kevinjohnsonmbe

PS - I still stand by my earlier caravan suggestion!

What I draw from your last post is: (a) totally appreciate your position - not ‘big’ enough to get sucked in and jeopardise other work. but (b) iffum yome already doing work (assumed therefore to be a professional, reputable, reliable sort) why would the LA question your ability to provide a suitable mutual outcome. (It’s late it’s Friday night and I’m a couple of glasses in but I don’t mean that to sound critical of you, it’s meant to be critical of the LA.) Hope that makes sense. I might be able to phrase it differently tomorrow ?

Domino’s The Lake District National Park Authority have suspended the Blencathra Foxhounds.

As is the rigidly applied custom of AT ?

No money for ‘output’ but 6 figure salaried LA CEOs aplenty.... Yeah, tell me again why ‘there’s no money?’

That’s the genuine crux of the problem Paul and the basis of what I see as legitimate questions and contributions over the 100s of posts in several threads. I totally understand and appreciate the liaison that AA has entered into with the obviously immovable object that is HSE just as I recognise that corporate business and AA members (through the terms of their membership) are obliged to dutifully toe the line. And, thinking back to some of your previous posts about HSE determined implementation, it leaves the question, was there no one at AA that didn’t agree (or was willing) to ‘just say no?’ We still come back to the perception that this could be an office decision with unforeseen real world implications. We are where we are is an often used phrase to avoid detailed examination of how we got where we were going and I guess (sadly) this will only be fully resolved if/when an accident which may be deemed as non-compliant results in an attempted HSE prosecution. Whoever ends up in the dock if that happens would be wise to have a copy of the 100s of coal face comments, observations and questions in relation to this subject as part of their defence. What a turn out for events if it were determined that directed implementation of regulations was found to be a contributory factor in a future accident. Not wishing that to be the case but it might finally change the ‘we are where we are’ to ‘how the hell did this happen?’

You carry on with your pseudo Victorian trophy hunting penis enlargement Mr C! Dont you worry about anything now, just nod off beside the fire and everything will be just fine.... +note to C19 vaccine HQ - bump Cropper onto the high priority list for vaccine nano chip tracking and DNA ‘adjustment.’ (Double dose required for particularly troublesome comrade. F0D0CE60-E00A-4294-807D-1B02603558FC.webp

Thanks Paul. Trouble is, doesn’t really add cred 23 fall fro height incidents - so that’s everything from 4th rung on the hedge cutting ladder to falling off the tailgate of the PU. The question is, how many rope failure / cut or TiP incidents are there that would justify such a change. It still ‘looks’ like the answer is being made to fit the question. It’s not meant as giving you stick, you are a much valued and respected info source.

I think that might actually be a noted ‘first!’ First time I could genuinely find myself in admiration of an SNP policy ? If Brexit results in a revisit of CAP we might actually see some environmental benefits too.

That’s the monkey! SBR & cement powder mixed to a wet slurry & painted onto underside just before they go down. Are you saying you put SBR in the bedding mix?

It might be easier to swallow if the “HSE eyes only” supporting data (and associated assumption of figures higher than those reported) was actually laid open in support of the justification case. I’m desperate to want to believe there’s a genuine and logical justification but still coming up short for the time being.... Kev.... “staying tuned” ?

Nobody mentioned a bonding bridge yet! Cement mixed with adhesive to form a wet slurry (consistency of pancake batter) brushed onto back of slab before laying. Its esp relevant for porous slab - granite as a case in point - it improves adhesion and reduces the potential for staining to draw through from underside to top side. My local quarry did this vid which shows the potential issues with spot staining.

Do bridges fail? (I don't know but haven't heard of it commonly.) That’s a fair observation Paul - probably not but maybe on a rare occasion? Could we also say the same about ropes and anchor points also? Does anybody even know how many times a trained and experienced UK climber has had a cut / failed rope or a failed TiP? Rhetorical obv’s.

National Trust had a look around and found some kahoonas in a dusty corner of the room....

What size are your boots??

Piffle! There is absolutely NOTHING officer like nor gentlemanly about intentionally setting out to break the law of the land in the pursuit of a psychotic pastime which results in the chase and destruction of a wild animal for nought more than personal gratification. Those, Sir, are the actions of a psychopath! Get THEE to the library!

Not a Socialist! Just afflicted with an inherent sense of decency and honesty ? Everybody knows trail hunts are a lame cover for predetermined illegality. It was just a matter of time before it could be proven irrefutably. The audacity of those embarking on a trail hunt with terriers was about as blatant arrogance as could be imagined. It was just a matter of time and now those at the organisational level have been well and truly hoisted by their own petard. FC finally finding their bollox will, hopefully, be rapidly followed by the other large land owning quangos.

About time too. Exclusive: Trail hunting suspended on Forestry England land | ITV News WWW.ITV.COM In a statement to ITV News, Forestry England say it had 'suspended all licences for trail hunting in the nation’s forests'. National Trust the spotlight is on your tacit acceptance of this illegality now.

Where 2 rings are on 1 bridge Ti, you'll need to wear 2 harnesses - otherwise it would still be a single point of failure.

I saw this one earlier ⏬ You beat me to it ?

It IS funny though (and I don’t ‘do’ football!

When I read that I laughed out loud! Then I saw 1 ? emoji... I’d have bet the mortgage on knowing who it was before I checked! @Stubby

?. All well Paul! Busy! Kinda hoping for a 'slow down' in the NY ?

Identifying and overcoming resistance to change is a well recognised challenge. Less well recognised (often completely misdiagnosed by the change leader) is the determination to implement illogical change in the face of opposition whilst claiming 'resistance to change' is the barrier.... The seatbelt analogy is a strikingly poor one (perhaps symptomatic of an attempt rationalise that which isn't rational) since the 2 scenarios are so obviously out of kilter. Seatbelts - a binary "wear / no wear" outcome with the "wear" benefits supported by factual RTA accident / injury data, with the driver as the 'authority / responsible person' for compliance within a vehicle, a simple demonstrable and irrefutable advantage from the "wear" outcome in the event of an accident, an observable confirmation of compliance, an authority able to monitor and a penalty system for non-compliance. Rather than adopt a "resistance to change is the barrier" approach, the Mark Drakeford "rules for Christmas" approach might be advisable.... To paraphrase what he just said on t' TV news, "...we're adjusting the restrictions over Christmas because if we didn't nobody will take any notice off them anyway..." Rules that make no sense and cannot be applied / enforced are generally ignored...

There was an inventory classification for such items in military stores - UID - “useful to the ill disposed.” Quite a broad range of materiel was classified as UID and it always attracted a higher degree of accounting and security. I can see how those ‘jaws of life’ could certainly be very handy for the ill disposed!