kevinjohnsonmbe

Self seeded might still be struggling with competitive or sub-optimal growing conditions - just saying, self seeding doesn’t guarantee growth to maturity. There needs to be a natural ‘failure rate’ such that the strongest push through. It might be that other faster growing trees / vegetation are out competing self seeded trees. Certainly agree 2018 presented considerable challenges which were observable in crown of many trees. Hopefully just a particularly bad year in a 100 and established trees will shrug it off over a longer period.

Notwithstanding the broader regional observations from other posters, the tree(s) in the pic(s) look like they might be subject to a combination of some or all of the following: = sub-optimal nursery stock struggling to become established = poor planting and after care (stakes and bands still in situ, possibly poorly planted, inadequate planting pit, inadequate watering?) = poor surface area preparation / maintenance around base of tree(s) = strimmer damage? They don't look like they were given the best chance to get established. This might be combined with, or contributing to, poor resilience which denudes the tree(s) ability to withstand environmental and biological challenges. Part 2 What should you do? They don't look like they would present any particular hazard so probably no need to remove straight away. You could either retain and try giving them a helping hand for a year or 2 and see if they stand a chance of recovery or remove and properly replant good stock with a suitable after care schedule. If there's no rush, give them a helping hand and see what happens for a year or 2, if it's a lost cause, cut your losses and start again.

OK

Don't assume he either has other quotes or that yours is already the lowest. All you know for sure is that he's asked for you to sharpen your pencil. It's not uncommon nor perhaps should we consider it to be rude - he's just trying to save himself a fish & chip supper. (would have been a steak dinner but Brexit, Covid and inflation have put paid to that 🤣) If you're not bothered about the 50 squid, play him with some overt complimentary nonsense so that he thinks you're doing a 'special' just for him, or, even better, upsell him with something else that you can do that he may not have considered yet.

No witch hunt from me Mick, I'm pretty sure I simply pointed out an "anomaly" in something that was stated and it has pretty much invoked a hissy tantrum. Couldn't give a monkeys either way prior to that, was genuinely neither bothered nor particularly engaged by him. I currently place him more towards the less complimentary end of the scale but it's not irrevocable. More BS will push him further into (my) irrelevance bracket, if he posts well considered, honest, detail then he may veer the other way. I'm not without humility either, if he were to send a redacted copy of a couple of VAT returns showing his "£10s of 1000s" of VAT awaiting forward payment I'd say "pass the salt and pepper, I'm about to eat my hat!" (with an accompaniment side order of humble pie, apologies and due respect.) Fairly safe bet I'm on lamb chops tonight though....

Lick me.....

Para 1. Just move on you clown. Unlike many, I don’t have an inherent dislike or ‘issue’ with what you post - on 1 occasion I referenced your BS. Now you appear to have a little hissy-fit, hairy shirt, poor me ‘thing’ going on. Stop being a dick, you wrote crap and I highlighted it - simple as that. Para 2. Yes, that would be an interesting thread but with your habit of utter BS - you may call it hyperbole - I rather doubt you’d be a particularly credible contributor. Para 3. Promotional technique? Your stock ain’t exactly peaking at the moment. Summary. I ‘wasn’t’ part of the ‘that blokes a dick’ group prior to, or even as a consequence of your previous nonsense. I am now and the way you’ve ‘handled’ a simple criticism of a blatant untruth rather reveals that which lays below.

@retiredbullshitter - classic micro aggression and victimhood. Haven’t you got a chapter in your book which covers this? Just leave it pal, move on, live your life.

Could you throw a magic handful of punctuation into that passage of seemingly, randomly connected, words so that we might decipher which, of the several possible meanings you were intending to present....

Yeah, I remember that meeting..... Bolam, Johnson and Mendiplogs RV with “retired bullshitter” in the desert:

Do one you chopper. You were trying be Billy big balls but turned out to be Billy BS. That's just a matter of credibility. To paraphrase, why would I bother....?

Yeah, you're quite right, you'd have to be billing 50k to generate the 10k that would need to be passed on. Same BS call applies though...

I didn't "ask", you stated. I called you out on it because it's horse shite which you seem to have now acknowledged.

