kevinjohnsonmbe

It was ‘back in the day’ Les. Mid-late 90s. Think it’s moved venue now. You didn’t pay for your beers, you bought a fist full of tickets at the door and exchanged them for a 4 pack each visit to the bar. It started at 12:00 on a Sunday with pallet loads of tinnies behind the bar, you paid your money, you got your tickets, you swapped your tickets for a 4 pack in a plastic bag full of ice. You drank your beer, you watched the show, you put your empties on the floor and by 15:00 everyone was knee deep in crushed tins and pissed as a fart! The stage show was awesome, the crowd was awesome and it was a turbo charge for a Sunday sesh! Quick google search - looks like it’s all over 😫 London's The Church bar closing down | Stuff.co.nz I.STUFF.CO.NZ Notorious London party bar, frequented by Kiwis, is closing down.

Now to me, the ‘old Church’ brings back good memories of the venue down behind Kings Cross on a Sunday afternoon - if you know it, you know it!

I’ve had a dozen pints with the Egger, and done my penance the next day! Happily have a dozen with Andy too.

Not sure my sins would make for a frictionless entry to the clergy. They do say God loves a sinner though. A bit like ArbTalk in that respect - no point saving them that are already ‘pure!’ 😂

No, the OP will decide how much that should cost and how long it'll take.... Every one's an expert until they are knee deep in excrement and need it fixed like now. How much is poop mechanic worth - well it depends how far up your leg the poop is really....

Agreed!

I'm getting more irritated than it is probably healthy for something that I shouldn't care less about.... However, The part highlighted in red above is akin to starting a sentence with "...With respect..." It actually indicates that precisely the opposite of what is being proposed is the real feeling / thought behind whatever follows. So apart from telling everyone that has taken the time to comment that you know better, you now appear to be presenting business management forecasts. Nice one! I'll doff me cap in deference. Just to revisit your math though.... The working week is usually between 35 and 40 hours (apparently? Not mine though) There are 8 bank holiday days in England and Wales. Leave is likely to be 4 to 8 weeks (plus bank holidays) At the lower boundary you are looking at 42 weeks of 35 hours = 1470 hours At the upper boundary 47 weeks of 40 hours = 1880 hours. 4 x 2000 x 42 = 336,000 4 x 2000 x 47 = 376000 That puts you 6 - 16% out on your (already infeasible, naive and bizarre) rationale. What are you doing after your build project? Gov of the Bank of England??

Are you happy to not have what ever building project it is you appear to want the tree removed for on the basis that you think you know what the job should cost? Thats called opportunity cost. If you get balls out Bert to do your critical path task for a bag of chips and some firewood, good luck to you. If you need the tree sorted (properly) before your project progresses you might start to realise the VALUE rather than the cost of the task. Good luck 👍🏻

When he finds someone to agree what it shouldn't cost, and they're happy to do it, all will be well in the world 😂 It may not be the case here, but it can sometimes be the case where a preconceived "worth" attributable to the contractor actually doing the work is disproportionate in relation to the actual "value" added by getting the job completed. Not sure I've explained that as I intended but if the extension is dependant upon having the tree removed then the tree removal becomes the critical path. Perhaps not the element of the project that should be consigned to the lowest bidder or the person that is just about willing to do the work at a price the tree owner thinks is acceptable.

LEZ, congestion, parking issues, potential for theft from vehicle, care in the community, white privilege, demo's, police stop & search, random violence - all relevant elements of an urban job I should imagine. Bit like Camborne perhaps 😂

Estimated prices appear to have been offered by those potentially willing to exchange their time / equipment / experience at a price they would be content with. If the proposed prices for the exchange are too rich for you (OP), all you can do is keep looking ‘til you hit the bargain basement or maybe do it thy self. Maybe worth bearing in mind though - when somebody asks somebody else to do something they themself can’t do, then sets about telling the person that can do it how long it’ll take, how to do it and how much it should cost, don’t be surprised if the price is significantly inflated.

One of my fav’s!

