kevinjohnsonmbe

Sorry, missed that when you first posted it. Just caught it as I was re-reading the thread.

1 week ahead - watch the weather forecast - plan accordingly Night before - re-visit the forecast - confirm / postpone On the day - check the barometer, look out the window. If it looks like it'll be a bad weather day do something more constructive - life is too short to get PWT.

I'm kicking myself now! Did a mature Beech reduction Mon/Tue - was a long neglected hedgerow tree which had been historically cut but was left without any recent management and had become untenable at the entrance to a timber hauliers HGV operating centre entrance. One of the stems that had been lopped off previously, leaving a fairly long stub, had something just like this - I didn't get a picture (tired, full of head cold and it was by then covered in sawdust!) Next time I pass there I'll get a picture and see if it's the same. I looked for this one in the fungi directory David but couldn't find it. Google'd and found this which I thought was interesting: Turkey Tail Mushroom Extract Powder -Highest Quality- Ready To Consume Sold in powdered form as a dietary supplement!

If it's the "best" you're after, you won't get better than https://www.barcham.co.uk/?gclid=CM6vl6f6gMsCFQoHwwodvhIL5A

Good thinking - reduce your financial exposure. I'd have a punt that the developer will expect an all encompassing quote, with materiel, equipment & labour broken down, which they'll then expect to be discounted, job done in an unrealistic timeframe, 60-120 days to pay, CIS deducted, a good handful of "couldyajusts" and they'll still make out like they're doing YOU a massive favour!

Sounds a nightmare waiting for someone to have "blame" laid on them.... Throw it in in a rush, six months later getting sued to go back and fix the bodged job that's been lashed in and has all died back. Take care with potential liability if whips don't take or turf turns brown.

As Gary says, its the 1984 amendment that applies to the great uninvited! http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/3 4)Where, by virtue of this section, an occupier of premises owes a duty to another in respect of such a risk, the duty is to take such care as is reasonable in all the circumstances of the case to see that he does not suffer injury on the premises by reason of the danger concerned. "Take such care as is reasonable" If the land owner knows of a regularly used - even when unauthorised - footpath/shortcut, then the duty would be the same (or similar) as if it were a PROW. If there is little or no evidence / history of visitors (invited or otherwise) then it might not be unreasonable to assume nobody is being exposed to risk. The smaller the probability of people = the smaller level of reasonableness! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupiers%27_Liability_Act_1984 Signs at access points and in work area, keep a good look out, job done!

I don't think anyone has mentioned additional accountancy fees associated with preparation & filing VaT returns yet. Depending how much you prep yourself / how much the additional service cost might be, it needs to be included in the calc's to determine wether you'd be better off or not. Great thread! I'm seeing accountant to arrange VaT Reg before end Feb so it's been a great read.

Stating the blindingly obvious George Monbiot. No surprise in the response from the NFU's mouth piece! It can't be the sheep's fault that there are no trees on the hill side.

Try and avoid "Blackburn's" technique....

Selling space ? Britain's public spaces going private - Will Self

Absolutely agree! Since watching him last night, which was a brilliant interview (he destroyed the corporate muppet and ended with a good laugh at the absence of a credible argument) and previously on question time, I'm taking a closer interest in him.

Anyone else see Will Self on C4 news 7PM last night? Interesting piece about privately owned public open space.

They don't mean anything! I think, think, think, they are just format characters that appear when using smilies on an IPhone? That's that one boxed off!

It was tongue in cheek fella, bit of a leg pull! Only mentioned since it seemed a bit ironic to make a clear statement of not following "standard / recognised" staffing levels / experience / qual's in a thread with such a strong safety theme. I totally understand about the job sometimes not having the £'s in it to warrant a second climber (under pricing - well that's been done to death elsewhere!), and it's the dynamic risk assessment that each individual does as to wether it's potentially complex enough to demand one. Of course it wouldn't stand up to scrutiny if it all went wrong but that's life when there are bills to pay! As Huck says, and I've often thought (dependant upon the circumstances) on many occasions the best rescue scenario will be getting yourself down by the fastest means. The requirement to have a rescue climber is a ridiculous administrative burden that adds little to the risk reduction process. Apart from unconsciousness, in just about all other scenarios the climber would be better off getting them self down rather than waiting for someone to come up after them.

That's the one! Get one of the junior boys to book it then say he's not authorised to spend company money! Loving it!

Anyone see Will Self on C4news tonight? Great contribution! He destroyed the corporate goon and ended with a laugh! Really enjoyed his presentation.

I remember a thread a while back about "that odd feeling" and, if I remember correctly, it all got a bit touchy about nature v nurture and spirituality etc. Folks were debating wether "that odd feeling" equated to being a girl or if it was genuinely unwise to ignore the base instincts. It may have been a "I wasn't happy but the boss said get on with it" sort of thread.

The track in is a bit rough but not too bad! I suspect that's not what you're hinting at though.... Come on, don't tease us! Spill the beans!!

That makes a lot of sense. But, in this apparent situation, it would be impossible for the prospective developer to safeguard the "un-owned" area of rooting no? Can't be done so, surely, the tree can't be safeguarded. So unless the neighbour removes the tree - with or without inducement - the tree can't be safeguarded. So, if the neighbour wants to keep the tree, the development proposal can't be approved? All questions and thinking aloud!! Also, wondering, what sort of footing would be required to support anything more than a shed on that sort of made-up ground?? Unless the lower level is excavated rather than the higher level being made-up??

👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻 Think, think, think..... And don't expect someone else to have done it for you!

"The groundsman were gardeners?" Apart from the grammar, the statement speaks volumes about your appraisal and appreciation of "risk" Is that what you meant to say or have I read / interpreted wrong??

😝 That's the one! Sure shuts them up for a minute or 2!

Like lining up lemons on a fruit machine.... 1 may not have much significance, 2 you start to get excited, 3 you may be in the money, 4 jackpot! It's kind of the reverse with little errors / mistakes / problems..... The cumulative effect can have consequences far beyond the individual impact of singular issues.

What are they looking to do? Remove the carpark retaining wall and install a new building? Surely that's just crying out for later drama if the trees remain in situ?? Is it a different land owner at the wall face or the same?