kevinjohnsonmbe

It's ugly and (probably) wholly inappropriate and it'll catch your eye every time you pass it because you know it's a hatchet job. Joe Public however, probably wouldn't give it a second thought. That's understandable, it might be considered sentimental and impractical in the cut & thrust of commercial work, but I like to pass a tree I've previously worked on and think "...that turned out well..." and probably stop to have a brew with the homeowner, rather than passing it and thinking "...hope nobody knows that was me..." Pick the customers comes to mind.

For info:

Dear Woodmeet Member Happy New Year to you all. At a time of continuing uncertainty we thought it would be useful to provide some certainty. And so I am pleased to tell you that the next Woodmeet will be held at: Lakeview, Lanivet on Thursday February 23rd, 2017, 18.00 – 20.00 As always this will be an opportunity to network as well as catch up with current issues. We thought that this meeting would not concentrate on ‘funding opportunities’ (although it may still crop up!). · We are inviting a senior member of the John Clegg & Co team to give a UK perspective on the woodland/forestry economy and especially how management can improve the value of woodlands. · Kate Tobin will be providing an update on the revision of the South West Directory of Woodland Products and Services (South West Directory of Woodland Products and Services - South West Directory of Woodland Products and Services) and how it can help your business. · Royal Cornwall Show – An opportunity to showcase Cornish Forestry and wood sector (Geraint Richards) · Fowey Valley Resilient Treescape Project (Woodland Trust) · Tree Health – a brief update · Open Session – For ideas on the future of Woodmeet and information for other members As if that wasn’t sufficient reason to attend, the Forestry Commission have kindly agreed to sponsor the evening and will provide a pasty (each) and coffee. To help with catering it would be helpful if you could let me know whether you are attending and require a meat or vegetarian pasty: [email protected] Other News: LEADER funding opportunities: All of the LEADER Areas in Cornwall have allocated funds to help forestry businesses as we have previously heard. There has been little or no take up of these funds so far and they may be re-allocated. If you are interested in accessing this funding please contact the Project Co-ordinators via their website as soon as possible (Local Action Cornwall | LEADER funding) . USE IT OR LOSE IT! Countryside Stewardship - 2017 offer Woodland Creation The Woodland Creation guidance including the manual; application form and annex 2 are now available on GOV.UK, the window for initial applications will open on 3 January 2017. There are no significant changes to the scheme so please get in touch with your local Woodland Officer to talk to us about submitting good proposals to help get the most from your scoring. We are offering a webinar for customers on 20 December 2016 from 10:00-11:30, covering Countryside Stewardship capital grants 2017, woodland creation and woodland planning grant. Please register for this event. Woodland Planning A new application form and associated guidance for Countryside Stewardship Woodland Planning Grant will be available on GOV.UK, week beginning 19 December 2016. This forms part of a new streamlined process, with applications being sent to Natural England Technical Services (NE TS). There are no significant changes to the grant, although an online application route will be available in early 2017. Processing new applications for 2017 will begin on 3 January 2017; however, you will be able to submit your application to Natural England Technical Services as soon as the form is available on GOV.UK. Once you have an approved Woodland Planning Grant you can then begin field surveys and draft your Management Plan. The Forestry Commission will continue to support agreement holders producing a UK Forestry Standard - compliant management plan for their woodland. You have up to two calendar years to complete your plan (the year in which your grant was approved is the first calendar year) and submit it to the Forestry Commission. Please submit your plan for approval as soon as it is completed or at the very latest by 31 December of the second calendar year. Woodland Tree Health, applications are still open You can still apply for Woodland Tree Health (restoration or improvement), please see the Woodland Support page of GOV.UK for eligibility and application forms. For more information please see the Forestry Commission Countryside Stewardship webpage and the GOV.UK page on Woodland Support or contact your local Woodland Officer. I look forward to seeing you at Lakeview on 23rd. Yours sincerely <image001.png> Colin Hawke Secretary, Cornish Woodmeet Tel: 01872 510370 Email: [email protected]

All cut from the same cloth, but, point taken!! Flexi=time: the preserve of the Civil Service, look it up in the dictionary and it'll say "..the means and method of being absent when the workload is at it's highest, time critical and the the output, if undelivered, will most significantly disadvantage some other poor b'tards who's trying to make a living...." It's there in black and white: https://www.gov.im/lib/docs/hr/iompsc/Handbook/flexibleworkinghours.pdf Don't let your guard down! It's when you start to think it isn't that the b'stards have won!! Glad it cheered you up mind!! I don't know any insurgents to call upon! If I did I suspect they'd do a better job than the insurers though! Here's the thing, I have reported it via insurers. They were very keen!! They had their nominated repair centre calling me within a couple of hours to get the job booked in. It's cosmetic rather than mechanical so I'm not in any particular rush. I have a 1k voluntary excess and the cost of the repair is sub that. So the insurers wanted me to go with their repair agent, very keen in fact. I guess it won't come as any surprise that the local body shop was the cheapest, Ford main dealer a close second and the insurers bag boy was most expensive. I've told the insurance company that unless and until they get an admission of liability which excuses my excess, they and they bag boy can do one! The other party has denied liability to their insurers and to the police. To be fair, I did get the impression from the lady at the collisions / tickets office that if she finds she has been taken for a mug by the other party she'll come out swinging. Fingers crossed for that. I'll be pressing for fraudulent pecuniary gain by lying to her insurers, leaving the scene of an accident, cost of repairs and reparations and anything else I can. It's not a huge hassle for me to do it myself via small claims and I'll certainly enjoy it it it takes that route. I've always despised insurance!