Mmmmmmm, some call it detail, some call it BS.... You clearly and unequivocally said you have tens of thousands of £s worth of VAT awaiting forward payment per ¼ to play with as you like. I'm calling 🦣💩 60k spend would give you ONE ten thousand to play with. You reckon you've got "tens of thousands" so you must be spending 1, 2, 3+ times 60k per ¼ from your garden shed...

A retired climber with 10s of £1000s of VAT per ¼ ‘to play with?’ Whilst working part time in garden shed? What are you doing importing guns, drugs and girls? Sure you haven’t over sharpened your pencil??

Yerman there is certainly getting some casting since Line of Duty... Hope his input to the oil industry is better than the shite they're producing about nuclear subs 😖

There you have it mucker.... "income" is irrelevant when viewed in isolation 😝

Having a pint with Tim & Nigel..... If you add strippers that'd pretty much be the ideal night out 😂

Did you ever pass that one? 😂😂😂😂

Whilst absolutely sharing your disdain for Westminster thieves, charlatans and wasters Al, it’s a bit harsh to vent at someone that is helping the masses to comply with the fraudulent dictats handed down from on high. I see how you might apportion some degree of compliance / blame to the rule takers - but not everyone is quite so ‘active’ a rebel as yourself. Whilst the ‘rules’ exist we need people that allow people to comply and JM provides excellent knowledge on the subject matter which is beneficial to many here. Hold your nerve mate - soon be 5 Nov 😂🧙🏻‍♂️🌟💣🧨

That's a little harsh! Granted, I did start the thread and I do throw in the occasional hand grenade, but I'm not going to accept the label of "main culprit!" There are others far more qualified for that moniker than me Sir!

There! My random, seat of the pants, man on the street, dullard predetermination is pretty much confirmed by Professor Paul Monks, University of Leicester and Chair of the AIR QUALITY EXPERT GROUP in his DEFRA (for DEFRA might as well read NFU) report "Effects of Vegetation on Urban Air Pollution." https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/assets/documents/reports/cat09/1807251306_180509_Effects_of_vegetation_on_urban_air_pollution_v12_final.pdf "...In summarising the effects of urban vegetation on ambient concentrations of particulate matter and gaseous pollutants, there are potential benefits of vegetation in changing dispersion and deposition processes and also potential problems. For dispersion, locally (tens to hundreds of square metres) the planting of trees may enhance or reduce dispersion; this redistributes pollution but does not remove it. ...the magnitude of the reduction in concentration by realistic planting schemes, using trees, is small and in the range 2% to 10% for primary PM10 and ambitious plantings. For practical planting schemes and PM from all sources, the scale of reductions is expected to be no more than a few percent. For NO2, vegetation is not a very efficient sink, and as the deposition occurs in daytime, and primarily in the warmer months, there is little benefit for air quality for most of the time that NO2 is a problem. ...the specific contribution from city centre vegetation is too small to be isolated in modelling studies. Increasing tree cover in cities has the potential to increase BVOC emissions, with impacts felt through small increases in ozone and possibly aerosols downwind. ...Of potential relevance to UK planting, oak, aspen and willow species should be avoided since these are estimated to being highest BVOC emitting species.

That's an interesting progression - I likey 😃 Likely, I'd suggest, that the macro impact is fairly undeniable - like Asian and Amazonian forest cover, continental and even national tree cover. I wouldn't spend any time trying to challenge the positive effect of canopy cover at those sorts of levels. But does it actually scale down to individual street tree? I'd probably be content to loosely map across the apparent conclusions from house plants impact upon air quality (improving the physical / mental health, providing a pleasant environment etc etc) to the street tree level, although I'd probably need more convincing that each single tree makes a significant difference to air quality. That said, I certainly endorse the approach that each tree matters since every woodland / forest must have started from a single tree and anything that raises public awareness and engagement at the lower levels is likely to be a good starting point for understanding and appreciating the larger scale. Street trees benefit to air quality - like house plants, you'd need 1000s possibly 10s of 1000s / km2 to come anywhere near. Making a nice street scene and regulating temperature - absolutely no argument with that! (I had to change "Amazon" to "Amazonian" because the global lizard overlords auto inserted a hyper link to a proprietary online shopping platform - sneaky bar stewards) (There! It's happened again! Damn your lizard eyes!)