kevinjohnsonmbe

Me neither! Intrigued by the 50% 'mass' reduction statement in the graph though. Seems very high and a bit unrealistic but as you say, can't be arsed to worry about it too much!

Nice one!

Do R&T sell to "trade individuals" or just to retailers??

Mole Valley will probably beat a Dealer for price in Cornwall anyway, they've got much higher volume of sale which probably gives them better buying power. I always check local dealers / mole valley / online. Surprisingly there doesn't seem to be a definitive "winner" of my purchases, it has varied fairly evenly between all 3.

I hope the link works..... Word!

Isn't that the dichotomy in so many respects with insurance? Insure against the risk and absorb the cost of insurance into pricing schedule or don't insure and assume the responsibility for incidents that carry liability. Liability for repairs to property are a good deal easier to quantify than potential injury to people. If there's a risk of throwing a stone that breaks a window it may be cheaper to occasionally replace a window but if the same stone caused personal injury that's a whole different ball game in terms of potential financial liability - bit of a game changer! I don't think strimming is worth the risk since customers don't seem to realise (and pay accordingly) how much risk the operator has to assume.

Have you tried military surplus stores or crane / rigging suppliers? You might get something ex-navy / dockyard that'll do the job at a lot less than an arb block??

You make a really good point there about potential future ecological diversity & habitat. It's a pity we have such a confrontational / gladiatorial / Machiavellian relationship between developers and LA TOs? Got me thinking (and a re-read of Daltontrees' thread back in Jan - Valuation of Amenity Trees) The "value" "worth" "amenity" of the tree depends on the perspective of the person making the case for retention or removal. Maybe, only from what I can understand from the thread, this is an example where LA might have had a different view from the potential developer and as a result, depending upon how you view the practice, the developer choose to take a drastic - but not illegal - action to short circuit the potential for bureaucratic interference. Maybe a look at the potential for long term, whole site or area improvements rather than banging in a TPO would have been of greater benefit to "community amenity." As it seems now, the tree(s) are gone and there's no statutory requirement (a planning condition) for compensating replanting or landscaping. Seems like a loss for diversity, a win for development company and the LA plodding along with business as usual. That's just the impression I get from reading the thread, I don't know the site, developer, LA or area, just my thoughts.

Customer probably went for the cheapest quote and they've got what they (a) paid for and (b) deserve. Hopefully the TO will think twice before authorising work from that operator??

The wife agrees!

It should be mandatory! It would be a union flag though since it can only be a Union Jack if hoisted on a jackstaff.

Probably still is....

The lessons of history!! Forget them at your peril!! Good point!!

Yeah, fair one!

There have been a couple of successes though: boroughofpoole.com - Successful prosecution against destruction of protected trees in Poole boroughofpoole.com - Successful Prosecution Against Illegal Tree Felling in Poole If only the LA's had the resources, will and 'teeth' to bite back....

What about Monterey Pine in Plymouth - any good? I've got some beauties coming up soon.

Lots of people / organisations / companies / parish councils (even schools for goodness sake!) seem blissfully unaware of their responsibility wrt tree inspections. Sadly, I often get the impression they just think it's a punt for business.

Would it surprise you if I said I'd rather open the box myself and save £30? Perhaps there's a 'natural' divide between 'professional' users (with set-up, tuning & maintenance ability) and 'occasional / home users who might benefit from £30 spent on set-up! Let those that want to buy from a shop carry on. Preventing, by policy, those that prefer to buy online from doing so seems crazy to me (and seems pretty unanimous in this forum.). Wouldn't you be better expressing the apparent customer base resentment of the policy rather than telling tales on other dealers? Either way (if you actually are North of the border) you're far enough away not to affect me and I don't pass my pennies to a company that doesn't provide the service I need so it's of little relevance. Best of luck - it seems a safe bet the market share is set to fall.

Always good to see them back for another visit. Not so good when I leave the newly painted top of the parcel drop box under last years nest. Now, still tacky, it has a light dusting of moss from this years nest lining - dhooooh!

As 1 one of silent observers, following with great interest! Speaking for myself, it's not that I can't be bothered to comment, more appropriate would be, I don't have the depth of knowledge to make a worthwhile contribution! Great thread nonetheless and part of the journey!

Closest I can justify is lusting over the pictures!

Step 2: Empty wallet....

Cheaper by far..... And a good deal quieter!

Sourcing your own is the only way it can work in my view. And the other key enabler for making the switch from (in our case oil) to biomass was that our old oil boiler was 30yrs old and hanging in there by a thread. So we had to install new anyway, ripping out a serviceable existing boiler to install BM wouldn't be worth it in my view (domestic that is, commercial tariff might have a return on investment)

Yes, I am a tightwad! Mrs J had to have a baby to force me to put the heating on! That boiler fires up once a day for hot water (16:00-17:30 after solar gain) when it's gone, it's gone! Heating predominantly comes from 4x log burners throughout the house.