For the sake of my sanity, I still cling to the hope that it is "some" not "all!"

Update: I doubt it will come as any great surprise that my scorn and disdain of 'officialdom' as represented by the local constabulary and the civil service has been further bolstered by the ineptitude and inefficiency that has been demonstrated by D&C Police and the DVSA. Form V888 despatched to DVSA mid December - fully and comprehensively completed. Incident report form similarly completed after a 40 mile round trip to find the nearest police counter service. Form V888 returned to me early January with an additional request for photographs of the damage and quotes for damage repair - this is not stipulated or requested in any of the data fields on the form V888. So I duly (begrudgingly) sent the form back for processing with photographs and quotes. Today I get a phone call from duty muppet at DVSA asking for contact details of the witnesses and what they saw. The DPA irony not being lost on me, I pointed out that this further additional information is not a stated requirement on the form and enquired if it was the personal requirement of a low level official seeking to impose and reassure themselves of their own self importance by deviating from that which appears to be departmental policy requirements. Needless to say, that didn't go down particularly well so I thought I'd just as well continue while I was on a roll and point out that iaw DPA, I would need to send DVSA a copy of my DPA form for them to complete and return to me before I would be able to release 3rd party personal data...... They hung up...... So I can't see the information of the other driver being released by DVSA, but at least there's one civil servant in a job that doesn't produce or achieve anything though.... All is not lost however! Yesterday I received a letter from D&C constabulary Collisions & Ticket Section. Great news, they have provided the details of the owner of the other vehicle in case I want to pursue it in a civil action. Not such great news, despite the 2 independent witness statements, they have decided not to prosecute. Why I asked the lady that made the decision? Because the other driver claimed not to have been aware that she may have had a collision - oh, that's all fine then. Err, no. There are 2 witnesses, but she was very convincing when I spoke to her on the phone... Perhaps I shouldn't have, but I have, spoken to 1 of the 2 witnesses to clarify in my mind if there was anyway the driver could have a realistic claim to being unaware of the collision. The witness (complete stranger to me) was incandescent with rage at the suggestion that it could have gone unnoticed and the blatant dishonesty of the other party. All this was relayed back to D&C who have undertaken to reopen the case on the basis that if the witnesses specifically state that, in their opinion, the other party could not have been unaware, then they may proceed to prosecute. In summary: If you want anything from DVSA, be prepared to be dicked around unnecessarily, provide all sorts of supplementary and spurious data at the whim of the clown with the desk who seeks to implement DPA but clearly has no real understanding of it, and ultimately achieve SFA. Then expect to have to tell the police how to take witness statements.... TBC......

You might be focussing on my poor example (thankfully having a drink isn't a crime) rather than the point I was trying to illustrate. I get the hypocrisy point, but isn't the example of owning a car perhaps just as poorly conceived as my drink example? If it pleases you Sir, I'll amend to: If one commits a murder, then one shouldn't criticise a rapist....? (If we are to apply a similar logic as that presented to support the "have a car, don't criticise Roundup" logic. Not worth getting too wrapped up in the detail, glyphosate is dangerous if used inappropriately or excessively, surely on that we must be able to agree? Who decides what is appropriate and / or excessive is probably best decided by those without a vested interest.

Oh, OK, I get it.... So what you're saying is: if you've committed one crime, you should never comment or criticise any other crime? For example, if you've had a drink, you should never criticise a drink driver? All I'm saying is, what I see as the difference between our positions appears to be, is that I would suggest that recognising and acknowledging that something might be harmful is a starting point to reducing the risk whereas you appear to be suggesting, if you own a car, you shouldn't be concerned, or rather shouldn't voice a concern, about Roundup.

