kevinjohnsonmbe

That’s an interesting point Chris. Are you saying local knowledge should be separated out of a set of observations / recommendations? Whats the difference between an assumed fact and a discussion with a tree owner which seeks to establish local influences which may have effected observable implications? Ive always sought to try and understand what may have happened in the vicinity of a tree through interrogation of any source of local knowledge that might be available. I might see that a new drive is ‘probably’ X years old, but the landowner can tell me it’s Y. Is that what you’d define as an assumed fact - and sideline it? That seems absurd to me.

2.7mil split (unevenly) between 156 ‘authorities.’ Might as well just throw it in the wind for all the good that’ll do.... 😂

Pre covid, I would go to farm clearance auctions when possible and nearby. I found weather was a massive factor. Bright sunny day - every man and his dog would be there, as much for the social as anything and it would be a sellers market. Horrible, bleak, wet & windy day - only the diehards would turn out and it would be a buyers market. One particularly savage day there was an auction up on Bodmin moor - horrible weather, exposed site, genuinely a miserable experience but I managed to snag 4 trailer loads of granite gate posts for next to nothing. Took me all day to gather them up and get them home though 😂

There was talk of her being a future candidate for POTUS. That’d put Trump in some kind of perspective 😂

It can go absolutely bonkers - maybe bidding fever? There used to be bargains to be found on bidspotter but their reserve prices creeped up over the years to a point where you see people spending more for 2nd hand tat than you could buy new.

2 key points from ‘the interview’ which seem to have caused such a brew-ha-ha: (1) the royal family (institution) is “racist” because little miss entitled didn’t get titles for her sprog. What Oprah Forgot to Mention about the Marvelous Miss Markle - Liberty Nation WWW.LIBERTYNATION.COM Or has the duchess fundamentally misunderstood the roles, rights, and responsibilities of royalty? That’s that one properly consigned to the shitcan. (2) little miss entitled didn’t get any ‘help’ for her ‘mental health’ issues. So, rather than drawing upon her own (apparent) worldly wisdom and wealth, or the support of a loving husband (and all his worldly experience and wealth), rather than seeking advice and/or support from amongst the very best medical experts money and influence could buy, rather than calling upon the unimaginable depth and breadth of influential contacts..... Between them, they did NOTHING apart from let it fester for years before turning to Opra ‘kin whatever her name is.... How ANYBODY could give any credence to this sorry saga is genuinely tragic.

Too far away for me but I bet there’ll be some choice machinery at not to be repeated prices. If it’s a buyers market someone will have new toys!

Might be of interest to some? MAJOR ONLINE AUCTION: The complete contents of the Northwood Forestry Ltd SAWMILL AUCTION.MARRIOTTCO.CO.UK

? I do kinda remember, but couldn’t resist...

Sounds much like the BSL scheme. More shiny asses in an office making a living off the toil of others. Elements of that audit appear quite presumptive and assume an element of ‘authority’ to visit which simply doesn’t exist without invitation.

I’m being a bit absent minded today 😂 It’s a rest day 😂

Totally agree! Maybe there'll be the occasional sacrificial lamb slaughtered at the alter of Trading Standards? LA have sent a note out today saying they are at least 2 weeks behind with planning app validations. Can't see much bandwidth being applied to prosecuting farmer Giles....

I remember a different thread - similar subject where Big J and Beau were lamenting the SW weather....

Oh crap, I think I'm getting athletic! PS. did you hear the one about the Dyslexic, agnostic animal lover? He didn't believe there was a dog 😂😇 Or The Dyslexic pimp? Bought a warehouse! Or The Dyslexic devil worshipper? Sold his soul to Santa.... Oh crap, these rainy days staying in by the fire and wasting my life online are (thankfully) few and far between!

I'm quite taken aback by this. I don't sell firewood but do try and stay abreast of what's happening and this has pretty much passed me by unnoticed. I think a lot of small / local firewood / weekend loggers are potentially going to be criminalised by this...

The Air Quality (Domestic Solid Fuels Standards) (England) Regulations 2020 WWW.LEGISLATION.GOV.UK These Regulations are made under section 87 of the Environment Act 1995 (c. 25). They make provision... part 2

It's a symptom of Covid apparently....🤪

So, ...The Air Quality (Domestic Solid Fuels Standards) (England) Regulations 2020, UK Statutory Instruments 2020 No. 1095, will only apply to England and focuses on the prohibition of the sale of wood in units less than two cubic metres unless it is authorised and a person must not supply a relevant unit of wood if the wood is not authorised wood. The sale of wood for combustion in domestic properties must include the relevant information and the ‘Ready to Burn’ mark as identified in the regulations. This part of the Regulations identifies the prohibited level means a moisture content of more than 20%. ... and ...enforcement of breaches of these Regulations [will be] by a local authority. Has anyone told the LA [presumably trading standards] that they will be doing this? Has there been a sudden surge of firewood suppliers rushing to register and subscribe to this 'system'?

This is getting tedious - you'll only make me carry on if you keep using inappropriate examples 😂 The homosexuality being a sin issue could be his true belief (not saying it is, just could be) but it would be illegal to actively discriminate - because that's the law. Not so easy to 'evidence' the belief since it would be a belief rather than an observable fact. Jews control the world - again, not so easy to evidence (realistically.) Royal family are lizards - bordering on the stark raving mad. What he actually did was to question the validity, delivery, accuracy and credibility of a public statement which was watched by millions and, whilst apparently lacking in verifiable evidence or fact, was perceived as being personally and nationally damaging. I can find absolutely no fault in what he said and yet there have been direct adverse personal implications for him since he said what he did. Ergo - as a consequence of speaking freely, within the legal privileges bestowed for freedom of thought and speech, he (appears) to have been persecuted by the so called forward thinking metropolitan commentariat. Setting aside the lizard theory, it is as simple as - has there been an adverse reaction to what he said Y/N? If Y, has it had consequences? Are the consequences of sufficient gravity so as to potentially dissuade another 'man on the Clapham omnibus' from making a similar statement? I'll "see" your lizard theory and "raise" you a flowchart....

Maybe it is all just a 'manufactured' PR stunt....?

And that, right there, IS the assault on free speech. He has lost his job because he expressed an honestly held opinion on a 'discussion' show. It is the 'control' exerted by editorial and / or management / owners to present only the version of events that suits their agenda. I've never watched GMB until I watched the clips of Morgan stomping off. It just wasn't a style of delivery I cared for. Granted, if you take the silver shilling you dance to the paymasters tune. The only option you have if you don't like it is to walk away. I'm sure he'll be replaced by some suitably pliable, woke apologist that will appeal to the masses and maintain audience figures.

I wouldn't fall out over it, but, well, yes it absolutely is.....

All of that is pretty obvious, but, if you're saying you pretty much agree with everything the Aussie broadcaster said then, by comparison, you must also pretty much agree with everything Morgan said (about this topic - not everything he says in general, he's a bit tit granted.) And if you agree with the Aussie, and by default agree with Morgan, then the pictograph seems to contradict the position that one can express an opinion and not be adversely affected if it doesn't fit the populist woke agenda. He says it "was by mutual agreement", but I'd pose the question - why was there even a discussion? If you employ a Rottweiler to bark, don't be surprised if it barks. Is it just that you don't like Morgan? That would be entirely understandable.

Give it time.... 😂