kevinjohnsonmbe

Gifted! 👍🏻

Brilliant rant! Made me chuckle 👍🏻

I've got all this in Plymouth (standing and felled) free to a good home if you want it. Milled a bit, got some sold as firewood, some requests for slabs and the remainder, as time allows, I'll continue at it with the Alaskan and find a use for it at home. Appreciate distance probably a killer, but there's a lovely standing stem ripe for carving (well outside my skill set!)

Wrong on SO many levels.....

Legendary!

https://www.facebook.com/daniel.ocallaghan.336/posts/10153790850013189 ?

Regrettably, can't make this one. Sounds really interesting though. If there is a future SW UK delivery would be very keen if that option becomes viable?

Wise words from 10 bears, you may also find this link a useful: Tree planting advice - Woodland Trust There's good info on the many tabs on the page. Follow your dream not the dollar! Leaving a woodland as a legacy for your children, grand children, great grand children.....

A radon vented sump if installing a new floor. Here's a link which might help: http://www.ukradon.org/information/buildingregs

You can insure almost anything.... http://metro.co.uk/2011/09/14/coffee-taster-gets-2million-nose-insurance-150004/ But that's not to say you have to!

I can't help but think it's an overkill by some desk monkey that has a tick-list to follow rather than a brain. OK, so what are the realistic risks and what needs to be considered? (1) you will have to / want to drive onto the milling site = low speed >5mph for example, lights, hazard lights, beacons on. (2) control of access to work site / effective cordon = cones, barrier tape, warning signs, keep a good all round look out. (3) noise levels = set cordon at sufficient distance (4) fuel spillage = auto fill cans, spill kit Unless I'm missing something, I can't see anything that realistically needs to be insured against? Maybe I'm missing something really obvious and I'm a danger to society?

I've got rivers to cross NE to S at about the 20-25 mile point, the sea to the S, and it gets scary if you go more than 20 miles W, so physically, physiologically and practically, 20-25 miles is quite enough in any direction!

That's mental mate, 100 sheets for a 13 hr day + running costs!

You're an exception to the rule fella! :thumb up: You combine work and pleasure... The pleasure of travel with the necessity of work. It's a sweet combo!

All good stuff previously. Only thing I'd add is if you're going to quit, quit on your terms, at a time and place of your choosing. Eggs makes good points about going high up the chain, 2 or 3 or maximum level above your immediate boss. From that higher perspective its sometimes easier to see that the problem lies in the management of the work force not in the work force. When people start to quit (unless it's a higher management strategy) it's usually obvious that line management is weak or the source of the problem.

That's what's troubling me Gary. Person A is "entitled" not to be encroached or suffer harm from person B, but in abating that encroachment person A becomes partially liable for person B's property? Just doesn't seem to sit right??

Slightly at a tangent, and hoping the OP doesn't mind (it may be relevant / useful later?) A question for 10 Bears (and other esteemed boffins!) Hi 10 Bears, reading with interest a part of one of your detailed responses got me to thinking. Your comment: "Legally standing, should you prune the roots back to your boundary thereby destabilising the tree, and this leads to a catastrophic failure of the tree at some point in the future, you would potentially be liable. There would of course have to be a connecting series of events ie the roots are severed, storm winds at the exact angle, passing motorist at the precise time of tree fall etc. however, if the tree failure could be attributed to the loss of the roots - then yes, the fault for this unfortunate event would lie at your door. " I'd take that as the presumed wisdom and a fairly well trodden path but it made me think - what if all of the above does happen, BUT, by exercising their right to abate the nuisance (severing the roots) the home owner informs the LA of the action they have undertaken AND informs the council that the actions they have taken may destabilise the tree. Wouldn't it be the case then that the tree owner would be responsible for any additional safety inspections or remedial works mindful that the tree has potentially been compromised? It seems "odd" that by exercising a right to abate a nuisance that liability for structural degradation would be transferred to the aggrieved party?

Good vid, simple, visual, difficult to argue (convincingly) against his logic. You don't fix poverty by bringing everyone down to the lowest common denominator. Current "western" immigration policy is just a route to common degeneration.

Hey Mate, keep yr chin up. Good on you for sharing. Sounds like you appreciate the blessings you have but maybe lacking a bit of direction? Can't really add anything more than already suggested other than to suggest, sit down, make a plan, write it down and measure your progress as it develops, and to say, best wishes!

better delivered by the masters:

Jokes - Monty Python - Four Yorkshiremen Sketch

John Mc Donnell MP, Shadow Chancellor speaking on Channel 4 news about the case of shaker aamer. Please let there be a full and open disclosure of the reasons for this man's detention at Guantanamo so that we can see for real the dangers that John Mc Donnell poses with his habitual terrorist sympathies.

On reflection, this might not be the end of the world for VW. We're probably going to find all the main manufacturers are at it. Where does that leave us?

I see a deal on the cards! Tree - £350 Travel & subsistence - £750 Photo masterclass - £300 👋🏻 shake hands tonight, job done?