kevinjohnsonmbe

Unreasonable might be a better term.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1982/29/section/15 Estimates and Quotes If you haven't come to a fixed agreement with a contractor about the cost of the work (and in this case there is nothing in writing unfortunately, and no fixed quote, just a rough estimate) then if the price the contractor charges you is unreasonable, it puts them in breach of contract according to the law. In this case, your compensation for this breach of contract would be a reduction in the amount charged. Usually, an estimate is not legally binding, although if the final price you are asked to pay is significantly higher than the estimate you were given, you can still claim a breach of the ‘reasonable cost’ term.

Did your Arb have dispute resolution detailed in their terms and conditions? If yes: invoke them. If no, do you want to pass any future work to them - (i) if yes, talk it out, ask why it’s so far off the mark, say what you’re peeved with, listen to the explanation and agree a mutually agreeable way forward. (ii) if no, tell them why you’re not happy, tell them what you are going to pay, tell them there’s always small claims if they fancy arguing their case.

There’s a complete lack of credibility associated with this. Go to Waitrose for groceries and you’re expected to wear a face covering whilst staff don’t, and if you’re having a sit down snack you don’t need to, but if you’re buying a sandwich to take out you do.... WHO guidance changed 5 June (but still didn’t make a conclusive case) and dotgov “guidance” didn’t change until 24 Jul. There’s just no credibility in it and listening to the talking heads trying to justify it is laughable. This is a balls up!

En masse, no. Some turnover is necessary, healthy and inevitable. Is there any evidence of mass defection in any particular sector? I don’t know. If people are leaving in droves then measures such as retention bonuses can be used. If people aren’t leaving in droves it makes no sense to increase pay. We’re all whoring out our time and energy in return for money. In commercial practice pay goes up when the economy and productivity are on the up. I’d suggest people don’t leave public sector jobs in times of economic uncertainty. Someone is prob gonna find a reliable data set to prove staff are leaving secure jobs - thinking about it, maybe prison guards are a good single sector example.

Exactly the point. Private sector is pay rise tied to performance or output. Increase performance / output (hopefully) get a pay rise. Public sector is annual incremental increase (every year for 12 years then start again if promoted) + annual pay rise (+/-) + bonus payments... Smoke and mirrors....

There are some good points there - and I'd agree, up to a point. I don't know about teaching so don't want focus too much on that specifically as it may be the exception that doesn't prove the rule. In general, public sector employment is considerably more hierarchical than private sector. There are clearly defined routes, opportunities and mechanisms for advancement in 'grades.' Within each 'grade' there are perhaps 12 'bands' which equate to an automatic incremental annual pay increase based upon gaining another year of experience / seniority. It would be beneficial to first consider the purpose of grades and then the purpose of bands. (In theory) grades provide the mechanism for personal development and career advancement for the most dedicated, diligent, able and ambitious. No problem there, that's meritocracy at its finest - what actually happens in practice might be quite different but that's a whole other subject. Career prospects, advancement, pay rises exist in the public sector as an incentive - again, brilliant, meritocracy and the beginnings of a pyramidical staffing structure. Bands similarly recognise attained experience within that grade but primarily are intended as retention incentives - the longer you stay the more we pay because staff churn is expensive. So if we accept that there are almost unlimited public sector promotion prospects (limited only by ambition / ability) and there are 12 annual bands in most grades where an automatic incremental pay increase is guaranteed, that actually means you have 12 years of pay increases before you need to have achieved a grade promotion which puts you back to band 1 of 12 at the next higher grade and then the process recommences. Also bear in mind, the process loosely described above has continued unabated throughout the entire (so called) austerity period where annual pay rises have been frozen - so it's actually not been any form of stagnation (as the headlines would have us believe) for the majority. Why do organisations have promotion opportunities and why do they recognise and reward experience? Because there is an obvious requirement to retain and promote from within. The harsh reality can be seen that - if you haven't advanced by grade within 12 years, you may have peaked. Suck it up. Alternatively, GOYA and get yourself a promotion. Another harsh reality is that bands are set at or around 12 years because it's most likely that by the 12 year point, if you haven't left the job already, you probably won't because you're tied in with personal financial commitments that mean you need the job more than the job needs you. Net result, there's no need to incentivise someone to stay if they really can't leave. That's life Im afraid. The sort of basic economics and reality that appears so vacant in the Labour / Union / Momentum logic. I speak with 30 years public sector experienced and the equivalent of 11 grade advancements - 1 every 2.7 years if you average it out. There's no sympathy for public sector whining here, try convincing a private sector worker that public sector are hard done by....