On the face of it, one could accept the premise of your counter point... However, it fails to recognise and acknowledge the consensual sins of mankind - and the (sometimes effective, sometimes not so effective) attempts at amelioration. Perhaps with a relative very few exceptions, we all leave a negative footprint on the planet by our very existence. Do I drive a car? Yes of course. Does it have a negative effect on the planet? Yes of course. Do i recognise and acknowledge the negative effect? Yes of course. What does national and international government "DO" to disincentivise my car use? They tax me. They tax me on the purchase price, they tax me annually for the privilege of using it, they tax me for the fuel etc, etc.... Through taxation I am dissuaded from excessive use and some of the money raised may be used to ameliorate the negative impact. So, cars = bad, manufacturing = bad, construction = bad, chemical processing in farming = bad. Of course the difference being, that which we know to be "bad" is generally recognised as such and taxed to minimise unreasonable or excessive use. Not so glyphosate. One could suggest even the opposite, a weed control measure which has been misapplied, in excessive and damaging quantities, as a crop desiccant so as to maximise yield, accelerate harvest and subsequent replanting, and so the economic cycle of maximising profit continues and bugger the consequences. If the model of taxation to dissuade excessive use was applied in equal measure to glyphosate - tax it to the point where less damaging techniques would be more attractive economically - I'm quite certain that the frivolous use of what, only a fool couldn't recognise as a dangerous chemical, would simply disappear. So, I'm afraid, I reject and dismiss your flawed justification just as I would that of someone who suggested we use asbestos in building, lead in water pipes, tankards and the paint on children's toys because "it's makes it easier...." I'd also ask, do you profit from the use of glyphosate? If yes, can you have an unbiased opinion?

Legend!

Crikey! Interesting scenario!! So, presumably, the tree was physically changing as the TPO was being written. How can it have been accurately assessed as being worthy of protection since each minute that passed, another limb was removed. The tree that existed when the decision to make the order was taken, was not the tree that existed when the order was served. Mmmmm....

A view on the original question Paul? 41 ticketed person required to be on-site or actually undertaking the work?? Appreciate you may not wish to be quoted in what should be, but appears not to be so clearly understood.

What happened Gary? They asked you to cease and desist. Your guys we're going about their lawful business. Did you offer to postpone on agreement of costs being applied and agreed for lost income??

https://uk.search.yahoo.com/search?p=rc+snow+plough&fr=iphone&.tsrc=apple&pcarrier=EE&pmcc=234&pmnc=30 Duff link! I'll try again!

It's late, I'll have to get back to you...

Dog attacks on humans do tend to make the media.... There is a significant and marked difference between single (or pack) uncontrolled domestic / semi domestic dog attacks on other animals and a pack which is bred, kept, trained and deployed, supposedly under human command, attacking domestic dogs / humans in a public space - perhaps..... Just for clarity, I'm not a card carrying "anti", I'd say I was somewhat uncomfortable if asked the specific question but it's not something I'd get a hairy shirt on about. (unless it directly and adversely affected me such as entering or damaging my property) - FWIW, I think the full on anti's are more class war motivated than animal welfare motivated - there are far more worthy animal welfare causes than anti fox hunting. Assuming the article is true and accurate, any body that thinks purposely taking the pack onto a public beach is anything other than a grossly misjudged action, irresponsible, damaging to the public perception and potentially criminally negligent could only ever come from within the ever dwindling community of active fox hunters. I'm not convinced there will ever be an objective opinion from one hard line camp or the other (pro / anti) that just leaves us in the middle to discuss it impassionately.

It's just possible you may have missed the irony there.....

Just musing.... I hadn't heard of such an incident before.... And in any case, that which has gone before might not always be the best direction for the future. I'd say it's a work based activity so must surely be under HSE legislation.

Well, if this is true, it could quite feasibly be the precursor to a HSE shut down of hunting with dogs in public areas: Horrified onlookers watch on as a pack of hounds 'attack' a pet dog and its owners on Cornwall beach | Cornwall Live

Just to clarify, are you saying banning Roundup is not a good idea? If yes, is your sole justification economics? For real??

Narrowly missed a buzzard in the wife new car this morning.... He was swooping down from a roadside tree, tree lined both sides so creating a tunnel. Wingspan was almost the width of the car! He must have been inches from the roof as he fired up the afterburners and I slowed as fast as I could.... A few choice words!!

Paul hasn't popped in yet! I recall a discussion about this, and I think it was at an AAAC workshop, and if my memory serves, the discussion concluded that a 41 ticket holder (or modern equivalent) should be at the active work site but not necessarily the person doing the sharp end work since the knots and lumps are fairly easily within the scope of a competent / qualified climber but WLLs, kit compatibility, dynamics etc should be left to the suitably qualified person to put the right kit together and generally oversee. Remember a thread about "does 39 allow rigging" a while back too. Seems an odd situation in one respect - if you've got someone with 41 on site, why have them loafing on the deck anyway?

Press 🛎 to test! Maybe write back referencing the original 211, point out that no TPO has been enacted and that >6 weeks has passed since 211 submission, intend to carry out work as previously notified - your move!!! 🍻🍿👍

Although not always possible to buy new, and remembering some of the comments and concerns that were posted about taking particular care when buying used so as to avoid letting someone off load their problematic machine (unless time & mechanical expertise are readily available), your comment above was read without a complete element of surprise! If you're planning to roll this particular 💩 in glitter ready for onward sale later, Arbtrader may not be your best bet! Hope it gets online and working for you without too much heartache!