Brilliant! Love it 😂

I'll have to ask around and see if I can actually find it! 😂

Kind of agree, if the entity 'asking' for the report is unable to properly articulate what it is they want, why they want it and therefore what its parameters should be... Then really, they shouldn't be surprised if they don't get what they want. Are you advocating the purely academic pathway into "consultancy" for want of a better word then Jules? There are some obvious and real workplace difficulties with that approach. The debate was played out quite well in the recent AA webinar where Mr Barrell suggested that progressing from practical experience (in the trees) and then onwards to "consultancy" was a desirable progression route - and just about all the others (who, coincidentally, hadn't taken the practical route seemed to adopt the purely academic route as the preferred option. The difficulty with purely academic "consultants" (as with many other trade 'surveyors') may be that they simply don't have a grasp of the practical implications of achieving the recommendations they are proposing. 2 very recent examples - a contractor pal turned up to implement the tree report recommendations of a surveyor only to find that (a) some of the trees simply were not where they were recorded on the site plan and (b) some of the recommendations (albeit QTRA qualified) where absolutely unjustifiable seemingly illogical, and apparently entirely counter to the QTRA methodology. The second example I'd set out is that of a TO suggesting a 2m height reduction for TPO'd trees adjacent to a building - the actual effort (time = cost) of achieving this far exceeded the rationale for doing it. Granted, that's only 2 examples but perhaps supports the case that to be a surveyor with absolutely no practical experience can certainly have its pitfalls. Bit of an aside, but I've had the same in other trades - double glazing 'surveyor' set out the costs associated with a job and the time to fit at the quote stage - lads turn up to actually do the job and it was clearly apparent that the 'surveyor' has comprehensively underestimated the time / resources (cost) required. Not my problem - contract was signed. As for 'tree surgeons' doing tree reports - might not be the path for some, but that's not to say the 2 are mutually exclusive. Neither, IMHO, are reporting AND contracting mutually exclusive. I'd go so far as to say, in many circumstances, they are actually complimentary and there is only a 'conflict' if the proposed operational work is anything other than unbiased, professional recommendations as laid out in the report. You pays your money, you takes your chance. Cheapest is not always best value but where someone wants cheap they can suffer the consequences at their leisure. Agree your point about calling it what people naturally think it is. I don't consider it a conflict if a report proposes work which is then quoted for. The report details what is required regardless of who will actually do it. It's for the 'customer' to decide who / where they want to spend their money. Just like any other walk of life. If they cut corners, make a bad choice, fail to appreciate the complexities, that's on them. Tree reports are not exactly 'difficult' if you can read. Some 'tree surgeons' are perfectly well capable of producing reports that absolutely would stand the test of a courtroom. Similarly, there is a parallel in the architect / architectural consultant domain. Architect is a chartered profession whereas architectural consultant is someone that can draw and produce plans. They both ply the same trade and it is for the customer to decide if they want the real deal or the "talks, walks, looks' like an architect but can't actually use the stand alone term - architect.

That's like a regular conversation in the Tamar Valley! Not sure if this link will work but it made me laugh: https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=761358960907376 If link doesn't work try google search for: 1975: Nationwide: Noddy's Stable (just up the road from us)

Absolutely STUNNING sky scape this evening as the sun was setting. Photo wouldn't have done it justice but it was a genuine pleasure to behold! Maybe we've done the planet a decent bit of 'good' by such significantly reduced aviation. On a bit of a tangent - can't help but think there are more birds generally around this year than I've noticed in previous years. Might be my imagination, or confirmation bias, or just pure coincidence. Anyone agree or is it a touch of madness?

“Boris may be a subscriber too Paul? If he is, I’d want some of his business - if it’s not all staffed away on painters & decorators 😂

Certainly not being facetious Paul! I might have a tendency to seek the 'lighter' side of some situations but there is no humour intended from the previous post(s) - I don't think the subject warrants it. What I would say - by way of adding context to the question about whether that LA TO was AA accredited or not - is that it was purely rhetorical. I don't think there is any doubt that the LA 'output' from this subject application is sub-optimal and I'm sure many will be aware of the divisions of responsibility between TO & PO. That said, if a TO was aware that a PO was routinely issuing poorly considered / constructed DNs then why wouldn't they take a minute to have the discussion and seek to correct / improve business output? Having watched the AA webinar - the one about improving 'professionalism' in the sector - where (it seemed) all bar 1 of the panel and the majority of viewers submitting comments were TOs bemoaning the woeful state of contractors, it is example(s) such as this (which are not uncommon in discussion threads here) which tend to present the other side of the coin which was pretty much notable by it's exclusion from the webinar discussion. This is a clear example of unprofessional output by public sector staff that are supposed to be suitably qualified, trained and experienced - possibly even AA accredited. Perhaps heading too far off the original track so not really worth too much effort at this point. There must be something we can just have a yarn about without disagreeing 😂 Roll on show season again I'll get the beers in!

Understood. If it turns out to be an ADB resilient tree then definitely worth retaining. On the other hand, if the Ash shows sign of succumbing to ADB it wouldn't hurt to leave the pine in situ for a year or 2 whilst you wait to see how the Ash bears up. If the Ash loses the fight against ADB, it may need to be reduced / removed anyway. 🤞🏻

Remove the obstructing tree first then remove your target tree. I like simplicity! 😂

You remember that from ‘81? I can hardly remember what I did last week 😂

SE Cornwall

First of the year! Bit early, maybe off the back of the recent unseasonably warm spell. Hope he’s got his thermals for this week!

Nowt to do with me Guv - the tree owner arranged for this outfit to collect the timber from a recent job. Owner / operator doesn’t seem to worry too much about any of the ‘usual’ administrative details associated with operating a vehicle on the public highway. The improvised braking system was notably innovative!