Ah yes, “bands” If not absolutely all, the vast majority of public sector pays scales are subject to bands which increase annually in recognition of an additional years experience and seniority gained in post. This was the “hidden” pay rise that (I’m going to say all - pending someone coming up with a random exception) public sector workers received OVER AND ABOVE the very well reported minimal rises during the period of austerity. Whilst the headlines reported zero or minimal % public sector pay rises during austerity, they spectacularly and simultaneously excluded annual incremental band progression from the headlines. The notion that public sector pay has stagnated for a decade is simply inaccurate. Annual (automatic) incremental band progression paints a very different picture to that which is broadly painted.

Lies, damn lies and statistics..... Positive test for C19...... 2 months later..... - hit by a bus, - fell off a moving train, - eaten by a lion at Whipsnade zoo, - run over by a jumbo jet, = C19 death = still only just reaching the figures associated with annual Excess Winter Cold deaths

Not looking for a fight on this one Mark, but the reason they weren’t included this time is because they are still in the timeframe from their last negotiated pay deal. Aren’t we meant to stand by deals?

Fair play if you feel a £ reduction is the right way to go. Id have given a quote when asked and would probably stick with it if the bulk of the time / effort / work still remained. Are you able to say you won’t do an AIA / TCP? Is it a requirement of the validation list that the app be supported by an AIA? If validation requires an AIA and topo predates tree removal, I’d have thought the applicant would still require an AIA? Maybe a very light touch TCP since (Some of?) the trees are alReady removed? If I’d put the a time in the diary, travelled, been prepared to do the task, Id probably stick with the quote but I guess there could be scope for a relative reduction.

Have you got a topo? If trees are recorded on the topo they go in the AIA (plus any that aren't in the topo but are present) - maybe that they are just represented by stumps rather than trees though. Charge quoted rate for AIA. Slight aside, interesting that you mention legitimacy of removal since they are the neighbour's trees. Not withstanding any other restrictions, it would be just as legitimate to remove them even if they were the prospective applicant's trees. Preparing, submitting or awaiting the outcome of a planning submission doesn't prevent a land owner from doing tree work. From the pic, it looks like they are beyond time for removal anyway.

I'll just put this here in case you didn't see it the first time: Don’t get me wrong, I don’t have any issue with someone exercising their personal judgement and wearing a covering if that’s what they want to do. It’s the sanctimonious BS from those that need to be TOLD what to do, and then think they can project their own insecurities onto those that don’t feel the need to be told what to do that grips me.

The new sign of being a complete dickhead will be those that are wearing a covering but not wearing it properly (Top of the head, tucked under chin etc) - just to prove how gullible, stupid and malleable they actually are....

The edit was to include the screenshot extract of the WHO guidance. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t have any issue with someone exercising their personal judgement and wearing a covering if that’s what they want to do. It’s the sanctimonious BS from those that need to be TOLD what to do, and then think they can project their own insecurities onto those that don’t feel the need to be told what to do that grips me. It’ll be like clap for the NHS volume / enthusiasm shaming come 24th... ”...you’re not wearing a mask - you bastard!...”

But there is somebody in a hi-viz telling you you you can’t use / access a public asset because they have implemented their interpretation of current “guidelines” They must be better qualified / entitled / empowered than you are to take due care of your family....

Where are you getting your advice from then?

