the same page....! I don't see it as a bill.....
-
Quite, I don't exactly follow the logic of describing it as a "VAT bill". It's just passing on the money that has been accumulated on behalf of HMRC. Think it all got too complicated! My money is on - non VAT reg'd and asked a question without fully acknowledging how excitable it would all get, now slightly embarrassed!! Maybe wrong, wouldn't be uncommon 🤔
-
A public "good" must be paid for from the public purse
kevinjohnsonmbe replied to kevinjohnsonmbe's topic in General chat
I may have to do a U-turn on him after I've had a chance to read and consider this: https://iea.org.uk/publications/research/liberating-farming-from-the-cap U-turns, all the rage at the moment apparently! 😳 -
A public "good" must be paid for from the public purse
kevinjohnsonmbe replied to kevinjohnsonmbe's topic in General chat
Well, I was going to have a look at his background (http://www.seanrickard.co.uk) but as soon as I read "Chief economist for the NFU" it became blindingly obvious why he was advocating that "the custodians of the countryside" should be paid if they are to undertake any action that detracts from industrial exploitation of the natural environment. C him the day after tomorrow! The opening page of his website, if ever anyone needed evidence of the pernicious, self interested, money grabbing nature of NFU lobbying at national and EU government levels. -
Apparently..... According to Shaun Ricard (economic wizard) on Countryfile. Apparently, he thinks "public good" must be paid for from public purse - as applied to farming as a business. I wonder if he extends his logic to the public amenity provided by trees where the burden of maintenance and replanting falls to the private owner?
-
You're dealing in "reality"..... I think it's quite refreshing to hear it like it is. Like Gary said earlier, it's not necessarily the TO's fault - they may see a transgression and attempt to address it, but lack the support from management / legal, who might lack the fibre for a fight. Or, it could be that management / legal don't "feel" transgressions with trees warrant the action in relation to the bigger fish they may be frying. My concern would be, if (if) we accept the premise that there is a general disregard for the regs, and / or lack of appetite for enforcement, why are we paying salaries for ineffective departments? It's a tooth less tiger.
-
Introducing a new pup to a grumpy Lab.
kevinjohnsonmbe replied to Andy Collins's topic in The Lounge
Ha, ha.... I know the feeling!! 🐰 -
Introducing a new pup to a grumpy Lab.
kevinjohnsonmbe replied to Andy Collins's topic in The Lounge
Pic -
Introducing a new pup to a grumpy Lab.
kevinjohnsonmbe replied to Andy Collins's topic in The Lounge
Old girl took well to him. Probably more a case of ambivalent aloofness punctuated by the occasional disciplinary lip curling snarl when his oafish puppy over exuberance became too much for her. So I had to put the baby stairs gates back up and spend the night on the sofa because he wouldn't settle with us all upstairs. It's me that's grumpy(er) today. 😑 -
I have to try and pull this one back into shape.... It's had some fairly brutal previous "pruning."
-
Nice....!
-
Hi Adam! Hope all is good with you? That was what I was thinking. What I was hoping for was an indication of: (1) What level of transgression would result in a temp stop. (2) Who is authorised to implement it. (3) Would they get support from management / legal if it was the TO. (4) How likely is it that the TO would do it. Granted, all scenarios will be measured on their own merit - perhaps, on a "first offence", informing the site manager of the problem and setting a timeframe to rectify would be a sensible approach, but what if it is repeat transgression?
-
It was more of a rhetorical question. I guess I should have said "would" instead of "could" a LPA rep stop work? Surely that's the answer, developers will push the envelope where ever possible, LPA should "police" & "punish" if they push it too far?
-
So what can be done? Realistically, can a TO (or any other LA rep) cause work to be stopped on a site? Assuming TPP is conditioned, and was being breached, could work be stopped as a breach of condition? One or 2 examples of that and word would soon get around.
-
Makes the parliamentary speeches seem rather lame.
-
Leanne Wood..... Mmmmm.... Interesting....., I take that back!
-
Now come on Mull, recognising and admitting the problem seems to be eluding our current parliamentary representatives. They appear terrified to even consider the potential flaws in the multicultural experiment. And if that's not enough, just imagine the entertainment value of having UKIP and SNP in the same chamber...! QT shortly, should be interesting (if I can stay awake past the first question which has been rare of late!)
-
And of ALL the parliamentary speeches I've heard today, almost, in fact I think without exception ALL, of them have been heavily laden with what can only be described as apologist platitudes to the Muslim community. Except this one: The sooner he is in parliament the better.
-
Ummmmm....... You haven't said if YOU are VAT registered or not. If yes, see above. If no, pay your suppliers invoice as presented and issue your invoices as appropriate, forget VAT. I think......
-
TomAto, Tomarto.........
-
No worries mate....
-
Possibly Beau, however: (1) I don't have the temperament for "log customers." (2) I have excess arb arisings which I'm happy to convert for personal use. (3) I have a deep aversion to actually spending money - buying pellets. (4) We're on domestic rather than commercial tariff so RHI is fixed to the "need" assessment for the house (can't remember the name of it) rather than generation rates - I wouldn't get higher RHI if I burned more pellets, but I don't get less for burning fewer.
-
I'm burning that which was the start of next years allowance already. Had another fireplace brought back into use and the increase in consumption has caught me out! On the bright side, pellet consumption is significantly down - reckon it'll be 1/2 ton this year.
-
But you'd miss ultimate road wars! Unthinkable 😳
-
Do none of you watch Homes under the Hammer? 🤔