Read from page 6 and then see if you have a valid argument with the WHO:

Yes the article was from April and given the pace and gravity of 'hot news' topics over the past 12-24 months, 3 months could be described as ancient history in headline terms. So a lot can change in 3 months.... Politics, headlines, emotions, trends, beliefs.... But not science. The findings of the scientists that were reported in April, based upon the research stated in the article, all still stands true. It must do otherwise it was bullocks to start with (possible I guess.) What has changed in the 3 months since April is the political desire to redefine the interpretation of pre-existing peer reviewed science so that it marries up with current political doctrine. This is self evident from the increasing chasm between scientists and politicians. Referring to WHO / CDC is all very well, but without a reference it is little more than MSM hype. The actual WHO guidance from 5 Jun (latest) is attached below - hardly a glowing reference for face coverings huh... Here is WHO latest guidance: Whether or not masks are used, compliance with hand hygiene, physical distancing and other infection prevention and control (IPC) measures are critical to prevent human-to- human transmission of COVID-19.

Mate turned up at training last week in a latex werewolf mask having run through town in his black licra training kit. I fair nearly wee'd a drop when I saw him! If I ever do wear one, it's gonna be nasty!

I had a ponder on your previous post whilst in the shower (maybe soaping my balls helped) and decided a post script to my previous reply was entirely appropriate. Now with this subsequent offering of meaningless drivel from you I've settled on the need for a more 'direct' retort. What sort of (rhymes with punt) are you? "Childish" you say? "Hope they stay at home and die" you say... This is the COVID equivalent of a BLM tosspot saying "I'll stab you if you're white and you disagree with me." You want to wear a mask - knock yourself out chopper. I don't care what you do and I certainly don't care for your opinion of what I do - or in this case, don't do. "Health professionals widely agree" you say. Apparently, they don't according to the New Scientist: Do face masks work against the coronavirus and should you wear one? | New Scientist WWW.NEWSCIENTIST.COM The advice on widespread face mask use to protect against covid-19 varies wildly, but there is some evidence that they... But what would they know...? The poor barstewards in China that have been wearing masks for years are doing so because the air is toxic from manufacturing and coal fired power stations so of course they are "used" to wearing masks. It would be better if we tried to find ways to reduce noxious gas rather than build a trend in more disposable products.

Right on brother - come the day of the revolution ✊?

You’re ABSOLUTELY right Mark. I spend very little, I mean VERY little time in confined spaces with the great unwashed. You’re also absolutely right in that (in theory) it ought to be a really minor inconvenience’ to don a covering when in a shop. But, and here it comes, the but.... I have a deeply ingrained aversion to illogical, unreasonable and autocratic imposition of ‘rules’ by ‘the man.’ In this case, the wearing of Face covering to shop - but not play sport, drink beer, eat food, go to school (for the we’en), work in a shop - which is about as retarded a government directive as I can think of and it just about typifies the race to the bottom mentality of complying to the lowest common denominator that seems so prevalent in modern society. There are 2 options really, everyone wears a futile face covering to make some people feel better, or some people where a decent mask to keep themselves safer. No prizes for guessing my preferred option..... As an aside, I have read the dotgov GUIDANCE (not law) and will (until the end of grass & nettle pollen season) be self declaring an exemption. I don’t need a card, a lanyard or a lengthy explanation as to why I’m not wearing a face covering nor should any self appointed Facebook moral police (nor D&C constabulary) expect any other explanation than - “I know what the guidance states, I know what the exemptions are and since I’m NOT wearing a face covering you should assume I am exempt. Now ? off” If they don’t let me in the shop so be it, I’ll suck it up.

Accepting all of the previous points relating to the value of a face covering being for the benefit of others rather than oneself, and noting the supposedly ‘vulnerable’ groups that are ‘supposed’ to benefit from others wearing masks.... Rather than inflicting a broad ranging (but clearly not all encompassing) requirement upon the majority (for the benefit of the minority) why not have Mon-Thu shopping for the majority and Fri shopping for those that might draw some intangible comfort from imposing restrictions on the many. OK, at a stretch Mon-Weds for the majority, Thu-Fri for the inherently afraid. It is utter, inconsistent, unjustifiable bullocks. PS - bouncing on 1 leg with thumb up ass is standard procedure down St Breward way every ½ moon.

You don’t need ‘a card’ (that you presumably have to pay for from some scrounging band-wagon organisation) It’s a self declaration. Simple.